Ambulatory care adverse events and preventable adverse events leading to a hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: Most healthcare in the US is delivered in the ambulatory care setting, but the epidemiology of errors and adverse events in ambulatory care is understudied. METHODS: Using the population-based data from the Colorado and Utah Medical Practices Study, we identified adverse events that occurred in an ambulatory care setting and led to hospital admission. Proportions with 95% CIs are reported. RESULTS: We reviewed 14,700-hospital discharge records and found 587 adverse events of which 70 were ambulatory care adverse events (AAEs) and 31 were ambulatory care preventable adverse events (APAEs). When weighted to the general population, there were 2608 AAEs and 1296 (44.3%) APAEs in Colorado and Utah, USA, in 1992. APAEs occurred most commonly in physicians' offices (43.1%, range 46.8-27.8), the emergency department (32.3%, 46.1-18.5) and at home (13.1%, 23.1-3.1). APAEs in day surgery were less common (7.1%, 13.6-0.6) but caused the greatest harm to patients. The types of APAEs were broadly distributed among missed or delayed diagnoses (36%, 50.2-21.8), surgery (24.1%, 36.7-11.5), non-surgical procedures (14.6%, 25.0-4.2), medication (13.1%, 23.1-3.1) and therapeutic events (12.3%, 22.0-2.6). Overall, 10% of the APAEs resulted in serious permanent injury or death. The proportion of APAEs that resulted in death was 31.8% for general internal medicine, 22.5% for family practice and 16.7% for emergency medicine. CONCLUSION: An estimated 75,000 hospitalisations per year are due to preventable adverse events that occur in outpatient settings in the US, resulting in 4839 serious permanent injuries and 2587 deaths.

Birth prevalence of isolated congenital limb reduction defects in Texas 1999--2001

Objective. Congenital limb defects are common birth defects occurring in approximately 2-7/10,000 live births. Because congenital limb defects are pervasive throughout all populations, and the conditions profoundly affect quality of life, they represent a significant public health concern. Currently there is a paucity of etiologic information in the literature regarding congenital limb reduction defects which represents a major limitation in developing treatment strategies as well as identifying high risk pregnancies. ^ Additionally, despite the fact that the majority of congenital limb reduction defects are isolated, most previous studies have not separated them from those occurring as part of a known syndrome or with multiple additional congenital anomalies of unknown etiology. It stands to reason that factors responsible for multiple congenital anomalies that happen to include congenital limb reduction defects may be quite different from those factors leading to an isolated congenital limb reduction defect. ^ As a first step toward gaining etiologic understanding, this cross-sectional study was undertaken to determine the birth prevalence and obtain demographic information about non-syndromic (isolated) congenital limb reduction defects that occurred in Texas from 1999-2001. ^ Methods. The study population included all infants/fetuses with isolated congenital limb reduction defects born in Texas during 1999-2001; the comparison population was all infants who were born to mothers who were residents of Texas during the same period of time. The overall birth prevalence of limb reduction defects was determined and adjusted for ethnicity, gender, site of defect (upper limb versus lower limb), county of residence, maternal age and maternal education. ^ Results. In Texas, the overall birth prevalence of isolated CLRDs was 2.1/10,000 live births (1.5 and 0.6/10,000 live births for upper limb and lower limb, respectively). ^ The risk of isolated lower limb CLRDs in Texas was significantly lower in females when gender was examined individually (crude prevalence odds ratio of 0.57, 95% CI of 0.36-0.91) as well as in relation to all other variables used in the analysis (adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.58, 95% CI of 0.36-0.93). ^ Harris County (which includes the Houston metropolitan area) had significantly lower risks of all (upper limb and lower limb combined) isolated CLRDs when examined in relation to other counties in Texas, with a crude prevalence odds ratio of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.29-0.72) and an adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.31-0.80). The risk of isolated upper limb CLRDs was significantly lower in Harris County (crude prevalence odds ratio of 0.45, CI of 0.26-0.76 and adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.49, CI of 0.28-0.84). This trend toward decreased risk in Harris County was not observed for isolated lower limb reduction defects (adjusted prevalence odds ratio of 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.22-1.12). ^ Conclusions. The birth prevalence of isolated congenital limb reduction defects in Texas is in the lower limits of the range of rates that have been reported by other authors for other states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington) and other countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, England, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Spain, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and Venezuela). In Texas, the birth prevalence of isolated congenital lower limb reduction defects was greater for males than females, while the birth prevalence of isolated congenital upper limb reduction defects was not significantly different between males and females. The reduced rates of limb reduction defects in Harris County warrant further investigation. This study has provided an important first step toward gaining etiologic understanding in the study of isolated congenital limb reduction defects. ^

Patenting genes and gene sequences: Analysis of public health implications and the law

At issue is whether or not isolated DNA is patent eligible under the U.S. Patent Law and the implications of that determination on public health. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued patents on DNA since the 1980s, and scientists and researchers have proceeded under that milieu since that time. Today, genetic research and testing related to the human breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is conducted within the framework of seven patents that were issued to Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation between 1997 and 2000. In 2009, suit was filed on behalf of multiple researchers, professional associations and others to invalidate fifteen of the claims underlying those patents. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears patent cases, has invalidated claims for analyzing and comparing isolated DNA but has upheld claims to isolated DNA. The specific issue of whether isolated DNA is patent eligible is now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide the case by year's end. In this work, a systematic review was performed to determine the effects of DNA patents on various stakeholders and, ultimately, on public health; and to provide a legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and the likely outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. ^ A literature review was conducted to: first, identify principle stakeholders with an interest in patent eligibility of the isolated DNA sequences BRCA1 and BRCA2; and second, determine the effect of the case on those stakeholders. Published reports that addressed gene patents, the Myriad litigation, and implications of gene patents on stakeholders were included. Next, an in-depth legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and methods for analyzing it was performed pursuant to accepted methods of legal research and analysis based on legal briefs, federal law and jurisprudence, scholarly works and standard practice legal analysis. ^ Biotechnology, biomedical and clinical research, access to health care, and personalized medicine were identified as the principle stakeholders and interests herein. Many experts believe that the patent eligibility of isolated DNA will not greatly affect the biotechnology industry insofar as genetic testing is concerned; unlike for therapeutics, genetic testing does not require tremendous resources or lead time. The actual impact on biomedical researchers is uncertain, with greater impact expected for researchers whose work is intended for commercial purposes (versus basic science). The impact on access to health care has been surprisingly difficult to assess; while invalidating gene patents might be expected to decrease the cost of genetic testing and improve access to more laboratories and physicians' offices that provide the test, a 2010 study on the actual impact was inconclusive. As for personalized medicine, many experts believe that the availability of personalized medicine is ultimately a public policy issue for Congress, not the courts. ^ Based on the legal analysis performed in this work, this writer believes the Supreme Court is likely to invalidate patents on isolated DNA whose sequences are found in nature, because these gene sequences are a basic tool of scientific and technologic work and patents on isolated DNA would unduly inhibit their future use. Patents on complementary DNA (cDNA) are expected to stand, however, based on the human intervention required to craft cDNA and the product's distinction from the DNA found in nature. ^ In the end, the solution as to how to address gene patents may lie not in jurisprudence but in a fundamental change in business practices to provide expanded licenses to better address the interests of the several stakeholders. ^