Abstract Objective The Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative and Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative call for the indiscriminate creation of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) over arteriovenous ...grafts (AVGs) without providing patient-specific criteria for vascular access selection. Although the U.S. AVF rate has increased dramatically, several reports have found that this singular focus on increasing AVFs has resulted in increased AVF nonmaturation/early failure and a high prevalence of catheter dependence. The objective of this study was to determine the appropriateness of vascular access procedures in clinical scenarios constructed with combinations of relevant factors potentially influencing outcomes. Methods The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. Accordingly, a comprehensive literature search was performed and a synthesis of results compiled. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to 2088 AVF and 1728 AVG clinical scenarios with varying patient characteristics. Eleven international vascular access experts rated the appropriateness of each scenario in two rounds. On the basis of the distribution of the panelists' scores, each scenario was determined to be appropriate, inappropriate, or indeterminate. Results Panelists achieved agreement in 2964 (77.7%) scenarios; 860 (41%) AVF and 588 (34%) AVG scenarios were scored appropriate, 686 (33%) AVF and 480 (28%) AVG scenarios were scored inappropriate, and 542 (26%) AVF and 660 (38%) AVG scenarios were indeterminate. Younger age, larger outflow vein diameter, normal or obese body mass index (vs morbidly obese), larger inflow artery diameter, and higher patient functional status were associated with appropriateness of AVF creation. Older age, dialysis dependence, and smaller vein size were associated with appropriateness of AVG creation. Gender, diabetes, and coronary artery disease were not associated with AVF or AVG appropriateness. Dialysis status was not associated with AVF appropriateness. Body mass index and functional status were not associated with AVG appropriateness. To simulate the surgeon's decision-making, scenarios were combined to create situations with the same patient characteristics and both AVF and AVG options for access. Of these 864 clinical situations, 311 (36%) were rated appropriate for AVG but inappropriate or indeterminate for AVF. Conclusions The results of this study indicate that patient-specific situations exist wherein AVG is as appropriate as or more appropriate than AVF. These results provide patient-specific recommendations for clinicians to optimize vascular access selection criteria, to standardize care, and to inform payers and policy. Indeterminate scenarios will guide future research.
Background Hospital readmissions are under intense scrutiny as a measure of health care quality. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed using readmission rates as a ...benchmark for improving care, including targeting them as nonreimbursable events. Our study aim was to describe potentially preventable readmissions after surgery and to identify targets for improvement. Study Design Patients discharged from a general surgery service over 8 consecutive quarters (Q4 2009 to Q3 2011) were selected. A working group of attending surgeons defined terms and created classification schemes. Thirty-day readmissions were identified and reviewed by a 2-physician team. Readmissions were categorized as preventable or unpreventable, and by target for future quality improvement intervention. Results Overall readmission rate was 8.3% (315 of 3,789). The most common indication for initial admission was elective general surgery. Among readmitted patients in our sample, 28% did not undergo an operation during their index admission. Only 21% (55 of 258) of readmissions were likely preventable based on medical record review. Of the preventable readmissions, 38% of patients were discharged within 24 hours and 60% within 48 hours. Dehydration occurred more frequently among preventable readmissions (p < 0.001). Infection accounted for more than one-third of all readmissions. Among preventable readmissions, targets for improvement included closer follow-up after discharge (49%), management in the outpatient setting (42%), and avoidance of premature discharge (9%). Conclusions A minority of readmissions may potentially be preventable. Targets for reducing readmissions include addressing the clinical issues of infection and dehydration as well as improving discharge planning to limit both early and short readmissions. Policies aimed at penalizing reimbursements based on readmission rates should use clinical data to focus on inappropriate hospitalization in order to promote high quality patient care.
Background Low-income, minority women with breast cancer experience a range of barriers to receiving survivorship information. Our objective was to test a novel, patient-centered intervention aimed ...at improving communication about survivorship care. Methods We developed a wallet card to provide oncologic and follow-up care survivorship information to breast cancer patients. We used a prospective, pre–post design to assess the intervention at a safety net hospital. The intervention was given by a patient navigator or community health worker. Results Patient knowledge ( n = 130) of personal cancer history improved from baseline pretest to 1 week after the intervention for stage (66–93%; P < .05), treatment (79–92%; P < .05), and symptoms of recurrence (48–89%; P < .05), which was retained at 3 months. The intervention reduced the number of patients who were unsure when their mammogram was due (15–5% at 1 week and 6% at 3 months; P < .05). Nearly 90% reported they would be likely to share their survivorship card with their providers. Conclusion A patient-centered survivorship card improved short-term recall of key survivorship care knowledge and seems to be effective at reducing communication barriers for this population. Further studies are warranted to assess long-term retention and the impact on receipt of appropriate survivorship follow-up care.
Background Gastric cancer is an aggressive disease, and overall changes in incidence rates have been noted. There are conflicting data on whether young patients have worse outcomes than older ...patients; the roles of tumor biology and access to care are critical to answering this question. Our objectives were to explore how gastric cancer rates, receipt of care, and outcomes are affected by age, poverty, and acculturation. Methods A total of 42,187 patients were identified from the 1980–2009 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry. We compared trends in incidence rates between patients <40, 40–64, and ≥65 years using ordinary least-squares regression. Separate multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the impact of age, poverty, and acculturation on receipt of cancer-directed therapy and hazard of mortality. Results Patients <40 years had stable incidence rates over the 3-decade period compared with decreases for patients 40–64 and ≥65 years. They are also more likely to present with aggressive, advanced disease ( P < .0001 for both). On unadjusted and adjusted analyses, patients <40 years were more likely to receive cancer-directed therapies and have better survival than those ≥65 years. Residing in high poverty areas was associated with not receiving appropriate cancer-directed therapy; the adjusted hazard ratio of mortality for surgically resected patients was, however, not affected by poverty. Residing in high immigration areas was associated with a low hazard ratio (HR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.7–0.79) of mortality. Foreign-born patients also had a low hazard ratio (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83–0.91) of mortality. Conclusion Although trends in incidence rates for patients <40 years remain unchanged and their disease is aggressive and advanced at presentation, they do not experience disparities in gastric cancer-directed therapies and survival after resection. For patients residing in impoverished areas or high immigration communities, operative resection and adjustment for appropriate aftercare is associated with comparable or better survival when compared with those living in low poverty or low immigration areas. Disparities remain in receipt of appropriate cancer-directed therapies, and future efforts should focus on decreasing structural variations in care and unconscious biases regarding patients from these vulnerable communities.
Background Recent studies suggest that preoperative coronary revascularization overall does not improve outcomes after noncardiac surgery. It is not known whether this holds true for high-risk ...patients with a history of recent MI. Our objective was to determine whether preoperative revascularization improves outcomes after noncardiac surgery in patients with a recent MI. Study Design Using the California Patient Discharge Database, we retrospectively analyzed patients with a recent MI who underwent hip surgery, cholecystectomy, bowel resection, elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and lower extremity amputation from 1999 to 2004 (n = 16,478). Postoperative 30-day reinfarction and 30-day and 1-year mortality were compared for patients who underwent preoperative revascularization (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary stenting, or coronary artery bypass graft) and those who were not revascularized using univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using bootstrapping with 1,000 repetitions. Results Patients with a recent MI who were revascularized before surgery had an approximately 50% decreased rate of reinfarction (5.1% versus 10.0%; p < 0.001) and 30-day (5.2% versus 11.3%; p < 0.001) and 1-year mortality (18.3% versus 35.8%; p < 0.001) compared with those who were not. Stenting within 1 month of surgery was associated with a trend toward increased reinfarction (relative risk: 1.36; 95% CI, 0.96–1.97), and coronary artery bypass graft was associated with a decreased risk (relative risk: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55–0.95). Conclusions This large sample representing real world practice suggests that patients with a recent MI can benefit from preoperative revascularization. Coronary artery bypass graft can improve outcomes more than stenting, especially when surgery is necessary within 1 month of revascularization, but additional prospective studies are indicated.
PDF
