Quantifying the incidence of clinically significant respiratory depression in women with and without obesity class III receiving neuraxial morphine for post-cesarean analgesia: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundObesity is a suspected risk factor for respiratory depression following neuraxial morphine for post-cesarean analgesia, however monitoring guidelines for obese obstetric patients are based on small, limited studies. We tested the hypothesis that clinically significant respiratory depression following neuraxial morphine occurs more commonly in women with body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m² compared with BMI <40 kg/m².MethodsWe conducted a single-center, retrospective chart review (2006–2017) of obstetric patients with clinically significant respiratory depression following neuraxial morphine, defined as: (1) opioid antagonist administration; (2) rapid response team activation (initiated in April 2010); or (3) tracheal intubation due to a respiratory event. The incidence of respiratory depression was compared between women with BMI ≥40 kg/m² and BMI <40 kg/m².ResultsIn total, 11 327 women received neuraxial morphine (n=1945 BMI ≥40 kg/m²; n=9382 BMI <40 kg/m²). Women with BMI ≥40 kg/m² had higher rates of sleep apnea, hypertensive disorders, and magnesium administration. Sixteen cases of clinically significant respiratory depression occurred within seven days postpartum. The incidence did not significantly differ between groups (odds ratio 2.2, 95% CI 0.6 to 6.9, P=0.174). Neuraxial morphine was not deemed causative in any case, however women with BMI ≥40 kg/m² had higher rates of tracheal intubation unrelated to neuraxial morphine (2/1945 vs. 0/9382, P=0.029).ConclusionsRespiratory depression in this population is rare. A larger sample (∼75 000) is required to determine whether the incidence is higher with BMI ≥40 kg/m². Tracheal intubation was higher among the BMI ≥40 kg/m² cohort, likely due to more comorbidities.     

An opt-out model for kidney transplant referral: The time has come

Disparities that affect equity in access to kidney transplantation for patients with kidney failure have been well described. Many robust clinical trials have tested the effectiveness of interventions to reduce disparities and equilibrate access to kidney transplantation. Moreover, policy changes have been enacted to achieve the same aims. Despite these efforts, rates of kidney transplant waitlisting within the first year of end-stage kidney disease have remained unchanged over the past 2 decades, while incident rates of end-stage kidney disease have climbed. Because prior interventions have not durably increased transplant access, disruptive change is clearly needed. The Advancing American Kidney Health Executive Order sets bold goals to transform kidney care for patients and caregivers. In this spirit, we discuss an Opt-Out for Transplant Referral Model as a compelling solution to improve equity in access to kidney transplantation.     

Kidney transplant program waitlisting rate as a metric to assess transplant access

Kidney transplant program performance in the United States is commonly measured by posttransplant outcomes. Inclusion of pretransplant measures could provide a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and necessary information for patient decision-making. In this study, we propose a new metric, the waitlisting rate, defined as the ratio of patients who are waitlisted in a center relative to the person-years referred for evaluation to a program. Furthermore, we standardize the waitlisting rate relative to the state average in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The new metric was used as a proof-of-concept to assess transplant-program access compared to the existing transplant rate metric. The study cohorts were defined by linking 2017 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data with transplant-program referral data from the Southeastern United States between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016. Waitlisting rate varied across the 9 Southeastern transplant programs, ranging from 10 to 22 events per 100 patient-years, whereas the program-specific waitlisting rate ratio ranged between 0.76 and 1.33. Program-specific waitlisting rate ratio was uncorrelated with the transplant rate ratio (r = −.15, 95% CI, −0.83 to 0.57). Findings warrant collection of national data on early transplant steps, such as referral, for a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and pretransplant access.     

Variability in cesarean delivery rates among individual labor and delivery nurses compared to physicians at three attribution time points

ObjectiveTo examine the variability in the cesarean delivery (CD) rates of individual labor and delivery nurses compared with physicians at three attribution time points.Data SourcesMedical record data from nine hospitals in Washington State from January 2016 through September 2018.Study DesignRetrospective, observational cohort design using an aggregated database of birth records.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsChart‐abstracted clinical data from a subset of nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex births attributed at admission, labor management, and delivery to nurses and physicians. Two classification methods were used to categorize nurse‐ and physician‐level CD rates at three attribution time points and the reliability of these methods compared.Principal FindingsThe sample included 12 556 births, 319 nurses, and 126 physicians. Overall, variation in nurse‐level CD rates did not differ significantly across the three attribution time points, and the extent of variation was similar to that observed in physicians. However, agreement between attribution time points varied between 35 percent and 65 percent when classifying individual nurses into the top and bottom deciles. The average reliability of nurse‐level CD rates was 32 percent at admission (IQR 22.0 percent to 38.7 percent), 32.6 percent at labor (IQR 23.1 percent to 40.9 percent), and 29.3 percent (IQR 20.9 percent to 35.8 percent) at delivery. The average reliability of physician‐level CD rates was higher: 54.2 percent (IQR 38.7 percent to 71.4 percent) at admission, 62.5 percent (IQR 49.0 percent to 79.6 percent) at labor management, and 66.1 percent (IQR 53.7 percent to 81.2 percent) at delivery.ConclusionFeedback on nurse‐level CD rates as part of routine clinical quality audits can provide insight into nurse performance in the context of other individual‐level and unit‐level information. To reliably distinguish individual nurse performance, larger sample sizes are needed.     

Differences in patient perceptions of integrated care among black,hispanic, and white Medicare beneficiaries

ObjectiveThis study sought to identify potential disparities among racial/ethnic groups in patient perceptions of integrated care (PPIC) and to explore how methodological differences may influence measured disparities.Data SourceData from Medicare beneficiaries who completed the 2015 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) and were enrolled in Part A benefits for an entire year.Study DesignWe used 4‐point measures of eight dimensions of PPIC and assessed differences in dimensions among racial/ethnic groups. To estimate differences, we applied a “rank and replace” method using multiple regression models in three steps, balancing differences in health status among racial groups and adjusting for differences in socioeconomic status. We reran all analyses with additional SES controls and using standard multiple variable regression.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsNot applicable.Principal FindingsWe found several significant differences in perceived integrated care between Black versus White (three of eight measures) and Hispanic versus White (one of eight) Medicare beneficiaries. On average, Black beneficiaries perceived more integrated support for self‐care than did White beneficiaries (mean difference = 0.14, SE = 0.06, P =.02). Black beneficiaries perceived more integrated specialists’ knowledge of past medical history than did White beneficiaries (mean difference = 0.12, SE = 0.06, P =.01). Black and Hispanic beneficiaries also each reported, on average, 0.18 more integrated medication and home health management than did White beneficiaries (P <.01 and P <.01). These findings were robust to sensitivity analyses and model specifications.ConclusionsThere exist some aspects of care for which Black and Hispanic beneficiaries may perceive greater integrated care than non‐Hispanic White beneficiaries. Further studies should test theories explaining why racial/ethnic groups perceive differences in integrated care.     

The reimagination of sustainable integrated care in Ontario,Canada

Purpose/settingTo encourage clinical and financial efficiency, the Canadian province of Ontario initiated an integrated care program – Integrated Funding Models (IFMs) that required collaboration and coordination across acute and post-acute care sectors. This research shows how program implementers went beyond policy-makers’ original designs, to make integrated care sustainable for chronic diseases.MethodsForty-five interviews were conducted with program participants at three chronic disease programs, as well as with policymakers. Interviews were conducted over two phases; during early implementation in 2016, and as programs matured in 2018. Data were analyzed through a cultural constructivist lens to understand how participants shaped programs.FindingsParticipants desired greater accountability and control. Participants in the first program wanted localized control over decision-making. In the second, participants initiated greater control over financial uncertainty. In the third program, hospital participants sought greater control over community care. Participants across programs simultaneously wanted integrated care to be expanded holistically, spatially, and temporally for patients, extending the length of care, and expanding the spaces in which care was provided. Findings also suggest a gap between program implementers’ and policymakers’ conceptualizations of integrated care.ConclusionThis work shows how IFMs were reimagined in ways that transcended their original conceptualization as spatially and temporally delimited initiatives aimed at improving coordination and efficiency. It has practical implications for those facing sustainability challenges in other contexts.     

A demand-smoothing incentive for cesarean deliveries

We study the demand-smoothing incentives for private hospitals to perform c-sections. First, we show that a policy change in Chile that increased delivery at private hospitals by reducing the out-of-pocket cost for women with public insurance increased the probability of a c-section by 8.6 percentage points despite private hospitals receiving the same price for a vaginal or cesarean delivery. Second, to understand hospitals’ incentives to perform c-sections, we present a model of hospital decisions about the mode of delivery without price incentives. The model predicts that, because c-sections can be scheduled, a higher c-section rate increases total deliveries, compensating the forgone higher margin of vaginal deliveries. Finally, we provide evidence consistent with the demand-smoothing mechanism: hospitals with higher c-section rates are more likely to reschedule deliveries when they expect a high-demand week.