Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation最新文献

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions and implications

Background

Remdesivir is FDA-approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Many patients improve clinically to allow for hospital dismissal before completing the 5-day course. In a prior work, patients who continued remdesivir in an outpatient setting experienced better 28-day clinical outcomes. Here, we assessed patients' perspectives and the economic impact of this outpatient practice.

Methods

Hospitalized patients who received remdesivir for COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, from 11/6/2020 to 11/5/2021 and were dismissed to continue remdesivir in the outpatient setting were surveyed. The cost of care was compared between those who remained hospitalized versus those who were dismissed.

Results

93 (19.8 %) among 470 eligible patients responded to the electronic survey. Responders were older than non-responders. The majority (70.5 %) had symptoms resolved by the time of the survey. Ten (11.4 %) patients had persistent symptoms attributed to long COVID-19. The majority were satisfied with the quality of care (82.3 %) and overall experience (76.0 %) in the infusion clinic. After adjusting for gender, comorbidity score, and WHO severity scale, the predicted costs for the groups were $16,544 (inpatient) and $9,097 (outpatient) per patient (difference of $7,447; p < .01). An estimate of 1,077 hospital bed-days were made available to other patients as a result of this transition to outpatient.

Conclusion

An outpatient remdesivir program that allowed for early dismissal was perceived favorably by patients. The program resulted in significant cost and resource savings, the latter in terms of the availability of hospital beds for other patients needing critical services.

Dietary inequities, influenced by sociocultural and economic factors, significantly affect health outcomes, particularly among underserved communities. To address these disparities, the Food is Medicine (FIM) movement strives to enhance access to nutritious food, provide education, and encourage behavioral changes. Boston Medical Center (BMC) ‘s Nourishing Our Community Program (NOCP) exemplifies this mission by offering FIM services such as an on-site food pantry, rooftop farm, and teaching kitchen. However, persistent barriers hinder the effectiveness of programs like NOCP. This quality improvement (QI) project employed mixed methods to refine existing and develop new patient-generated nutrition education materials and resources across various FIM services.

Methods

This QI project included surveys and focus groups conducted electronically and in person between January and May 2023. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.

Results

The analysis of results revealed patient preferences and experiences regarding dietary patterns, food choices, and nutrition education. These findings enhanced existing handouts, websites, and group class curricula and forged new partnerships with local community-based organizations.

Conclusion

Our findings underpin the importance of co-designing interventions, dynamic and multimodal resources, and cultural humility in care to meet individual needs.

Implications

This initiative is a model for hospitals aiming to improve educational resources within FIM services and tailor content to the specific needs of diverse patient populations. This project is the first step in programmatic improvement, and continuous refinement is crucial for sustained improvements and advancing health equity at our institution.

Background

A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention—how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients’ care needs during the pandemic.

Methods

Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was “better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic” because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+’s effects.

Results

Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers).

Conclusions

Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.