Risk, outcomes, and cost of emergency center visits in cancer patients

Cancer is a chronic disease that often necessitates recurrent hospitalizations, a costly pattern of medical care utilization. In chronically ill patients, most readmissions are for treatment of the same condition that caused the preceding hospitalization. There is concern that rather than reducing costs, earlier discharge may shift costs from the initial hospitalization to emergency center visits. ^ This is the first descriptive study to measure the incidence of emergency center visits (ECVs) after hospitalization at The University of M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC), to identify the risk factors for and outcomes of these ECVs, and to compare 30-day all-cause mortality and costs for episodes of care with and without ECVs. ^ We identified all hospitalizations at UTMDACC with admission dates from September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1997 which met inclusion criteria. Data were electronically obtained primarily from UTMDACC's institutional database. Demographic factors, clinical factors, duration of the index hospitalization, method of payment for care, and year of hospitalization study were variables determined for each hospitalization. ^ The overall incidence of ECVs was 18%. Forty-five percent of ECVs resulted in hospital readmission (8% of all hospitalizations). In 1% of ECVs the patient died in the emergency center, and for the remaining 54% of ECVs the patient was discharged home. Risk factors for ECVs were marital status, type of index hospitalization, cancer type, and duration of the index hospitalization. The overall 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 8.6% for hospitalizations with an ECV and 5.3% for those without an ECV. In all subgroups, the 30-day all-cause mortality rate was higher for groups with ECVs than for those without ECVs. The most important factor increasing cost was having an ECV. In all patient subgroups, the cost per episode of care with an ECV was at least 1.9 times the cost per episode without an ECV. ^ The higher costs and poorer outcomes of episodes of care with ECVs and hospital readmissions suggest that interventions to avoid these ECVs or mitigate their costs are needed. Further research is needed to improve understanding of the methodological issues involved in relation to health care issues for cancer patients. ^

Planning and implementation efficacy as a determinant of health risk communication outcomes: Case studies of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)

This study was conducted under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Risk Communication and Education of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs (CCEHRP) to determine how Public Health Service (PHS) agencies are communicating information about health risk, what factors contributed to effective communication efforts, and what specific principles, strategies, and practices best promote more effective health risk communication outcomes.^ Member agencies of the Subcommittee submitted examples of health risk communication activities or decisions they perceived to be effective and some examples of cases they thought had not been as effective as desired. Of the 10 case studies received, 7 were submitted as examples of effective health risk communication, and 3, as examples of less effective communication.^ Information contained in the 10 case studies describing the respective agencies' health risk communication strategies and practices was compared with EPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication, since similar rules were not found in any PHS agency. EPA's rules are: (1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. (2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. (3) Listen to the public's specific concerns. (4) Be honest, frank, and open. (5) Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. (6) Meet the needs of the media. (7) Speak clearly and with compassion.^ On the basis of case studies analysis, the Subcommittee, in their attempts to design and implement effective health risk communication campaigns, identified a number of areas for improvement among the agencies. First, PHS agencies should consider developing a focus specific to health risk communication (i.e., office or specialty resource). Second, create a set of generally accepted practices and guidelines for effective implementation and evaluation of PHS health risk communication activities and products. Third, organize interagency initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and visibility of health risk communication issues and trends within and between PHS agencies.^ PHS agencies identified some specific implementation strategies the CCEHRP might consider pursuing to address the major recommendations. Implementation strategies common to PHS agencies emerged in the following five areas: (1) program development, (2) building partnerships, (3) developing training, (4) expanding information technologies, and (5) conducting research and evaluation. ^