Literature DB >> 31081872

Same-Day vs Different-Day Elective Upper and Lower Endoscopic Procedures by Setting.

Peiqi Wang1, Susan M Hutfless2,3, Eun J Shin2, Christian Hartman2, Sarah Disney2, Christopher C Fain2, Kathy P Bull-Henry2, Daniel K Daniels4, Tsion Abdi2, Vikesh K Singh2, Anthony N Kalloo2, Martin A Makary1,5.   

Abstract

Importance: Performing elective upper and lower endoscopic procedures on the same day is a patient-centered and less costly approach than a 2-stage approach performed on different days, when clinically appropriate. Whether this practice pattern varies based on practice setting has not been studied.
Objectives: To estimate the rate of different-day upper and lower endoscopic procedures in 3 types of outpatient settings and investigate the factors associated with the performance of these procedures on different days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis was conducted of Medicare claims between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2018, for Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a pair of upper and lower endoscopic procedures performed within 90 days of each other at hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and physician offices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Undergoing an upper and a lower endoscopic procedure on different days, adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence location and region, comorbidity, and procedure indication) and physician characteristics (sex, years in practice, procedure volume, and primary specialty). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were calculated.
Results: A total of 4 028 587 procedure pairs were identified, of which 52.5% were performed in HOPDs, 43.3% in ASCs, and 4.2% in physician offices. The rate of different-day procedures was 13.6% in HOPDs, 22.2% in ASCs, and 47.7% in physician offices. For the 7564 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and ASCs, their different-day procedure rate changed from 14.1% at HOPDs to 19.4% at ASCs. For the 993 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and physician offices, their different-day procedure rate changed from 15.8% at HOPDs to 37.4% at physician offices. Patients were more likely to undergo different-day procedures at physician offices and ASCs compared with HOPDs, even after adjusting for patient and physician characteristics (physician office vs HOPD: aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.85-2.20; ASC vs HOPD: aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.32). Older age (85-94 years vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.11; 95 years or older vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), black and Hispanic race/ethnicity (black: aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.17; Hispanic: aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.10-1.14), and residing in the Northeast region (adjusted OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28-1.36) were risk factors for undergoing different-day procedures. Micropolitan location (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96) and rural location (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93), more comorbidities (≥5: aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76), physician's fewer years in practice (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), physician's higher procedure volume (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.68), and physician's specialty of general surgery (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91) were protective factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Physician offices and ASCs had much higher different-day procedure rates compared with HOPDs. This disparity may represent an opportunity for quality improvement and financial savings for common endoscopic procedures.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31081872      PMCID: PMC6515815          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8766

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  28 in total

1.  A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data.

Authors:  Carl van Walraven; Peter C Austin; Alison Jennings; Hude Quan; Alan J Forster
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.

Authors:  A Elixhauser; C Steiner; D R Harris; R M Coffey
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Opioid prescribing decreases after learning of a patient's fatal overdose.

Authors:  Jason N Doctor; Andy Nguyen; Roneet Lev; Jonathan Lucas; Tara Knight; Henu Zhao; Michael Menchine
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Distance from hospital impacts adverse event detection after outpatient endoscopy.

Authors:  Kathryn L Jackson; Satyender Goel; Abel N Kho; Rajesh N Keswani
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-08-13       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Choosing wisely: prevalence and correlates of low-value health care services in the United States.

Authors:  Carrie H Colla; Nancy E Morden; Thomas D Sequist; William L Schpero; Meredith B Rosenthal
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Effect of Peer Comparison Letters for High-Volume Primary Care Prescribers of Quetiapine in Older and Disabled Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Adam Sacarny; Michael L Barnett; Jackson Le; Frank Tetkoski; David Yokum; Shantanu Agrawal
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 21.596

8.  Same-day upper and lower inpatient endoscopy: a trend for the future.

Authors:  G Triadafilopoulos; A Aslan
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Bundling in medicare patients undergoing bidirectional endoscopy: how often does it happen?

Authors:  Hashem B El-Serag; Fang Xu; Prachi Biyani; Gregory S Cooper
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 10.  Are low-value care measures up to the task? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Eline F de Vries; Jeroen N Struijs; Richard Heijink; Roy J P Hendrikx; Caroline A Baan
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  1 in total

1.  Testing Practices, Interpretation, and Diagnostic Evaluation of Iron Deficiency Anemia by US Primary Care Physicians.

Authors:  Andrew J Read; Akbar K Waljee; Jeremy B Sussman; Hardeep Singh; Grace Y Chen; Sandeep Vijan; Sameer D Saini
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-10-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.