医疗保险年度健康检查:改善医疗系统识别听力损失的机会?

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1111/jgs.19111
Danielle S. Powell AuD, PhD, Mingche M. J. Wu MSPH, Stephanie Nothelle MD, Jamie M. Smith RN PhD, Kelly Gleason PN, PhD, Esther S. Oh MD, PhD, Hillary D. Lum MD, PhD, Nicholas S. Reed AuD, Jennifer L. Wolff PhD
{"title":"医疗保险年度健康检查:改善医疗系统识别听力损失的机会?","authors":"Danielle S. Powell AuD, PhD,&nbsp;Mingche M. J. Wu MSPH,&nbsp;Stephanie Nothelle MD,&nbsp;Jamie M. Smith RN PhD,&nbsp;Kelly Gleason PN, PhD,&nbsp;Esther S. Oh MD, PhD,&nbsp;Hillary D. Lum MD, PhD,&nbsp;Nicholas S. Reed AuD,&nbsp;Jennifer L. Wolff PhD","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Hearing loss is prevalent and consequential but under-diagnosed and managed. The Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV) health risk assessment elicits patient-reported hearing concerns but whether such information affects documentation, diagnosis, or referral is unknown.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We use 5 years of electronic medical record (EMR) data (2017–2022) for a sample of 13,776 older primary care patients. We identify the first (index) AWV indication of hearing concerns and existing and subsequent hearing loss EMR diagnoses (visit diagnoses or problem list diagnoses) and audiology referrals. For a 20% random sample of AWV notes (<i>n</i> = 474) we compared hearing loss EMR diagnoses to documentation of (1) hearing concerns, (2) hearing loss/aid use, and (3) referrals for hearing care.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 3845 (27.9%) older adults who identified hearing concerns (mean age 79.1 years, 57% female, 75% white) 24% had an existing hearing diagnosis recorded. Among 474 patients with AWV clinical notes reviewed, 90 (19%) had an existing hearing loss diagnosis. Clinicians were more likely to document hearing concerns or hearing loss/aid use for those with (vs. without) an existing EMR diagnosis (50.6% vs. 35.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.01; 68.9% vs. 37.5%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, respectively). EMR diagnoses of hearing loss were recorded for no more than 40% of those with indicated hearing concerns. Among those without prior diagnosis 38 (9.9%) received a hearing care referral within 1 month. Subgroup analysis suggest greater likelihood of documenting hearing concerns for patients age 80+ (OR:1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03, 2.19) and decreased likelihood of documenting known hearing loss among patients with more chronic conditions (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.9), with no differences observed by race.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Documentation of hearing loss in EMR and AWV clinical notes is limited among older adults with subjective hearing concerns. Systematic support and incorporation of hearing into EMR and clinical notes may increase hearing loss visibility by care teams.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":"72 10","pages":"3089-3097"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11461099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Medicare annual wellness visit: An opportunity to improve health system identification of hearing loss?\",\"authors\":\"Danielle S. Powell AuD, PhD,&nbsp;Mingche M. J. Wu MSPH,&nbsp;Stephanie Nothelle MD,&nbsp;Jamie M. Smith RN PhD,&nbsp;Kelly Gleason PN, PhD,&nbsp;Esther S. Oh MD, PhD,&nbsp;Hillary D. Lum MD, PhD,&nbsp;Nicholas S. Reed AuD,&nbsp;Jennifer L. Wolff PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgs.19111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Hearing loss is prevalent and consequential but under-diagnosed and managed. The Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV) health risk assessment elicits patient-reported hearing concerns but whether such information affects documentation, diagnosis, or referral is unknown.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We use 5 years of electronic medical record (EMR) data (2017–2022) for a sample of 13,776 older primary care patients. We identify the first (index) AWV indication of hearing concerns and existing and subsequent hearing loss EMR diagnoses (visit diagnoses or problem list diagnoses) and audiology referrals. For a 20% random sample of AWV notes (<i>n</i> = 474) we compared hearing loss EMR diagnoses to documentation of (1) hearing concerns, (2) hearing loss/aid use, and (3) referrals for hearing care.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Of 3845 (27.9%) older adults who identified hearing concerns (mean age 79.1 years, 57% female, 75% white) 24% had an existing hearing diagnosis recorded. Among 474 patients with AWV clinical notes reviewed, 90 (19%) had an existing hearing loss diagnosis. Clinicians were more likely to document hearing concerns or hearing loss/aid use for those with (vs. without) an existing EMR diagnosis (50.6% vs. 35.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.01; 68.9% vs. 37.5%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, respectively). EMR diagnoses of hearing loss were recorded for no more than 40% of those with indicated hearing concerns. Among those without prior diagnosis 38 (9.9%) received a hearing care referral within 1 month. Subgroup analysis suggest greater likelihood of documenting hearing concerns for patients age 80+ (OR:1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03, 2.19) and decreased likelihood of documenting known hearing loss among patients with more chronic conditions (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.9), with no differences observed by race.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Documentation of hearing loss in EMR and AWV clinical notes is limited among older adults with subjective hearing concerns. Systematic support and incorporation of hearing into EMR and clinical notes may increase hearing loss visibility by care teams.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"volume\":\"72 10\",\"pages\":\"3089-3097\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11461099/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19111\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19111","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:听力损失是普遍存在的后果,但诊断和管理不足。医疗保险年度健康访视(AWV)健康风险评估会引起患者报告的听力问题,但这些信息是否会影响记录、诊断或转诊尚不得而知:我们使用了 13776 名老年初级保健患者样本的 5 年电子病历(EMR)数据(2017-2022 年)。我们确定了听力问题的首次(索引)AWV 指征,以及现有和后续的听力损失 EMR 诊断(就诊诊断或问题清单诊断)和听力转诊。对于 20% 的随机抽样 AWV 笔记(n = 474),我们比较了听力损失 EMR 诊断与以下记录:(1)听力问题;(2)听力损失/助听器使用;(3)听力保健转诊:在确定有听力问题的 3845 名(27.9%)老年人(平均年龄 79.1 岁,57% 为女性,75% 为白人)中,24% 记录了现有的听力诊断。在审查过的 474 名有听力问题的患者的临床记录中,有 90 人(19%)已有听力损失诊断。临床医生更有可能在已有(与没有)EMR 诊断的患者中记录听力问题或听力损失/助听器的使用情况(50.6% 对 35.9%,P = 0.01;68.9% 对 37.5%,P 结论:EMR 和助听器诊断中记录听力损失的可能性更大:有主观听力问题的老年人在 EMR 和 AWV 临床记录中对听力损失的记录有限。系统性地支持听力并将其纳入 EMR 和临床记录可提高护理团队对听力损失的关注度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Medicare annual wellness visit: An opportunity to improve health system identification of hearing loss?

Background

Hearing loss is prevalent and consequential but under-diagnosed and managed. The Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV) health risk assessment elicits patient-reported hearing concerns but whether such information affects documentation, diagnosis, or referral is unknown.

Methods

We use 5 years of electronic medical record (EMR) data (2017–2022) for a sample of 13,776 older primary care patients. We identify the first (index) AWV indication of hearing concerns and existing and subsequent hearing loss EMR diagnoses (visit diagnoses or problem list diagnoses) and audiology referrals. For a 20% random sample of AWV notes (n = 474) we compared hearing loss EMR diagnoses to documentation of (1) hearing concerns, (2) hearing loss/aid use, and (3) referrals for hearing care.

Results

Of 3845 (27.9%) older adults who identified hearing concerns (mean age 79.1 years, 57% female, 75% white) 24% had an existing hearing diagnosis recorded. Among 474 patients with AWV clinical notes reviewed, 90 (19%) had an existing hearing loss diagnosis. Clinicians were more likely to document hearing concerns or hearing loss/aid use for those with (vs. without) an existing EMR diagnosis (50.6% vs. 35.9%, p = 0.01; 68.9% vs. 37.5%, p < 0.001, respectively). EMR diagnoses of hearing loss were recorded for no more than 40% of those with indicated hearing concerns. Among those without prior diagnosis 38 (9.9%) received a hearing care referral within 1 month. Subgroup analysis suggest greater likelihood of documenting hearing concerns for patients age 80+ (OR:1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03, 2.19) and decreased likelihood of documenting known hearing loss among patients with more chronic conditions (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.9), with no differences observed by race.

Conclusion

Documentation of hearing loss in EMR and AWV clinical notes is limited among older adults with subjective hearing concerns. Systematic support and incorporation of hearing into EMR and clinical notes may increase hearing loss visibility by care teams.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
6.30%
发文量
504
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) is the go-to journal for clinical aging research. We provide a diverse, interprofessional community of healthcare professionals with the latest insights on geriatrics education, clinical practice, and public policy—all supporting the high-quality, person-centered care essential to our well-being as we age. Since the publication of our first edition in 1953, JAGS has remained one of the oldest and most impactful journals dedicated exclusively to gerontology and geriatrics.
期刊最新文献
Notices Issue Information Cover Issue Information Author Index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1