Reassessing the July Effect: 30 Years of Evidence Show No Difference in Outcomes

The "July effect" on patients admitted with diabetes ketoacidosis: a national retrospective cohort study

Background

Every July, new residents begin training across the United States, but it is unclear whether this affects the mortality rate of critically ill patients such as those with diabetes ketoacidosis (DKA).

Methods

This national retrospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older admitted to acute care with DKA between 2016 and 2020. Data were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample Database. We compared patients admitted in July and August with those admitted during the remaining months and assessed the primary endpoint of all-cause inpatient mortality. We also obtained an odds ratio adjusted for confounders using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, total hospital charges, the crude rate of mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis, and vasopressor requirement. Hypothesis testing was conducted using the chi-square test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables. A two-tailed P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Of the 269,095 hospitalizations identified over 5 years with a discharge diagnosis of DKA, 250,990 met the inclusion criteria. During July and August, 42,668 (17%) hospitalizations occurred, and 208,322 (83%) occurred during the remaining months. The mean age of the patients was 47 years, and there was no significant difference among the cohorts (P = 0.41). Female patients represented 54% of the total patients, and there was no difference between the cohorts (P = 0.68). Of the admitted patients, 61% were White, 21% were Black, and 11% were Hispanic, with no differences between the cohorts (P = 0.38). Medicare (35%) and Medicaid (30%) were the primary payers for most patients, and approximately 25% had private insurance. There were no differences between the cohorts in terms of primary payers (P = 0.49). The mean length of stay was 7 days, and the total hospitalization cost was $85,509. Admission in July or August did not increase the odds of inpatient mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, P = 0.58).

Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with DKA, inpatient care during July and August did not increase the odds of inpatient mortality.

Socioeconomic predictors of cost and length of stay for erythroderma: a cross-sectional analysis of the national inpatient sample

Erythroderma is an uncommon but serious dermatologic disorder that often requires hospitalization for diagnosis and treatment. However, little is known about predictors influencing cost and patient outcomes. The present study sought to characterize the sociodemographic factors that predict patient outcomes and hospital cost. Data were obtained from the 2016-2018 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for patients of any age with a primary or secondary diagnosis of exfoliative dermatitis. Regression analyses were performed to find predictors for hospital costs and patient outcomes, represented by the length of stay (LOS). Univariate analysis of LOS revealed urban teaching hospitals were associated with prolonged LOS (p = 0.023). Univariate analysis of hospital cost yielded the following factors associated with increased hospital cost: Black and Asian patients (p = .045), urban teaching hospitals (p = .035), and northeast or south geographic location (p = .004). Multivariable regression analysis revealed prolonged LOS was associated with female sex (p = .043) and large bed capacity (p = .044) while shorter LOS was associated with increased age (p = .025); lower hospital costs were associated with private-owned hospitals -  (p = .025). In patients diagnosed with erythroderma, there appear to be racial, economic, and geographic disparities for patients that lead to greater hospital costs and longer LOS.

Implementing patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used increasingly in routine clinical care and inform policies, reimbursements, and quality improvement. Less is known regarding PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to identify studies of PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations, elucidate representation of clinical specialties, assess implementation outcomes, and synthesize patient needs, concerns, and preferences.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched September 2021 for studies aiming to study PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations within the United States. Studies were screened and data extracted by three independent reviewers. Implementation outcomes were assessed according to Proctor et al. taxonomy. A descriptive analysis of data was conducted.

RESULTS

The search yielded 8,687 records, and 28 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority were observational cohort studies (n = 21, 75%) and conducted in primary care (n = 10, 36%). Most studies included majority female (n = 19, 68%) and non-White populations (n = 15, 54%), while fewer reported socioeconomic (n = 11, 39%) or insurance status (n = 9, 32.1%). Most studies assessed implementation outcomes of feasibility (n = 27, 96%) and acceptability (n = 19, 68%); costs (n = 3, 11%), penetration (n = 1, 4%), and sustainability (n = 1, 4%) were infrequently assessed.

CONCLUSION

PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations is generally feasible and acceptable. Research is lacking in key clinical specialties. Further work is needed to understand how health disparities drive PRO implementation outcomes.