Evaluation of Recurrence Risks for Left-Sided Cardiac Lesions

It is widely accepted that hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), aortic valve stenosis with or without bicuspid aortic valve (AS/BAV) and coarctation of the aorta (CoA) occur in families more commonly with each other than with any other congenital heart defect (CHD). Genetic counseling for CHDs is currently based on empiric risk estimates derived from data collected on all types of CHDs between 1968 and 1990. Additionally, for the specific group of defects described above, termed left-sided lesions, estimates are available for sibling recurrence. Utilizing family history data from 757 probands recruited between 1997 and 2007 from The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, this study reassessed the pre/recurrence risks for LSLs specifically. Sibling pre/recurrence risks for HLHS (5.5%, 95% CI: 3.1%-8.9%), CoA (4.0%, 95% CI: 2.1%-6.7%), and AS/BAV (6.0%, 95% CI: 3.3%-9.8%) were higher than currently quoted risks based on sibling data for individual LSLs. Additionally, the prevalence of BAV in 202, apparently unaffected, parents of 134 probands was assessed by echocardiography. BAV, which occurs at a frequency of 1% in the general population, was found to occur in approximately 10% of parents of LSL probands. Lastly, among affected first-degree relative pairs (i.e. siblings, parent-offspring), the majority (65%-70%) were both affected with a LSL. Defect specific concordance rates were highest for AS/BAV. Together, these findings suggest that over the past 20 years with changing diagnostic capabilities and environmental/maternal conditions (e.g. folic acid fortification, increased maternal diabetes and obesity) recurrence risks may have increased, as compared to current LSL specific risk estimates. Based on these risk estimate increases and prior studies, a protocol for screening first-degree relatives of LSL probands should be devised.

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^

Improving disclosure of medical errors: Including patients and family members in the disclosure process

Over the last decade, adverse events and medical errors have become a main focus of interest for the standards of quality and safety in the U.S. healthcare system (Weinstein & Henderson, 2009). Particularly when a medical error occurs, the disclosure of medical errors and its practices have become a focal point of the healthcare process. Patients and family members who have experienced a medical error might be able to provide knowledge and insight on how to improve the disclose process. However, patient and family member are not typically involved in the disclosure process, thus their experiences go unnoticed. ^ The purpose of this research was to explore how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process regarding a medical error. The research consisted of 28 qualitative interviews from three stakeholder groups: Hospital Administrators, Clinical Service Providers, and Patients and Family Members. They were asked for their ideas and suggestions on how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process. Framework Analysis was used to analyze this data and find prevalent themes based on the primary research question. A secondary aim was to index categories created based on the interviews that were collected. Data was used from the Texas Disclosure and Compensation Study with Dr. Eric Thomas as the Principal Investigator. Full acknowledgement of access to this data is given to Dr. Thomas. ^ The themes from the research revealed that each stakeholder group was interested and open to including patients and family members in the disclosure process and that the disclosure process should not be a "one-way" avenue. The themes gave many suggestions regarding how to best include patients and family members in the disclosure process of a medical error. Secondary aims revealed several ways to assess the ideas and suggestion given by the stakeholders. Overall, acceptability of getting the perspective of patients and family members was the most common theme. Comparison of each stakeholder group revealed that including patients and family members would be beneficial to improving hospital disclosure practices. ^ Conclusions included a list of recommendations and measureable appropriate strategies that could provide hospital with key stakeholders insights on how to improve their disclosure process. Sharing patients and family members experience with healthcare providers can encourage a shift in culture where patients are valued and active in participating in hospital practices. To my knowledge, this research is the very first of its kind and moves the disclosure process conversation forward in a patient-family member inclusion direction that will assist in improving disclosure practices. Future research should implement and evaluate the success of the various inclusion strategies.^

Population-level risks of physical activity: Saving bones and screening hearts

Documented risks of physical activity include reduced bone mineral density at high activity volume, and sudden cardiac death among adults and adolescents. Further illumination of these risks is needed to inform future public health guidelines. The present research seeks to 1) quantify the association between physical activity and bone mineral density (BMD) across a broad range of activity volume, 2) assess the utility of an existing pre-screening questionnaire among US adults, and 3) determine if pre-screening risk stratification by questionnaire predicts referral to physician among Texas adolescents. ^ Among 9,468 adults 20 years of age or older in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2010, linear regression analyses revealed generally higher BMD at the lumbar spine and proximal femur with greater reported activity volume. Only lumbar BMD in women was unassociated with activity volume. Among men, BMD was similar at activity beyond four times the minimum volume recommended in the Physical Activity Guidelines. These results suggest that the range of activity reported by US adults is not associated with low BMD at either site. ^ The American Heart Association / American College of Sports Medicine Preparticipation Questionnaire (AAPQ) was applied to 6,661 adults 40 years of age or older from NHANES 2001-2004 by using NHANES responses to complete AAPQ items. Following AAPQ referral criteria, 95.5% of women and 93.5% of men would be referred to a physician before exercise initiation, suggesting little utility for the AAPQ among adults aged 40 years or older. Unnecessary referral before exercise initiation may present a barrier to exercise adoption and may strain an already stressed healthcare infrastructure. ^ Among 3181 athletes in the Texas Adolescent Athlete Heart Screening Registry, 55.2% of boys and 62.2% of girls were classified as high-risk based on questionnaire answers. Using sex-stratified contingency table analyses, risk categories were not significantly associated with referral to physician based on electrocardiogram or echocardiogram, nor were they associated with confirmed diagnoses on follow-up. Additional research is needed to identify which symptoms are most closely related to sudden cardiac death, and determine the best methods for rapid and reliable assessment. ^ In conclusion, this research suggests that the volume of activity reported by US adults is not associated with low BMD at two clinically relevant sites, casts doubts on the utility of two existing cardiac screening tools, and raises concern about barriers to activity erected through ineffective screening. These findings augment existing research in this area that may inform revisions to the Physical Activity Guidelines regarding risk mitigation.^