Emergency department usage patterns among residents of Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange Counties in southeast Texas

Emergency departments (EDs) have been called the net below the safety net due to their long history of providing care to the uninsured and others lacking access to the healthcare system. In past years, those with Medicaid and, more recently, those with Medicare, are also utilizing the ED as a medical home for routine primary care. There are many reasons for this but the costs to the community have become increasingly burdensome. ^ To evaluate how often the ED is being utilized for primary care, we applied a standardized tool, the New York University Algorithm, to over 43,000 ED visits when no hospitalization was required made by Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange County residents over a 12 month period. We compared our results to Harris County, where studies using the same framework have been performed, and found that sizeable segments of the population in both areas are utilizing the ED for non-emergent primary care that could be treated in a more cost-effective community setting. ^ We also analyzed our dataset for visit-specific characteristics. We found evidence of two possible health care disparities: (1) Blacks had a higher rate of primary care-related ED visits in relation to their percentage of the population when compared to other racial/ethnic groups; and (2) when form of payment is considered, the uninsured were more likely to have a primary care-related ED visit than any other group. These findings suggest a lack of community-based primary care services for the medically needy in Southeast Texas. ^ We believe that studies such as this are warranted elsewhere in Texas as well. We plan to present our findings to local policy makers, who should find this information helpful in identifying gaps in the safety net and assist them in better allocating scarce community resources. ^

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. ^

Survey analysis on dental infection control & occupational safety from India---1999 & 2010

The objective was to study knowledge, attitudes, practice (KAP) and needs regarding infection control measures using two cross-sectional surveys from 1999 and 2010 conducted in India. Both data collection instruments had only about 35 comparable variables in common. In 1999, there were 456 respondents (dentists) who completed a self-administered survey instrument compared to 272 respondents in 2010. Both the 1999 and 2010 samples were mutually independent with no overlap, had regional differences, and therefore, were not completely comparable for changes in KAP over time. While almost all respondents from both surveys felt that education in dental safety was needed and wanted mandatory dental safety curriculum in dental schools, severe inadequacies in dental safety knowledge, protection against immunizable diseases, and practice of universal precaution were noted. Data from the study demonstrated that there is a substantial opportunity to improve the knowledge, attitude and practice of dental infection control and occupational safety in India. Few respondents (27%) reported that the infectious disease status of a patient is always known and a significant number reported that they had the right to refuse care for patients of known infectious disease status. This indicates that Stigma in treating HIV/AIDS patients remains a concern, which in turn suggests that a stronger focus on educating dentists about dental safety and on stigma and infectious disease is needed. Information obtained from this study could be utilized for developing policies oriented towards increasing dental safety educational efforts, in both dental schools as curriculum, and for practicing dentists through professional updates or continuing dental education.^