Erik Youngson

Impact of physician continuity on death or urgent readmission after discharge among patients with heart failure

Background: Early physician follow-up after discharge is associated with lower rates of death and readmission among patients with heart failure. We explored whether physician continuity further influences outcomes after discharge. Methods: We used data from linked administrative databases for all adults aged 20 years or more in the province of Alberta who were discharged alive from hospital between January 1999 and June 2009 with a first-time diagnosis of heart failure. We used Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent covariates to analyze the effect of follow-up with a familiar physician within the first month after discharge on the primary outcome of death or urgent all-cause readmission over 6 months. A familiar physician was defined as one who had seen the patient at least twice in the year before the index admission or once during the index admission. Results: In the first month after discharge, 5336 (21.9%) of the 24 373 identified patients had no follow-up visits, 16 855 (69.2%) saw a familiar physician, and 2182 (9.0%) saw unfamiliar physician(s) exclusively. The risk of death or unplanned readmission during the 6-month observation period was lower among patients who saw a familiar physician (43.6%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–0.91) or an unfamiliar physician (43.6%; adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83–0.97) for early follow-up visits, as compared with patients who had no follow-up visits (62.9%). Taking into account all follow-up visits over the 6-month period, we found that the risk of death or urgent readmission was lower among patients who had all of their visits with a familiar physician than among those followed by unfamiliar physicians (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85–0.98). Interpretation: Early physician follow-up after discharge and physician continuity were both associated with better outcomes among patients with heart failure. Research is needed to explore whether physician continuity is important for other conditions and in settings other than recent hospital discharge.

Do Outcomes for Patients With Heart Failure Vary by Emergency Department Volume

Background—Heart failure is a common Emergency Department (ED) presentation but whether ED volume influences patient outcomes is unknown. Methods and Results—Retrospective cohort of all adults presenting to 93 EDs between 1999 and 2009 with a most responsible diagnosis of heart failure (n=44 925 ED visits; mean age, 76.4 years). Cases seen in low-volume EDs had less comorbidities and were less likely to be hospitalized (54.5%) than those seen in medium (61.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.16, [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.10–1.23]) or high-volume EDs (73.6%; aOR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.83–2.07]). Of patients treated and released, low-volume ED cases exhibited higher risk of death/hospitalization/ED visit in the subsequent 7 (22.0%) and 30 days (44.9%) than medium (16.3%; aOR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73–0.90], and 35.3%; aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.73–0.86]) or high-volume ED cases (13.0%; aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.61–0.78], and 30.2%; aOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.61–0.74]). Of patients hospitalized at the time of their index ED visit, low-volume ED cases exhibited a higher risk of 30-day death/all-cause readmission (24.3%) than those seen in medium (21.9%; aOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.76–0.91]) or high-volume EDs (18.1%; aOR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.70–0.85]). Conclusions—Low-volume EDs were more likely to discharge patients with heart failure home, but low-volume ED cases exhibited worse outcomes (driven largely by readmissions or repeat ED visits). Interventions to improve management of acute heart failure are required at low-volume sites.

Do Outcomes for Heart Failure Patients Vary by Emergency Department Volume

Background—Heart failure is a common Emergency Department (ED) presentation but whether ED volume influences patient outcomes is unknown. Methods and Results—Retrospective cohort of all adults presenting to 93 EDs between 1999 and 2009 with a most responsible diagnosis of heart failure (n=44 925 ED visits; mean age, 76.4 years). Cases seen in low-volume EDs had less comorbidities and were less likely to be hospitalized (54.5%) than those seen in medium (61.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.16, [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.10–1.23]) or high-volume EDs (73.6%; aOR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.83–2.07]). Of patients treated and released, low-volume ED cases exhibited higher risk of death/hospitalization/ED visit in the subsequent 7 (22.0%) and 30 days (44.9%) than medium (16.3%; aOR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73–0.90], and 35.3%; aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.73–0.86]) or high-volume ED cases (13.0%; aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.61–0.78], and 30.2%; aOR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.61–0.74]). Of patients hospitalized at the time of their index ED visit, low-volume ED cases exhibited a higher risk of 30-day death/all-cause readmission (24.3%) than those seen in medium (21.9%; aOR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.76–0.91]) or high-volume EDs (18.1%; aOR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.70–0.85]). Conclusions—Low-volume EDs were more likely to discharge patients with heart failure home, but low-volume ED cases exhibited worse outcomes (driven largely by readmissions or repeat ED visits). Interventions to improve management of acute heart failure are required at low-volume sites.

Postdischarge Outcomes in Heart Failure Are Better for Teaching Hospitals and Weekday Discharges

Background—It is unclear whether teaching status or day of discharge influences outcomes after a heart failure hospitalization. Methods and Results—We evaluated adults discharged after a heart failure hospitalization between 1999 and 2009 in Alberta, Canada. The primary outcome was death or nonelective readmission 30 days postdischarge. Of 12 216 patients discharged from teaching hospitals and 12 157 patients from nonteaching hospitals, 20 524 (84%) discharges occurred on weekdays. Although they had greater comorbidity and used more healthcare resources before their heart failure hospitalization, patients discharged from teaching hospitals exhibited shorter lengths of stay (adjusted ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80–0.86) and significantly lower rates of death or readmission in the 30 days after discharge than those discharged from nonteaching hospitals (17.4% versus 22.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77–0.89). Patients discharged on weekdays were older and had greater comorbidity, yet exhibited significantly lower rates of death or readmission at 30 days than those discharged on weekends (19.5% versus 21.1%; aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80–0.94). Compared with weekend discharge from a nonteaching hospital, 30-day death/readmission rates were lower for weekday discharge from a nonteaching hospital (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77–0.94), weekend discharge from a teaching hospital (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69–0.92), and weekday discharge from a teaching hospital (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.63–0.79). Conclusions—Patients discharged from teaching hospitals or on weekdays exhibited better outcomes despite having higher risk profiles. Future studies should focus on distinguishing which discharge processes differ between teaching and nonteaching hospitals and between weekdays and weekends to define those that optimize patient outcomes.

Physician continuity improves outcomes for heart failure patients treated and released from the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of physician continuity for patients with heart failure (HF) treated and released from the emergency department (ED). BACKGROUND Although current guidelines recommend early follow-up after hospital discharge, it is unclear if it is beneficial in patients sent home from the ED and whether this follow-up should be with a familiar physician. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort of all adults treated and released from 93 EDs in Alberta, Canada, from 1999 to 2009 with a first-time most responsible diagnosis of HF. Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying covariates for post-ED outpatient visits were used. RESULTS In 12,285 patients (mean age 74.9 years), the rate of death or all-cause hospitalization at 6 months was lower in those who saw a familiar physician (37.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83 to 0.96]) in the first month versus those with no outpatient visits (58.1%; aHR: 1.00 [referent]) or visits only with unfamiliar physicians (40.2%; aHR: 1.04 [95% CI: 0.94 to 1.15]). Taking into account all outpatient visits over each observation period and excluding those without follow-up, death or hospitalization was less common in those patients being followed up by a familiar physician (aHR of 0.79 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89] at 3 months; aHR of 0.86 [95% CI: 0.77 to 0.95] at 6 months; and aHR of 0.87 [95% CI: 0.80 to 0.96] at 12 months compared with unfamiliar physician follow-up). Any follow-up within 30 days of ED release was associated with a lower risk of repeat ED visit or death at 6 months (aHR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73 to 0.82] for familiar physicians; aHR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.72 to 0.86] for unfamiliar physicians). CONCLUSIONS Early follow-up after an ED visit is associated with better outcomes, particularly if conducted with a familiar physician.

The prediction of postoperative stroke or death in patients with preoperative atrial fibrillation undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a VISION sub-study.

The optimal means of pre‐operative risk stratification in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is uncertain.

Physician experience and outcomes among patients admitted to general internal medicine teaching wards

Background: Physician scores on examinations decline with time after graduation. However, whether this translates into declining quality of care is unknown. Our objective was to determine how physician experience is associated with negative outcomes for patients admitted to hospital. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving all patients admitted to general internal medicine wards over a 2-year period at all 7 teaching hospitals in Alberta, Canada. We used files from the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons to determine the number of years since medical school graduation for each patient’s most responsible physician. Our primary outcome was the composite of in-hospital death, or readmission or death within 30 days postdischarge. Results: We identified 10 046 patients who were cared for by 149 physicians. Patient characteristics were similar across physician experience strata, as were primary outcome rates (17.4% for patients whose care was managed by physicians in the highest quartile of experience, compared with 18.8% in those receiving care from the least experienced physicians; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72–1.06). Outcomes were similar between experience quartiles when further stratified by physician volume, most responsible diagnosis or complexity of the patient’s condition. Although we found substantial variability in length of stay between individual physicians, there were no significant differences between physician experience quartiles (mean adjusted for patient covariates and accounting for intraphysician clustering: 7.90 [95% CI 7.39–8.42] d for most experienced quartile; 7.63 [95% CI 7.13–8.14] d for least experienced quartile). Interpretation: For patients admitted to general internal medicine teaching wards, we saw no negative association between physician experience and outcomes commonly used as proxies for quality of inpatient care.

Which risk score best predicts perioperative outcomes in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients undergoing noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are at increased risk for adverse events after noncardiac surgery. The Revised Cardiac Index (RCI) is commonly used to predict perioperative events; however, the prognostic utility of NVAF risk scores (CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and R2CHADS2) has not been evaluated in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. METHODS Using a population-based data set of NVAF patients (n = 32,160) who underwent major or minor noncardiac surgery between April 1, 1999, and November 30, 2009, in Alberta, Canada, we examined the incremental prognostic value of the CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and R2CHADS2 scores over the RCI using continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI). The primary composite outcome was 30-day mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism. RESULTS The median age was 73 years, 55.1% were male, 6.6% had a previous thromboembolism, 17% of patients underwent major surgery, and the median risk scores were as follows: RCI = 1, CHADS2 = 1, CHA2DS2-VASc = 3, and R2CHADS2 = 2. The incidence of our 30-day composite was 4.2% (mortality 3.3%; stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism 1.2%); and c indices were 0.65 for the RCI, 0.67 for the CHADS2 (NRI 14.3%, P < .001), 0.67 for CHA2DS2-VASc (NRI 10.7%, P < .001), and 0.68 for R2CHADS2 (NRI 11.4%, P < .001). The CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and R2CHADS2 scores were also all significantly better than the RCI for mortality risk prediction (NRI 12.3%, 8.4%, and 13.3%, respectively; all Ps < .01). CONCLUSIONS In NVAF patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and R2CHADS2 scores all improved the prediction of major perioperative events including mortality compared to the RCI.

Outcomes and Prognostic Impact of Prophylactic Oral Anticoagulation in Anterior ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Background The contemporary role of prophylactic anticoagulation following extensive anterior wall ST‐segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unclear. Methods and Results We evaluated anterior STEMI patients with left ventricle dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) (“high risk”), categorized by prophylactic warfarin use, within a regional STEMI. Patients with pre‐existing atrial fibrillation were excluded. The primary outcome was an adjusted (for Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score) 1‐year composite of recurrent ischemia, stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, or all‐cause death. Of the 2032 STEMI admissions, 436 (21.5%) were high risk. After excluding 19 (4.4%) patients with definite left ventricle thrombus and 21 (4.8%) in‐hospital deaths (2 had left ventricle thrombus), prophylactic warfarin was utilized in 236/398 (59.3%) high‐risk survivors. Prescriptions were comparable across sex, but recipients were on average younger (58.5 years versus 64.0 years, P<0.001) and lower risk (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk: 163 versus 181, P<0.001). No association on the adjusted ischemic composite (23.3% versus 25.3%, odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.60–1.55) or thromboembolic events (2.1% versus 1.2%, odds ratio 1.99, 95% CI 0.38–10.51) was observed, but reduced 1‐year all‐cause mortality was noted (2.5% versus 8.6%, odds ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.11–0.81); numerically higher major bleeding was observed at 1 year (2.5% versus 1.2%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% CI 0.43–10.96). Conclusions A high utilization of prophylactic warfarin occurs in anterior STEMI patients with left ventricle dysfunction, yet appears to provide no additional benefit on the ischemic composite. The association with lower all‐cause mortality, but higher bleeding, calls for an improved understanding of its role in high‐risk STEMI.

Similar outcomes among general medicine patients discharged on weekends

BACKGROUND Hospitals reduce staffing levels and services on weekends. This raises the question of whether weekend discharges may be inadequately prepared and thus at higher risk for adverse events postdischarge. OBJECTIVE To compare death or nonelective readmission rates 30 days after weekend versus weekday discharge. DESIGN Retrospective cohort. SETTING All teaching hospitals in Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS General internal medicine (GIM) discharges (only 1 per patient). MEASUREMENTS Analyses were adjusted for demographics, comorbidity, and length of stay based on a previously validated index. RESULTS Of 7991 patients (mean age, 62.1 years; 51.9% male; mean Charlson 2.56; 57.5% LACE ≥10) discharged from 7 teaching hospitals, 1146 (14.3%) were discharged on a weekend. Although they had substantially shorter lengths of stay (5.64 days, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.35-5.93 vs 7.86 days, 95% CI: 7.71-8.00, adjusted P value < 0.0001) and were less likely to be discharged with homecare support (10.9% vs 19.3%) or to long-term care facilities (3.1% vs 7.8%), patients discharged on weekends exhibited similar rates of death or readmission at 30 days compared to those discharged on weekdays (10.6% vs 13.2%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.77-1.16), even among the 4591 patients deemed to be at high risk for postdischarge events based on LACE (length of hospital stay, acuity of admission, comorbidity burden quantified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index, and emergency department visits in the 6 months prior to admission) score ≥10 (16.8% vs 16.5% for weekday discharges, aOR: 1.09 [95% CI: 0.85-1.41]). CONCLUSIONS GIM patients discharged from teaching hospitals on weekends have shorter lengths of stay and exhibit similar postdischarge outcomes as patients discharged on weekdays.