Cargando…

Screening for the High-Need Population Using Single Institution Versus State-Wide Admissions Discharge Transfer Feed

BACKGROUND: Access to programs for high-needs patients depending on single-institution electronic health record data (EHR) carries risks of biased sampling. We investigate a statewide admissions, discharge, transfer feed (ADT), in assessing equity in access to these programs. METHODS: This is a retr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Balucan, Francis Salvador, French, Benjamin, Shi, Yaping, Kripalani, Sunil, Vasilevskis, Eduard E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Journal Experts 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10055535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36993433
http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2565761/v1
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Access to programs for high-needs patients depending on single-institution electronic health record data (EHR) carries risks of biased sampling. We investigate a statewide admissions, discharge, transfer feed (ADT), in assessing equity in access to these programs. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. We included high-need patients at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), who were 18 years or older, with minimum three emergency visits (ED) or hospitalizations in Tennessee from January 1 to June 30, 2021, including at least one at VUMC. We used the Tennessee ADT database to identify high-need patients with at least one VUMC ED/hospitalization, then compared this population with high-need patients identified using VUMC’s Epic(®) EHR database. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of VUMC-only criteria for identifying high-need patient when compared to statewide ADT reference standard. RESULTS: We identified 2549 patients that had at least one ED/hospitalization and were assessed to be high-need based on the statewide ADT. Of those, 2100 had VUMC-only visits, and 449 had VUMC and non-VUMC visits. VUMC-only visit screening criteria showed high sensitivity (99.1%, 95% CI: 98.7% - 99.5%), indicating that the high-needs patients admitted to VUMC infrequently access alternative systems. Results demonstrated no meaningful difference in sensitivity when stratified by patient’s race or insurance. CONCLUSIONS: ADT allows examination for potential selection bias when relying upon single-institution utilization. In VUMC’s high-need patients, there’s minimal selection bias when relying upon same-site utilization. Further research needs to understand how biases may vary by site, and durability over time.