基于标准化患者法评价四川农村基层医生两种慢性病诊断准确性及其影响因素

目的 运用标准化患者法评估四川农村地区基层医生不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病两种慢性病诊断准确性现状,探讨基层医生两种慢性病诊断准确性的主要影响因素,为提升基层医生两种慢性病诊断准确性提供科学依据。方法 采用多阶段随机整群抽样方法,抽取四川省自贡市5个区/县50个乡镇100个村为研究现场,以调查当日在岗的全科及内科医生作为研究对象。共进行两轮数据采集,第1轮采集样本乡镇卫生院和村卫生室医生的基本信息;第1轮调查完成1个月后,运用标准化患者法开展第2轮调查,收集农村基层医生对不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病诊断结果信息。运用Logistic回归分析农村基层医生不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病诊断准确性的影响因素。结果 共纳入172名农村基层医生,完成186次标准化患者访问,正确诊断率为48.39%。其中不稳定型心绞痛的正确诊断率为18.68%(17/91),2型糖尿病的正确诊断率为76.84%(73/95)。Logistic回归分析显示,具有执业医师资质的农村基层医生更有可能做出正确诊断(OR=4.857,95%CI=1.076~21.933,P=0.040)。农村基层医生在诊断过程中涉及的必要问诊和检查条目越多,做出正确诊断的概率越高(OR=1.627,95%CI=1.065~2.485,P=0.024)。与不稳定型心绞痛相比,农村基层医生对2型糖尿病做出正确诊断的可能性更高(OR=6.306,95%CI=3.611~11.013,P<0.001)。结论 四川农村基层医生不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病诊断准确性整体较差,建议以基层医生慢性病诊断过程质量改善为突破口,提升基层医生执业水平,进而提高慢性病诊断准确性。     

Nursing Home Resident Admission Characteristics and Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Transfers

ObjectivesTo determine which nursing home (NH) resident-level admission characteristics are associated with potentially preventable emergency department (PPED) transfers.DesignWe conducted a population-level retrospective cohort study on NH resident data collected using the Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set Version 2.0 and linked to the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System for ED transfers.SettingWe used all NH resident admission assessments from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018, in Ontario.ParticipantsThe cohort included the admission assessment of 56,433 NH residents.MethodsPPED transfers were defined based on the International Classification of Disease, Version 10 (Canadian) We used logistic regression with 10-fold cross-validation and computed average marginal effects to identify the association between resident characteristics at NH admission and PPED transfers within 92 days after admission.ResultsOverall, 6.2% of residents had at least 1 PPED transfer within 92 days of NH admission. After adjustment, variables that had a prevalence of 10% or more that were associated with a 1% or more absolute increase in the risk of a PPED transfer included polypharmacy [of cohort (OC) 84.4%, risk difference (RD) 2.0%], congestive heart failure (OC 29.0%, RD 3.0%), and renal failure (OC 11.6%, RD 1.2%). Female sex (OC 63.2%, RD -1.3%), a do not hospitalize directive (OC 24.4%, RD -2.6%), change in mood (OC 66.9%, RD -1.2%), and Alzheimer's or dementia (OC 62.1%, RD -1.2%) were more than 10% prevalent and associated with a 1% or more absolute decrease in the risk of a PPED.Conclusions and ImplicationsThough many routinely collected resident characteristics were associated with a PPED transfer, the absence of sufficiently discriminating characteristics suggests that emergency department visits by NH residents are multifactorial and difficult to predict. Future studies should assess the clinical utility of risk factor identification to prevent transfers.     

Fourteen years of the Pregnancy Registry on maternal immunisation with a reduced-antigen-content tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine

BackgroundGSK initiated a Pregnancy Registry in the United States (US) for the reduced-antigen-content tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap; Boostrix, GSK) vaccine with the aim to detect and describe pregnancy outcomes in women vaccinated with Boostrix 28 days before estimated conception or during pregnancy.MethodsVoluntary reports of pregnancy exposure to Boostrix received from spontaneous and post-marketing surveillance sources in the US were assessed. Reports were classified as prospective or retrospective based on the knowledge of pregnancy outcomes at the time of reporting. For completeness, reports of exposure to Boostrix or to the Tdap-inactivated poliovirus vaccine (Boostrix-IPV, GSK) reported to the global safety database from countries outside the US were also evaluated.ResultsFrom May 2005 to August 2019, 1517 (1455 prospective and 62 retrospective) pregnancy reports were received in the Boostrix US Pregnancy Registry. Of the prospective reports, 250 had known outcomes: 244 live infants with no apparent birth defects (BDs), three live infants with BDs, and three spontaneous abortions with no apparent BDs. Of the retrospective reports, 55 had known outcomes: 33 live infants with no apparent BDs, 16 live infants with BDs, one spontaneous abortion with no apparent BDs, four stillbirths with no apparent BDs, and one stillbirth with BDs. Cumulatively, 1321 pregnancy reports (1006 for Boostrix; 315 for Boostrix-IPV) were received from countries outside the US. Of these, 163 prospective reports and 551 retrospective reports had known outcomes. Results were in line with those from the Boostrix US Pregnancy Registry.ConclusionsData currently available from the Boostrix US Pregnancy Registry and from countries outside the US suggested that exposure to Boostrix or Boostrix-IPV during pregnancy does not raise safety concerns related to adverse pregnancy outcomes or BDs.     

The role of payment and financing in achieving health equity

Objective

The aim was to identify healthcare payment and financing reforms to promote health equity and ways that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) may promote those reforms.

Data Sources and Study Setting

AHRQ convened a payment and financing workgroup–the authors of this paper–as part of its Health Equity Summit held in July 2022. This workgroup drew from its collective experience with healthcare payment and financing reform, as well as feedback from participants in a session at the Health Equity Summit, to identify the evidence base and promising paths for reforms to promote health equity.

Study Design

The payment and financing workgroup developed an outline of reforms to promote health equity, presented the outline to participants in the payment and financing session of the July 2022 AHRQ Health Equity Summit, and integrated feedback from the participants.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

This paper did not require novel data collection; the authors collected the data from the existing evidence base.

Principal Findings

The paper outlines root causes of health inequity and corresponding potential reforms in five domains: (1) the differential distribution of resources between healthcare providers serving different communities, (2) scarcity of financing for populations most in need, (3) lack of integration/accountability, (4) patient cost barriers to care, and (5) bias in provider behavior and diagnostic tools.

Conclusions

Additional research is necessary to determine whether the proposed reforms are effective in promoting health equity.