Faculty Bibliography

Providers and patients bring different understandings of health and disease to their encounters in the hospital setting. The literature to date only infrequently addresses patient and provider concordance on the reported reason for hospitalization, that is, whether they express this reason in similar ways. An agreement or common ground between such understandings can serve as a basis for future communication regarding an illness and its treatment. We interviewed a convenience sample of patients on the medical wards of an urban academic medical center. We asked subjects to state the reason why their doctors admitted them to the hospital, and then compared their statement with the reason in the medical record. We defined concordance on reported reason for hospitalization as agreement between the patient's report and the reason abstracted from the chart. We interviewed and abstracted chart data from a total of 46 subjects. Concordance on reported reason for hospitalization was present in 24 (52%) and discordance in 17 (37%); 5 patients (11%) could not give any reason for their hospitalization. Among the 17 patients whose report was discordant with their chart, 12 (71%) reported a different organ system than was recorded in the chart. A significant proportion of medical inpatients could not state their physicians' reason for admission. In addition, patients who identify a different reason for hospitalization than the chart often give a different organ system altogether. Providers should explore patient understanding of the reason for their hospitalization to facilitate communication and shared decision making.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM OR QUESTION (ONE SENTENCE): To determine how adding a non-clinical member to primary care teams can improve hypertension and smoking cessation outcomes in Veteran Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System's (VA NYHHS) implementation of the VA's Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model, known as Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION (NO MORE THAN THREE OBJECTIVES): As part of the Program for Research on Outcomes of VA Education (PROVE) study, we sought to define a toolkit of panel management strategies that Panel Management Assistants (PMAs) will use to improve outcomes in smoking cessation and hypertension across patient panels. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM/INTERVENTION, INCLUDING ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (E.G. INPATIENTVS. OUTPATIENT, PRACTICE OR COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS): Coincident with the nation-wide implementation of PACT across the VA system, PROVE explores the incremental impact of panel management and clinical microsystem education on hypertension and smoking outcomes. Two-thirds of randomly selected PACT teams in ambulatory care clinics at the Brooklyn and Manhattan campuses of the VA NYHHS had a PMA added to the team. Based on literature review and qualitative interviews of clinicians and key stakeholders at VA NYHHS, we developed a core toolkit of strategies utilizing clinical databases to target subsets of smokers and hypertensive patients that could benefit from specialized panel management interventions outside of the patient visit, such as identifying smokers who have not recently received tobacco cessation medications. MEASURES OF SUCCESS (DISCUSS QUALITATIVE AND/OR QUANTITATIVEMETRICSWHICH WILL BE USED TOEVALUATE PROGRAM/INTERVENTION): Prior to PROVE's intervention, we determined baseline rates of hypertension (uncontrolled and controlled) and smoking for all PACT panels. To assess PROVE's effectiveness of integrating panel management strategies by PACT teams, we will survey providers and nurses at baseline, 6 and 12 months to me!

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins are effective for treating venous thrombosis, but their cost-effectiveness has not been rigorously assessed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. DESIGN: Decision model. DATA SOURCES: Probabilities for clinical outcomes were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cost estimates were derived from Medicare reimbursement and other sources. TARGET POPULATION: Two hypothetical cohorts of 60-year-old men with acute deep venous thrombosis. TIME HORIZON: Patient lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin or adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. An in-patient hospital setting was used for the base-case analysis. Secondary analyses examined outpatient treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Total costs for inpatient treatment were $26,516 for low-molecular-weight heparin and $26,361 for unfractionated heparin. The cost of initial care was higher in patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin, but this was partly offset by reduced costs for early complications. Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by approximately 0.02 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of inpatient low-molecular-weight heparin treatment was $7820 per QALY gained. Treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin was cost saving when as few as 8% of patients were treated at home. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: When late complications were assumed to occur 25% less frequently in patients who received unfractionated heparin, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increased to almost $75,000 per QALY gained. When late complications were assumed to occur 25% less frequently in patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin, this treatment resulted in a net cost savings. Inpatient low-molecular-weight heparin treatment became cost saving when its pharmacy cost was reduced by 31% or more, when it reduced the yearly incidence of late complications by at least 7%, when as few as 8% of patients were treated entirely as outpatients, or when at least 13% of patients were eligible for early discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparins are highly cost-effective for inpatient management of venous thrombosis. This treatment reduces costs when small numbers of patients are eligible for outpatient management

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins may simplify the management of deep venous thrombosis. A critical clinical issue is whether this more convenient therapy is as safe and effective as treatment with unfractionated heparin. PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparins with those of unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. DATA SOURCES: Reviewers identified studies by searching MEDLINE, reviewing references from retrieved articles, scanning abstracts from conference proceedings, and contacting investigators and pharmaceutical companies. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials that compared a low-molecular-weight heparin preparation with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data independently. Reviewers evaluated study quality using a validated four-item instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven of 37 studies met inclusion criteria for three major outcomes. Most studies used proper randomization procedures, but only one was double-blinded. Compared with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins reduced mortality rates over 3 to 6 months of patient follow-up (odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.94]; P = 0.02). For major bleeding complications, the odds ratio favored low-molecular-weight heparins (0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.99]; P = 0.047), but the absolute risk reduction was small and not statistically significant (0.61% [CI, -0.04% to 1.26%]; P = 0.07). For preventing thromboembolic recurrences, low-molecular-weight heparins seemed as effective as unfractionated heparin (odds ratio, 0.85 [CI, 0.63 to 1.14]; P > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment reduces mortality rates after acute deep venous thrombosis. These drugs seem to be as safe as unfractionated heparin with respect to major bleeding complications and appear to be as effective in preventing thromboembolic recurrences