Alison Jennings

A Modification of the Elixhauser Comorbidity Measures Into a Point System for Hospital Death Using Administrative Data

Background:Comorbidity measures are necessary to describe patient populations and adjust for confounding. In direct comparisons, studies have found the Elixhauser comorbidity system to be statistically slightly superior to the Charlson comorbidity system at adjusting for comorbidity. However, the Elixhauser classification system requires 30 binary variables, making its use for reporting and analysis of comorbidity cumbersome. Objective:Modify the Elixhauser classification system into a single numeric score for administrative data. Methods:For all hospitalizations at the Ottawa Hospital, Canada, between 1996 and 2008, we determined if International Classification of Disease codes for chronic diagnoses were in any of the 30 Elixhauser comorbidity groups. We then used backward stepwise multivariate logistic regression to determine the independent association of each comorbidity group with death in hospital. Regression coefficients were modified into a scoring system that reflected the strength of each comorbidity groups independent association with hospital death. Results:Hospitalizations that were included were 345,795 (derivation: 228,565; validation 117,230). Twenty-one of the 30 groups were independently associated with hospital mortality. The resulting comorbidity score had an equivalent discrimination in the derivation and validation groups (overall c-statistic 0.763, 95% CI: 0.759–0.766). This was similar to models having all Elixhauser groups (0.760, 95% CI: 0.756–0.764) or significant groups only (0.759, 95% CI: 0.754–0.762), but significantly exceeded discrimination when comorbidity was expressed using the Charlson score (0.745, 95% CI: 0.742–0.749). Conclusion:When analyzing administrative data, the Elixhauser comorbidity system can be condensed to a single numeric score that summarizes disease burden and is adequately discriminative for death in hospital.

Proportion of hospital readmissions deemed avoidable: a systematic review

Background Readmissions to hospital are increasingly being used as an indicator of quality of care. However, this approach is valid only when we know what proportion of readmissions are avoidable. We conducted a systematic review of studies that measured the proportion of readmissions deemed avoidable. We examined how such readmissions were measured and estimated their prevalence. Methods We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify all studies published from 1966 to July 2010 that reviewed hospital readmissions and that specified how many were classified as avoidable. Results Our search strategy identified 34 studies. Three of the studies used combinations of administrative diagnostic codes to determine whether readmissions were avoidable. Criteria used in the remaining studies were subjective. Most of the studies were conducted at single teaching hospitals, did not consider information from the community or treating physicians, and used only one reviewer to decide whether readmissions were avoidable. The median proportion of readmissions deemed avoidable was 27.1% but varied from 5% to 79%. Three study-level factors (teaching status of hospital, whether all diagnoses or only some were considered, and length of follow-up) were significantly associated with the proportion of admissions deemed to be avoidable and explained some, but not all, of the heterogeneity between the studies. Interpretation All but three of the studies used subjective criteria to determine whether readmissions were avoidable. Study methods had notable deficits and varied extensively, as did the proportion of readmissions deemed avoidable. The true proportion of hospital readmissions that are potentially avoidable remains unclear.

Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review

Background: The opportunity to improve care using computer reminders is one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. We conducted a systematic review to quantify the expected magnitude of improvements in processes of care from computer reminders delivered to clinicians during their routine activities. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases (to July 2008) and scanned the bibliographies of retrieved articles. We included studies in our review if they used a randomized or quasi-randomized design to evaluate improvements in processes or outcomes of care from computer reminders delivered to physicians during routine electronic ordering or charting activities. Results: Among the 28 trials (reporting 32 comparisons) included in our study, we found that computer reminders improved adherence to processes of care by a median of 4.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 0.8%–18.8%). Using the best outcome from each study, we found that the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR 2.0%–19.2%). A minority of studies reported larger effects; however, no study characteristic or reminder feature significantly predicted the magnitude of effect except in one institution, where a well-developed, “homegrown” clinical information system achieved larger improvements than in all other studies (median 16.8% [IQR 8.7%–26.0%] v. 3.0% [IQR 0.5%–11.5%]; p = 0.04). A trend toward larger improvements was seen for reminders that required users to enter a response (median 12.9% [IQR 2.7%–22.8%] v. 2.7% [IQR 0.6%–5.6%]; p = 0.09). Interpretation: Computer reminders produced much smaller improvements than those generally expected from the implementation of computerized order entry and electronic medical record systems. Further research is required to identify features of reminder systems consistently associated with clinically worthwhile improvements.

Anticoagulation intensity and outcomes among patients prescribed oral anticoagulant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy balance the risks of hemorrhage and thromboembolism. We sought to determine the association between anticoagulation intensity and the risk of hemorrhagic and thromboembolic events. We also sought to determine how under-or overanticoagulation would influence patient outcomes. Methods: We reviewed the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL databases to identify studies involving patients taking anticoagulants that reported person-years of observation and the number of hemorrhages or thromboemboli in 3 or more discrete ranges of international normalized ratios. We estimated the overall relative and absolute risks of events specific to anticoagulation intensity. Results: We included 19 studies. The risk of hemorrhage increased significantly at high international normalized ratios. Compared with the therapeutic ratio of 2–3, the relative risk (RR) of hemorrhage (and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 2.7 (1.8–3.9; p < 0.01) at a ratio of 3–5 and 21.8 (12.1–39.4; p < 0.01) at a ratio greater than 5. The risk of thromboemboli increased significantly at ratios less than 2, with a relative risk of 3.5 (95% CI 2.8–4.4; p < 0.01). The risk of hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events was lower at ratios of 3–5 (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2–2.6) than at ratios of less than 2 (RR 2.4, 95% CI 1.9–3.1; p = 0.10). We found that a ratio of 2–3 had the lowest absolute risk (AR) of events (AR 4.3%/yr, 95% CI 3.0%–6.3%). Conclusions: The risks of hemorrhage and thromboemboli are minimized at international normalized ratios of 2–3. Ratios that are moderately higher than this therapeutic range appear safe and more effective than subtherapeutic ratios.

Incidence of potentially avoidable urgent readmissions and their relation to all-cause urgent readmissions

Background: Urgent, unplanned hospital readmissions are increasingly being used to gauge the quality of care. We reviewed urgent readmissions to determine which were potentially avoidable and compared rates of all-cause and avoidable readmissions. Methods: In a multicentre, prospective cohort study, we reviewed all urgent readmissions that occurred within six months among patients discharged to the community from 11 teaching and community hospitals between October 2002 and July 2006. Summaries of the readmissions were reviewed by at least four practising physicians using standardized methods to judge whether the readmission was an adverse event (poor clinical outcome due to medical care) and whether the adverse event could have been avoided. We used a latent class model to determine whether the probability that each readmission was truly avoidable exceeded 50%. Results: Of the 4812 patients included in the study, 649 (13.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.5%–14.5%) had an urgent readmission within six months after discharge. We considered 104 of them (16.0% of those readmitted, 95% CI 13.3%–19.1%; 2.2% of those discharged, 95% CI 1.8%–2.6%) to have had a potentially avoidable readmission. The proportion of patients who had an urgent readmission varied significantly by hospital (range 7.5%–22.5%; χ2 = 92.9, p < 0.001); the proportion of readmissions deemed avoidable did not show significant variation by hospital (range 1.2%–3.7%; χ2 = 12.5, p < 0.25). We found no association between the proportion of patients who had an urgent readmission and the proportion of patients who had an avoidable readmission (Pearson correlation 0.294; p = 0.38). In addition, we found no association between hospital rankings by proportion of patients readmitted and rankings by proportion of patients with an avoidable readmission (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.28, p = 0.41). Interpretation: Urgent readmissions deemed potentially avoidable were relatively uncommon, comprising less than 20% of all urgent readmissions following hospital discharge. Hospital-specific proportions of patients who were readmitted were not related to proportions with a potentially avoidable readmission.

Effect of Exercise Training on Physical Fitness in Type II Diabetes Mellitus

UNLABELLED Few studies have compared changes in cardiorespiratory fitness between aerobic training only or in combination with resistance training. In addition, no study to date has compared strength gains between resistance training and combined exercise training in type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM). PURPOSE We evaluated the effects of aerobic exercise training (A group), resistance exercise training (R group), combined aerobic and resistance training (A + R group), and sedentary lifestyle (C group) on cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength in individuals with T2DM. METHODS Two hundred and fifty-one participants in the Diabetes Aerobic and Resistance Exercise trial were randomly allocated to A, R, A + R, or C. Peak oxygen consumption (V O(2peak)), workload, and treadmill time were determined after maximal exercise testing at 0 and 6 months. Muscular strength was measured as the eight-repetition maximum on the leg press, bench press, and seated row. Responses were compared between younger (aged 39-54 yr) and older (aged 55-70 yr) adults and between sexes. RESULTS VO(2peak) improved by 1.73 and 1.93 mL O(2)*kg(-1)*min(-1) with A and A + R, respectively, compared with C (P < 0.05). Strength improvements were significant after A + R and R on the leg press (A + R: 48%, R: 65%), bench press (A + R: 38%, R: 57%), and seated row (A + R: 33%, R: 41%; P < 0.05). There was no main effect of age or sex on training performance outcomes. There was, however, a tendency for older participants to increase VO(2peak) more with A + R (+1.5 mL O(2)*kg(-1)*min(-1)) than with A only (+0.7 mL O(2)*kg(-1)*min(-1)). CONCLUSIONS Combined training did not provide additional benefits nor did it mitigate improvements in fitness in younger subjects compared with aerobic and resistance training alone. In older subjects, there was a trend to greater aerobic fitness gains with A + R versus A alone.

Incidence, follow-up, and outcomes of incidental abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND Incidental abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are identified during imaging for other reasons. Incidental AAAs are important findings because they require monitoring and surgical treatment, when indicated, to prevent rupture. The prevalence of incidental AAAs and their management has not been extensively studied. METHODS We electronically screened a 25% simple random sample of abdominal computed tomography (CT), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies conducted between 1996 and 2008 at one academic medical center. Screen-positive reports were manually reviewed to determine if they showed an incidental AAA. We reviewed the medical records of all in-patients to determine whether the incidental AAA was documented, a treatment plan was identified, and whether it was communicated to the patients family physician through the discharge summary. We used evidence-based recommended schedules to determine the adequacy of AAA monitoring for each person. RESULTS In 79,121 abdominal images, we identified 812 incidental AAAs (1.0% of all studies) or 364 incidental AAAs annually (95% confidence interval [CI], 349-379). Patients were elderly (mean age, 74 years), and AAAs were a mean diameter of 4.0 cm. For 174 inpatients, AAAs were noted in only 51 patients (29%) and only 25 (15%) were communicated to the family physician. Of 329 patients who were observed beyond their first recommended follow-up scan, only 51 (16%) were monitored appropriately throughout their entire follow-up; the median proportion of follow-up time with recommended monitoring was 56% (interquartile range, 32%-82%). Elective AAA repair was done in 98 patients (13%), the probability of which was significantly increased when AAA monitoring frequency was compliant with that recommended in practice guidelines. Six patients (0.8%) were admitted with aortic rupture, the probability of which was independent of AAA monitoring. CONCLUSION Incidental AAAs are common and appear to be poorly monitored. Our data suggested that improved monitoring of incidental AAAs was independently associated with elective AAA repair. Population-based analyses are required to determine the influence that monitoring has on incidental AAA rupture and patient mortality.

The Effect of Exercise Training on Resting Metabolic Rate in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

PURPOSE Exercise is a possible means to increase resting energy expenditure, which could offset age-related metabolic declines and facilitate weight management, both of which are particularly important for people who have type 2 diabetes mellitus. We sought to determine the effects of aerobic exercise training and resistance exercise training and the incremental effect of combined aerobic and resistance exercise training on resting metabolic rate (RMR) in previously sedentary individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS After a 4-wk run-in period, 103 participants (72 male, 31 female, 39-70 yr, mean +/- SD body mass index = 32.9 +/- 5.7 kg x m(-2)) were randomly assigned to four groups for 22 wk: aerobic training, resistance training, combined aerobic and resistance exercise training, or waiting-list control. Exercise training was performed three times per week at community-based gym facilities. RMR was measured by indirect calorimetry for 30 min after an overnight fast. Body composition was assessed using bioelectrical impedance. These measurements were taken at baseline, at 3 months, and at 6 months of the intervention. RESULTS RMR did not change significantly in any group after accounting for multiple comparisons despite significant improvements in peak oxygen consumption and muscular strength in the exercising groups. Adjusting RMR for age, sex, fat mass, and fat-free mass in various combinations did not alter these results. CONCLUSION These results suggest that RMR was not significantly changed after a 6-month exercise program, regardless of modality, in this sample of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Correlation between serial tests made disease probability estimates erroneous

BACKGROUND The probability of a disease, given the result of two diagnostic tests, can be calculated by multiplying the odds of disease after the first test by the likelihood ratio of the second test. OBJECTIVE To illustrate the error that occurs when calculating disease probability by combining the results of tests that are correlated. METHODS Simulation study in which we randomly generated disease status and the results of two binary tests for a range of disease prevalence, test-operating characteristics, and correlation between tests. The primary outcome was the absolute difference between calculated and true probability of disease after two positive tests. RESULTS When the tests were correlated, the calculated probability of a disease exceeded the true probability of the disease. With perfect correlation, the true probability of the disease after two positive tests equaled that after a single positive test. Error arising from correlated tests increased as the difference in the calculated probability between the first and second positive tests increased. We noted several combinations of disease prevalence, test-operating characteristics, and test correlation where the absolute difference between calculated and true probability of disease exceeded 25%. CONCLUSION Disease probability is overestimated when the results of correlated tests are combined. Clinicians must consider the correlation between serial tests when calculating the posttest probability.