Health Policy

The Institute of Medicine brought much-needed attention to the need for process improvement in medicine with its seminal report To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, which was issued in 1999, leading to the quality movement’s call to close health care performance gaps in Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.^1,2 Quality improvement science in medicine has evolved over the past 2 decades to include a broad spectrum of approaches, from agile improvement to continuous learning and improvement. Current efforts focus on Lean-based process improvement along with a reduction in variation in clinical practice to align practice with the principles of evidence-based medicine in a patient-centered approach.³ Further, the definition of quality improvement under the Affordable Care Act was framed as an equitable, timely, value-based, patient-centered approach to achieving population-level health goals.⁴ Thus, the science of quality improvement drives the core principles of care delivery improvement, and the rigorous evidence needed to expand innovation is embedded within the same framework.^5,6 In clinical practice, quality improvement projects aim to define gaps and then specific steps are undertaken to improve the evidence-based practice of a specific process. The overarching goal is to enhance the efficacy of the practice by reducing waste within a particular domain. Thus, quality improvement and implementation research eventually unify how clinical practice is advanced concurrently to bridge identified gaps.⁷

System redesign through a patient-centered framework forms the core of an overarching strategy to support system-level processes. Both require a deep understanding of the fields of quality improvement science and implementation science.⁸ Furthermore, aligning clinical research needs, system aims, patients’ values, and clinical care give the new design a clear path forward. Patient-centered improvement includes the essential elements of system redesign around human factors, including communication, physical resources, and updated information during episodes of care. The patient-centered improvement design is juxtaposed with care planning and establishing continuum of care processes.⁹ It is essential to note that safety is rooted within the quality domain as a top priority in medicine.¹⁰ The best implementation methods and approaches are discussed and debated, and the improvement progress continues on multiple fronts.¹¹ Patient safety systems are implemented simultaneously during the redesign phase. Moreover, identifying and testing the health care delivery methods in the era of competing strategic priorities to achieve the desirable clinical outcomes highlights the importance of implementation, while contemplating the methods of dissemination, scalability, and sustainability of the best evidence-based clinical practice.

The cycle of quality improvement research completes the system implementation efforts. The conceptual framework of quality improvement includes multiple areas of care and transition, along with applying the best clinical practices in a culture that emphasizes continuous improvement and learning. At the same time, the operating principles should include continuous improvement in a simple and continuous system of learning as a core concept. Our proposed implementation approach involves taking simple and practical steps while separating the process from the outcomes measures, extracting effectiveness throughout the process. It is essential to keep in mind that building a proactive and systematic improvement environment requires a framework for safety, reliability, and effective care, as well as the alignment of the physical system, communication, and professional environment and culture (Figure).

In summary, system design for quality improvement research should incorporate the principles and conceptual framework that embody effective implementation strategies, with a focus on operational and practical steps. Continuous improvement will be reached through the multidimensional development of current health care system metrics and the incorporation of implementation science methods.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

The Institute of Medicine brought much-needed attention to the need for process improvement in medicine with its seminal report To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, which was issued in 1999, leading to the quality movement’s call to close health care performance gaps in Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.^1,2 Quality improvement science in medicine has evolved over the past 2 decades to include a broad spectrum of approaches, from agile improvement to continuous learning and improvement. Current efforts focus on Lean-based process improvement along with a reduction in variation in clinical practice to align practice with the principles of evidence-based medicine in a patient-centered approach.³ Further, the definition of quality improvement under the Affordable Care Act was framed as an equitable, timely, value-based, patient-centered approach to achieving population-level health goals.⁴ Thus, the science of quality improvement drives the core principles of care delivery improvement, and the rigorous evidence needed to expand innovation is embedded within the same framework.^5,6 In clinical practice, quality improvement projects aim to define gaps and then specific steps are undertaken to improve the evidence-based practice of a specific process. The overarching goal is to enhance the efficacy of the practice by reducing waste within a particular domain. Thus, quality improvement and implementation research eventually unify how clinical practice is advanced concurrently to bridge identified gaps.⁷

System redesign through a patient-centered framework forms the core of an overarching strategy to support system-level processes. Both require a deep understanding of the fields of quality improvement science and implementation science.⁸ Furthermore, aligning clinical research needs, system aims, patients’ values, and clinical care give the new design a clear path forward. Patient-centered improvement includes the essential elements of system redesign around human factors, including communication, physical resources, and updated information during episodes of care. The patient-centered improvement design is juxtaposed with care planning and establishing continuum of care processes.⁹ It is essential to note that safety is rooted within the quality domain as a top priority in medicine.¹⁰ The best implementation methods and approaches are discussed and debated, and the improvement progress continues on multiple fronts.¹¹ Patient safety systems are implemented simultaneously during the redesign phase. Moreover, identifying and testing the health care delivery methods in the era of competing strategic priorities to achieve the desirable clinical outcomes highlights the importance of implementation, while contemplating the methods of dissemination, scalability, and sustainability of the best evidence-based clinical practice.

The cycle of quality improvement research completes the system implementation efforts. The conceptual framework of quality improvement includes multiple areas of care and transition, along with applying the best clinical practices in a culture that emphasizes continuous improvement and learning. At the same time, the operating principles should include continuous improvement in a simple and continuous system of learning as a core concept. Our proposed implementation approach involves taking simple and practical steps while separating the process from the outcomes measures, extracting effectiveness throughout the process. It is essential to keep in mind that building a proactive and systematic improvement environment requires a framework for safety, reliability, and effective care, as well as the alignment of the physical system, communication, and professional environment and culture (Figure).

In summary, system design for quality improvement research should incorporate the principles and conceptual framework that embody effective implementation strategies, with a focus on operational and practical steps. Continuous improvement will be reached through the multidimensional development of current health care system metrics and the incorporation of implementation science methods.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

The Institute of Medicine brought much-needed attention to the need for process improvement in medicine with its seminal report To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, which was issued in 1999, leading to the quality movement’s call to close health care performance gaps in Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.^1,2 Quality improvement science in medicine has evolved over the past 2 decades to include a broad spectrum of approaches, from agile improvement to continuous learning and improvement. Current efforts focus on Lean-based process improvement along with a reduction in variation in clinical practice to align practice with the principles of evidence-based medicine in a patient-centered approach.³ Further, the definition of quality improvement under the Affordable Care Act was framed as an equitable, timely, value-based, patient-centered approach to achieving population-level health goals.⁴ Thus, the science of quality improvement drives the core principles of care delivery improvement, and the rigorous evidence needed to expand innovation is embedded within the same framework.^5,6 In clinical practice, quality improvement projects aim to define gaps and then specific steps are undertaken to improve the evidence-based practice of a specific process. The overarching goal is to enhance the efficacy of the practice by reducing waste within a particular domain. Thus, quality improvement and implementation research eventually unify how clinical practice is advanced concurrently to bridge identified gaps.⁷

System redesign through a patient-centered framework forms the core of an overarching strategy to support system-level processes. Both require a deep understanding of the fields of quality improvement science and implementation science.⁸ Furthermore, aligning clinical research needs, system aims, patients’ values, and clinical care give the new design a clear path forward. Patient-centered improvement includes the essential elements of system redesign around human factors, including communication, physical resources, and updated information during episodes of care. The patient-centered improvement design is juxtaposed with care planning and establishing continuum of care processes.⁹ It is essential to note that safety is rooted within the quality domain as a top priority in medicine.¹⁰ The best implementation methods and approaches are discussed and debated, and the improvement progress continues on multiple fronts.¹¹ Patient safety systems are implemented simultaneously during the redesign phase. Moreover, identifying and testing the health care delivery methods in the era of competing strategic priorities to achieve the desirable clinical outcomes highlights the importance of implementation, while contemplating the methods of dissemination, scalability, and sustainability of the best evidence-based clinical practice.

The cycle of quality improvement research completes the system implementation efforts. The conceptual framework of quality improvement includes multiple areas of care and transition, along with applying the best clinical practices in a culture that emphasizes continuous improvement and learning. At the same time, the operating principles should include continuous improvement in a simple and continuous system of learning as a core concept. Our proposed implementation approach involves taking simple and practical steps while separating the process from the outcomes measures, extracting effectiveness throughout the process. It is essential to keep in mind that building a proactive and systematic improvement environment requires a framework for safety, reliability, and effective care, as well as the alignment of the physical system, communication, and professional environment and culture (Figure).

In summary, system design for quality improvement research should incorporate the principles and conceptual framework that embody effective implementation strategies, with a focus on operational and practical steps. Continuous improvement will be reached through the multidimensional development of current health care system metrics and the incorporation of implementation science methods.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

Study 1 Overview (Bhasin et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a multifactorial intervention for fall prevention on fall injury in community-dwelling older adults.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 86 primary care practices across 10 health care systems.

Setting and participants: The primary care sites were selected based on the prespecified criteria of size, ability to implement the intervention, proximity to other practices, accessibility to electronic health records, and access to community-based exercise programs. The primary care practices were randomly assigned to intervention or control.

Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 70 years or older, dwelling in the community, and having an increased risk of falls, as determined by a history of fall-related injury in the past year, 2 or more falls in the past year, or being afraid of falling because of problems with balance or walking. Exclusion criteria were inability to provide consent or lack of proxy consent for participants who were determined to have cognitive impairment based on screening, and inability to speak English or Spanish. A total of 2802 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 2649 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: a standardized assessment of 7 modifiable risk factors for fall injuries; standardized protocol-driven recommendations for management of risk factors; an individualized care plan focused on 1 to 3 risk factors; implementation of care plans, including referrals to community-based programs; and follow-up care conducted by telephone or in person. The modifiable risk factors included impairment of strength, gait, or balance; use of medications related to falls; postural hypotension; problems with feet or footwear; visual impairment; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and home safety hazards. The intervention was delivered by nurses who had completed online training modules and face-to-face training sessions focused on the intervention and motivational interviewing along with continuing education, in partnership with participants and their primary care providers. In the control group, participants received enhanced usual care, including an informational pamphlet, and were encouraged to discuss fall prevention with their primary care provider, including the results of their screening evaluation.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the first serious fall injury in a time-to-event analysis, defined as a fall resulting in a fracture (other than thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, cut requiring closure, head injury requiring hospitalization, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury. The secondary outcome was first patient-reported fall injury, also in a time-to-event analysis, ascertained by telephone interviews conducted every 4 months. Other outcomes included hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and other health care utilization. Adjudication of fall events and injuries was conducted by a team blinded to treatment assignment and verified using administrative claims data, encounter data, or electronic health record review.

Main results: The intervention and control groups were similar in terms of sex and age: 62.5% vs 61.5% of participants were women, and mean (SD) age was 79.9 (5.7) years and 79.5 (5.8) years, respectively. Other demographic characteristics were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, the rate of first serious injury was 4.9 per 100 person-years in the intervention group and 5.3 per 100 person-years in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80-1.06; P = .25). For the secondary outcome of patient-reported fall injury, there were 25.6 events per 100 person-years in the intervention group and 28.6 in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P =0.004). Rates of hospitalization and other secondary outcomes were similar between groups.

Conclusion: The multifactorial STRIDE intervention did not reduce the rate of serious fall injury when compared to enhanced usual care. The intervention did result in lower rates of fall injury by patient report, but no other significant outcomes were seen.

Study 2 Overview (Stark et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a behavioral home hazard removal intervention for fall prevention on risk of fall in community-dwelling older adults.

Design: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single site in St. Louis, Missouri. Participants were community-dwelling older adults who received services from the Area Agency on Aging (AAA). Inclusion criteria included age 65 years and older, having 1 or more falls in the previous 12 months or being worried about falling by self report, and currently receiving services from an AAA. Exclusion criteria included living in an institution or being severely cognitively impaired and unable to follow directions or report falls. Participants who met the criteria were contacted by phone and invited to participate. A total of 310 participants were enrolled in the study, with an equal number of participants assigned to the intervention and control groups.

Intervention: The intervention included hazard identification and removal after a comprehensive assessment of participants, their behaviors, and the environment; this assessment took place during the first visit, which lasted approximately 80 minutes. A home hazard removal plan was developed, and in the second session, which lasted approximately 40 minutes, remediation of hazards was carried out. A third session for home modification that lasted approximately 30 minutes was conducted, if needed. At 6 months after the intervention, a booster session to identify and remediate any new home hazards and address issues was conducted. Specific interventions, as identified by the assessment, included minor home repair such as grab bars, adaptive equipment, task modification, and education. Shared decision making that enabled older adults to control changes in their homes, self-management strategies to improve awareness, and motivational enhancement strategies to improve acceptance were employed. Scripted algorithms and checklists were used to deliver the intervention. For usual care, an annual assessment and referrals to community services, if needed, were conducted in the AAA.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the number of days to first fall in 12 months. Falls were defined as unintentional movements to the floor, ground, or object below knee level, and falls were recorded through a daily journal for 12 months. Participants were contacted by phone if they did not return the journal or reported a fall. Participants were interviewed to verify falls and determine whether a fall was injurious. Secondary outcomes included rate of falls per person per 12 months; daily activity performance measured using the Older Americans Resources and Services Activities of Daily Living scale; falls self-efficacy, which measures confidence performing daily activities without falling; and quality of life using the SF-36 at 12 months.

Main results: Most of the study participants were women (74%), and mean (SD) age was 75 (7.4) years. Study retention was similar between the intervention and control groups, with 82% completing the study in the intervention group compared with 81% in the control group. Fidelity to the intervention, as measured by a checklist by the interventionist, was 99%, and adherence to home modification, as measured by number of home modifications in use by self report, was high at 92% at 6 months and 91% at 12 months. For the primary outcome, fall hazard was not different between the intervention and control groups (hazard ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.66-1.27). For the secondary outcomes, the rate of falling was lower in the intervention group compared with the control group, with a relative risk of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.40-0.95). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes of daily activity performance, falls self-efficacy, or quality of life.

Conclusion: Despite high adherence to home modifications and fidelity to the intervention, this home hazard removal program did not reduce the risk of falling when compared to usual care. It did reduce the rate of falls, although no other effects were observed.

Commentary

Observational studies have identified factors that contribute to falls,¹ and over the past 30 years a number of intervention trials designed to reduce the risk of falling have been conducted. A recent Cochrane review, published prior to the Bhasin et al and Stark et al trials, looked at the effect of multifactorial interventions for fall prevention across 62 trials that included 19,935 older adults living in the community. The review concluded that multifactorial interventions may reduce the rate of falls, but this conclusion was based on low-quality evidence and there was significant heterogeneity across the studies.²

The STRIDE randomized trial represents the latest effort to address the evidence gap around fall prevention, with the STRIDE investigators hoping this would be the definitive trial that leads to practice change in fall prevention. Smaller trials that have demonstrated effectiveness were brought to scale in this large randomized trial that included 86 practices and more than 5000 participants. The investigators used risk of injurious falls as the primary outcome, as this outcome is considered the most clinically meaningful for the study population. The results, however, were disappointing: the multifactorial intervention in STRIDE did not result in a reduction of risk of injurious falls. Challenges in the implementation of this large trial may have contributed to its results; falls care managers, key to this multifactorial intervention, reported difficulties in navigating complex relationships with patients, families, study staff, and primary care practices during the study. Barriers reported included clinical space limitations, variable buy-in from providers, and turnover of practice staff and providers.³ Such implementation factors may have resulted in the divergent results between smaller clinical trials and this large-scale trial conducted across multiple settings.

The second study, by Stark et al, examined a home modification program and its effect on risk of falls. A prior Cochrane review examining the effect of home safety assessment and modification indicates that these strategies are effective in reducing the rate of falls as well as the risk of falling.⁴ The results of the current trial showed a reduction in the rate of falls but not in the risk of falling; however, this study did not examine outcomes of serious injurious falls, which may be more clinically meaningful. The Stark et al study adds to the existing literature showing that home modification may have an impact on fall rates. One noteworthy aspect of the Stark et al trial is the high adherence rate to home modification in a community-based approach; perhaps the investigators’ approach can be translated to real-world use.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The role of exercise programs in reducing fall rates is well established,⁵ but neither of these studies focused on exercise interventions. STRIDE offered community-based exercise program referral, but there is variability in such programs and study staff reported challenges in matching participants with appropriate exercise programs.³ Further studies that examine combinations of multifactorial falls risk reduction, exercise, and home safety, with careful consideration of implementation challenges to assure fidelity and adherence to the intervention, are needed to ascertain the best strategy for fall prevention for older adults at risk.

Given the results of these trials, it is difficult to recommend one falls prevention intervention over another. Clinicians should continue to identify falls risk factors using standardized assessments and determine which factors are modifiable.

Practice Points

• Incorporating assessments of falls risk in primary care is feasible, and such assessments can identify important risk factors.
• Clinicians and health systems should identify avenues, such as developing programmatic approaches, to providing home safety assessment and intervention, exercise options, medication review, and modification of other risk factors.
• Ensuring delivery of these elements reliably through programmatic approaches with adequate follow-up is key to preventing falls in this population.

—William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Bhasin et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a multifactorial intervention for fall prevention on fall injury in community-dwelling older adults.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 86 primary care practices across 10 health care systems.

Setting and participants: The primary care sites were selected based on the prespecified criteria of size, ability to implement the intervention, proximity to other practices, accessibility to electronic health records, and access to community-based exercise programs. The primary care practices were randomly assigned to intervention or control.

Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 70 years or older, dwelling in the community, and having an increased risk of falls, as determined by a history of fall-related injury in the past year, 2 or more falls in the past year, or being afraid of falling because of problems with balance or walking. Exclusion criteria were inability to provide consent or lack of proxy consent for participants who were determined to have cognitive impairment based on screening, and inability to speak English or Spanish. A total of 2802 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 2649 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: a standardized assessment of 7 modifiable risk factors for fall injuries; standardized protocol-driven recommendations for management of risk factors; an individualized care plan focused on 1 to 3 risk factors; implementation of care plans, including referrals to community-based programs; and follow-up care conducted by telephone or in person. The modifiable risk factors included impairment of strength, gait, or balance; use of medications related to falls; postural hypotension; problems with feet or footwear; visual impairment; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and home safety hazards. The intervention was delivered by nurses who had completed online training modules and face-to-face training sessions focused on the intervention and motivational interviewing along with continuing education, in partnership with participants and their primary care providers. In the control group, participants received enhanced usual care, including an informational pamphlet, and were encouraged to discuss fall prevention with their primary care provider, including the results of their screening evaluation.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the first serious fall injury in a time-to-event analysis, defined as a fall resulting in a fracture (other than thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, cut requiring closure, head injury requiring hospitalization, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury. The secondary outcome was first patient-reported fall injury, also in a time-to-event analysis, ascertained by telephone interviews conducted every 4 months. Other outcomes included hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and other health care utilization. Adjudication of fall events and injuries was conducted by a team blinded to treatment assignment and verified using administrative claims data, encounter data, or electronic health record review.

Main results: The intervention and control groups were similar in terms of sex and age: 62.5% vs 61.5% of participants were women, and mean (SD) age was 79.9 (5.7) years and 79.5 (5.8) years, respectively. Other demographic characteristics were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, the rate of first serious injury was 4.9 per 100 person-years in the intervention group and 5.3 per 100 person-years in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80-1.06; P = .25). For the secondary outcome of patient-reported fall injury, there were 25.6 events per 100 person-years in the intervention group and 28.6 in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P =0.004). Rates of hospitalization and other secondary outcomes were similar between groups.

Conclusion: The multifactorial STRIDE intervention did not reduce the rate of serious fall injury when compared to enhanced usual care. The intervention did result in lower rates of fall injury by patient report, but no other significant outcomes were seen.

Study 2 Overview (Stark et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a behavioral home hazard removal intervention for fall prevention on risk of fall in community-dwelling older adults.

Design: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single site in St. Louis, Missouri. Participants were community-dwelling older adults who received services from the Area Agency on Aging (AAA). Inclusion criteria included age 65 years and older, having 1 or more falls in the previous 12 months or being worried about falling by self report, and currently receiving services from an AAA. Exclusion criteria included living in an institution or being severely cognitively impaired and unable to follow directions or report falls. Participants who met the criteria were contacted by phone and invited to participate. A total of 310 participants were enrolled in the study, with an equal number of participants assigned to the intervention and control groups.

Intervention: The intervention included hazard identification and removal after a comprehensive assessment of participants, their behaviors, and the environment; this assessment took place during the first visit, which lasted approximately 80 minutes. A home hazard removal plan was developed, and in the second session, which lasted approximately 40 minutes, remediation of hazards was carried out. A third session for home modification that lasted approximately 30 minutes was conducted, if needed. At 6 months after the intervention, a booster session to identify and remediate any new home hazards and address issues was conducted. Specific interventions, as identified by the assessment, included minor home repair such as grab bars, adaptive equipment, task modification, and education. Shared decision making that enabled older adults to control changes in their homes, self-management strategies to improve awareness, and motivational enhancement strategies to improve acceptance were employed. Scripted algorithms and checklists were used to deliver the intervention. For usual care, an annual assessment and referrals to community services, if needed, were conducted in the AAA.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the number of days to first fall in 12 months. Falls were defined as unintentional movements to the floor, ground, or object below knee level, and falls were recorded through a daily journal for 12 months. Participants were contacted by phone if they did not return the journal or reported a fall. Participants were interviewed to verify falls and determine whether a fall was injurious. Secondary outcomes included rate of falls per person per 12 months; daily activity performance measured using the Older Americans Resources and Services Activities of Daily Living scale; falls self-efficacy, which measures confidence performing daily activities without falling; and quality of life using the SF-36 at 12 months.

Main results: Most of the study participants were women (74%), and mean (SD) age was 75 (7.4) years. Study retention was similar between the intervention and control groups, with 82% completing the study in the intervention group compared with 81% in the control group. Fidelity to the intervention, as measured by a checklist by the interventionist, was 99%, and adherence to home modification, as measured by number of home modifications in use by self report, was high at 92% at 6 months and 91% at 12 months. For the primary outcome, fall hazard was not different between the intervention and control groups (hazard ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.66-1.27). For the secondary outcomes, the rate of falling was lower in the intervention group compared with the control group, with a relative risk of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.40-0.95). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes of daily activity performance, falls self-efficacy, or quality of life.

Conclusion: Despite high adherence to home modifications and fidelity to the intervention, this home hazard removal program did not reduce the risk of falling when compared to usual care. It did reduce the rate of falls, although no other effects were observed.

Commentary

Observational studies have identified factors that contribute to falls,¹ and over the past 30 years a number of intervention trials designed to reduce the risk of falling have been conducted. A recent Cochrane review, published prior to the Bhasin et al and Stark et al trials, looked at the effect of multifactorial interventions for fall prevention across 62 trials that included 19,935 older adults living in the community. The review concluded that multifactorial interventions may reduce the rate of falls, but this conclusion was based on low-quality evidence and there was significant heterogeneity across the studies.²

The STRIDE randomized trial represents the latest effort to address the evidence gap around fall prevention, with the STRIDE investigators hoping this would be the definitive trial that leads to practice change in fall prevention. Smaller trials that have demonstrated effectiveness were brought to scale in this large randomized trial that included 86 practices and more than 5000 participants. The investigators used risk of injurious falls as the primary outcome, as this outcome is considered the most clinically meaningful for the study population. The results, however, were disappointing: the multifactorial intervention in STRIDE did not result in a reduction of risk of injurious falls. Challenges in the implementation of this large trial may have contributed to its results; falls care managers, key to this multifactorial intervention, reported difficulties in navigating complex relationships with patients, families, study staff, and primary care practices during the study. Barriers reported included clinical space limitations, variable buy-in from providers, and turnover of practice staff and providers.³ Such implementation factors may have resulted in the divergent results between smaller clinical trials and this large-scale trial conducted across multiple settings.

The second study, by Stark et al, examined a home modification program and its effect on risk of falls. A prior Cochrane review examining the effect of home safety assessment and modification indicates that these strategies are effective in reducing the rate of falls as well as the risk of falling.⁴ The results of the current trial showed a reduction in the rate of falls but not in the risk of falling; however, this study did not examine outcomes of serious injurious falls, which may be more clinically meaningful. The Stark et al study adds to the existing literature showing that home modification may have an impact on fall rates. One noteworthy aspect of the Stark et al trial is the high adherence rate to home modification in a community-based approach; perhaps the investigators’ approach can be translated to real-world use.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The role of exercise programs in reducing fall rates is well established,⁵ but neither of these studies focused on exercise interventions. STRIDE offered community-based exercise program referral, but there is variability in such programs and study staff reported challenges in matching participants with appropriate exercise programs.³ Further studies that examine combinations of multifactorial falls risk reduction, exercise, and home safety, with careful consideration of implementation challenges to assure fidelity and adherence to the intervention, are needed to ascertain the best strategy for fall prevention for older adults at risk.

Given the results of these trials, it is difficult to recommend one falls prevention intervention over another. Clinicians should continue to identify falls risk factors using standardized assessments and determine which factors are modifiable.

Practice Points

• Incorporating assessments of falls risk in primary care is feasible, and such assessments can identify important risk factors.
• Clinicians and health systems should identify avenues, such as developing programmatic approaches, to providing home safety assessment and intervention, exercise options, medication review, and modification of other risk factors.
• Ensuring delivery of these elements reliably through programmatic approaches with adequate follow-up is key to preventing falls in this population.

—William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Bhasin et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a multifactorial intervention for fall prevention on fall injury in community-dwelling older adults.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 86 primary care practices across 10 health care systems.

Setting and participants: The primary care sites were selected based on the prespecified criteria of size, ability to implement the intervention, proximity to other practices, accessibility to electronic health records, and access to community-based exercise programs. The primary care practices were randomly assigned to intervention or control.

Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 70 years or older, dwelling in the community, and having an increased risk of falls, as determined by a history of fall-related injury in the past year, 2 or more falls in the past year, or being afraid of falling because of problems with balance or walking. Exclusion criteria were inability to provide consent or lack of proxy consent for participants who were determined to have cognitive impairment based on screening, and inability to speak English or Spanish. A total of 2802 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 2649 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: a standardized assessment of 7 modifiable risk factors for fall injuries; standardized protocol-driven recommendations for management of risk factors; an individualized care plan focused on 1 to 3 risk factors; implementation of care plans, including referrals to community-based programs; and follow-up care conducted by telephone or in person. The modifiable risk factors included impairment of strength, gait, or balance; use of medications related to falls; postural hypotension; problems with feet or footwear; visual impairment; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and home safety hazards. The intervention was delivered by nurses who had completed online training modules and face-to-face training sessions focused on the intervention and motivational interviewing along with continuing education, in partnership with participants and their primary care providers. In the control group, participants received enhanced usual care, including an informational pamphlet, and were encouraged to discuss fall prevention with their primary care provider, including the results of their screening evaluation.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the first serious fall injury in a time-to-event analysis, defined as a fall resulting in a fracture (other than thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, cut requiring closure, head injury requiring hospitalization, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury. The secondary outcome was first patient-reported fall injury, also in a time-to-event analysis, ascertained by telephone interviews conducted every 4 months. Other outcomes included hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and other health care utilization. Adjudication of fall events and injuries was conducted by a team blinded to treatment assignment and verified using administrative claims data, encounter data, or electronic health record review.

Main results: The intervention and control groups were similar in terms of sex and age: 62.5% vs 61.5% of participants were women, and mean (SD) age was 79.9 (5.7) years and 79.5 (5.8) years, respectively. Other demographic characteristics were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, the rate of first serious injury was 4.9 per 100 person-years in the intervention group and 5.3 per 100 person-years in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80-1.06; P = .25). For the secondary outcome of patient-reported fall injury, there were 25.6 events per 100 person-years in the intervention group and 28.6 in the control group, with a hazard ratio of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P =0.004). Rates of hospitalization and other secondary outcomes were similar between groups.

Conclusion: The multifactorial STRIDE intervention did not reduce the rate of serious fall injury when compared to enhanced usual care. The intervention did result in lower rates of fall injury by patient report, but no other significant outcomes were seen.

Study 2 Overview (Stark et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a behavioral home hazard removal intervention for fall prevention on risk of fall in community-dwelling older adults.

Design: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single site in St. Louis, Missouri. Participants were community-dwelling older adults who received services from the Area Agency on Aging (AAA). Inclusion criteria included age 65 years and older, having 1 or more falls in the previous 12 months or being worried about falling by self report, and currently receiving services from an AAA. Exclusion criteria included living in an institution or being severely cognitively impaired and unable to follow directions or report falls. Participants who met the criteria were contacted by phone and invited to participate. A total of 310 participants were enrolled in the study, with an equal number of participants assigned to the intervention and control groups.

Intervention: The intervention included hazard identification and removal after a comprehensive assessment of participants, their behaviors, and the environment; this assessment took place during the first visit, which lasted approximately 80 minutes. A home hazard removal plan was developed, and in the second session, which lasted approximately 40 minutes, remediation of hazards was carried out. A third session for home modification that lasted approximately 30 minutes was conducted, if needed. At 6 months after the intervention, a booster session to identify and remediate any new home hazards and address issues was conducted. Specific interventions, as identified by the assessment, included minor home repair such as grab bars, adaptive equipment, task modification, and education. Shared decision making that enabled older adults to control changes in their homes, self-management strategies to improve awareness, and motivational enhancement strategies to improve acceptance were employed. Scripted algorithms and checklists were used to deliver the intervention. For usual care, an annual assessment and referrals to community services, if needed, were conducted in the AAA.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the number of days to first fall in 12 months. Falls were defined as unintentional movements to the floor, ground, or object below knee level, and falls were recorded through a daily journal for 12 months. Participants were contacted by phone if they did not return the journal or reported a fall. Participants were interviewed to verify falls and determine whether a fall was injurious. Secondary outcomes included rate of falls per person per 12 months; daily activity performance measured using the Older Americans Resources and Services Activities of Daily Living scale; falls self-efficacy, which measures confidence performing daily activities without falling; and quality of life using the SF-36 at 12 months.

Main results: Most of the study participants were women (74%), and mean (SD) age was 75 (7.4) years. Study retention was similar between the intervention and control groups, with 82% completing the study in the intervention group compared with 81% in the control group. Fidelity to the intervention, as measured by a checklist by the interventionist, was 99%, and adherence to home modification, as measured by number of home modifications in use by self report, was high at 92% at 6 months and 91% at 12 months. For the primary outcome, fall hazard was not different between the intervention and control groups (hazard ratio, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.66-1.27). For the secondary outcomes, the rate of falling was lower in the intervention group compared with the control group, with a relative risk of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.40-0.95). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes of daily activity performance, falls self-efficacy, or quality of life.

Conclusion: Despite high adherence to home modifications and fidelity to the intervention, this home hazard removal program did not reduce the risk of falling when compared to usual care. It did reduce the rate of falls, although no other effects were observed.

Commentary

Observational studies have identified factors that contribute to falls,¹ and over the past 30 years a number of intervention trials designed to reduce the risk of falling have been conducted. A recent Cochrane review, published prior to the Bhasin et al and Stark et al trials, looked at the effect of multifactorial interventions for fall prevention across 62 trials that included 19,935 older adults living in the community. The review concluded that multifactorial interventions may reduce the rate of falls, but this conclusion was based on low-quality evidence and there was significant heterogeneity across the studies.²

The STRIDE randomized trial represents the latest effort to address the evidence gap around fall prevention, with the STRIDE investigators hoping this would be the definitive trial that leads to practice change in fall prevention. Smaller trials that have demonstrated effectiveness were brought to scale in this large randomized trial that included 86 practices and more than 5000 participants. The investigators used risk of injurious falls as the primary outcome, as this outcome is considered the most clinically meaningful for the study population. The results, however, were disappointing: the multifactorial intervention in STRIDE did not result in a reduction of risk of injurious falls. Challenges in the implementation of this large trial may have contributed to its results; falls care managers, key to this multifactorial intervention, reported difficulties in navigating complex relationships with patients, families, study staff, and primary care practices during the study. Barriers reported included clinical space limitations, variable buy-in from providers, and turnover of practice staff and providers.³ Such implementation factors may have resulted in the divergent results between smaller clinical trials and this large-scale trial conducted across multiple settings.

The second study, by Stark et al, examined a home modification program and its effect on risk of falls. A prior Cochrane review examining the effect of home safety assessment and modification indicates that these strategies are effective in reducing the rate of falls as well as the risk of falling.⁴ The results of the current trial showed a reduction in the rate of falls but not in the risk of falling; however, this study did not examine outcomes of serious injurious falls, which may be more clinically meaningful. The Stark et al study adds to the existing literature showing that home modification may have an impact on fall rates. One noteworthy aspect of the Stark et al trial is the high adherence rate to home modification in a community-based approach; perhaps the investigators’ approach can be translated to real-world use.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The role of exercise programs in reducing fall rates is well established,⁵ but neither of these studies focused on exercise interventions. STRIDE offered community-based exercise program referral, but there is variability in such programs and study staff reported challenges in matching participants with appropriate exercise programs.³ Further studies that examine combinations of multifactorial falls risk reduction, exercise, and home safety, with careful consideration of implementation challenges to assure fidelity and adherence to the intervention, are needed to ascertain the best strategy for fall prevention for older adults at risk.

Given the results of these trials, it is difficult to recommend one falls prevention intervention over another. Clinicians should continue to identify falls risk factors using standardized assessments and determine which factors are modifiable.

Practice Points

• Incorporating assessments of falls risk in primary care is feasible, and such assessments can identify important risk factors.
• Clinicians and health systems should identify avenues, such as developing programmatic approaches, to providing home safety assessment and intervention, exercise options, medication review, and modification of other risk factors.
• Ensuring delivery of these elements reliably through programmatic approaches with adequate follow-up is key to preventing falls in this population.

—William W. Hung, MD, MPH

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In states that adopted Medicaid expansion following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), patients with cancer have improved 2-year overall survival rates, compared with patients in states that did not adopt the expansion.

The finding comes from an American Cancer Society study of more than 2 million patients with newly diagnosed cancer, published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The analysis also showed that the evidence was strongest for malignancies with poor prognosis such as lung, pancreatic, and liver cancer, and also for colorectal cancer.

Importantly, improvements in survival were larger in non-Hispanic Black patients and individuals residing in rural areas, suggesting there was a narrowing of disparities in cancer survival by race and rurality.

“Our findings provide further evidence of the importance of expanding Medicaid eligibility in all states, particularly considering the economic crisis and health care disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said lead author Xuesong Han, PhD, scientific director of health services research at the American Cancer Society, in a statement. “What’s encouraging is the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provides new incentives for Medicaid expansion in states that have yet to increase eligibility.”

The ACA provided states with incentives to expand Medicaid eligibility to all low-income adults under 138% federal poverty level, regardless of parental status.

As of last month, just 12 states have not yet opted for Medicaid expansion, even though the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provides new incentives for those remaining jurisdictions. But to date, none of the remaining states have taken advantage of these new incentives.

An interactive map showing the status of Medicare expansion by state is available here. The 12 states that have not adopted Medicare expansion (as of April) are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  

The benefit of Medicaid expansion on cancer outcomes has already been observed in other studies. The first study to show a survival benefit was presented at the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. That analysis showed that cancer mortality declined by 29% in states that expanded Medicaid and by 25% in those that did not. The authors also noted that the greatest mortality benefit was observed in Hispanic patients.
 

Improved survival with expansion

In the current paper, Dr. Han and colleagues used population-based cancer registries from 42 states and compared data on patients aged 18-62 years who were diagnosed with cancer in a period of 2 years before (2010-2012) and after (2014-2016) ACA Medicaid expansion. They were followed through Sept. 30, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2017, respectively.

The analysis involved a total of 2.5 million patients, of whom 1.52 million lived in states that adopted Medicaid expansion and compared with 1 million patients were in states that did not.

Patients with grouped by sex, race and ethnicity, census tract-level poverty, and rurality. The authors note that non-Hispanic Black patients and those from high poverty areas and nonmetropolitan areas were disproportionately represented in nonexpansion states. 

During the 2-year follow-up period, a total of 453,487 deaths occurred (257,950 in expansion states and 195,537 in nonexpansion states).

Overall, patients in expansion states generally had better survival versus those in nonexpansion states, the authors comment. However, for most cancer types, overall survival improved after the ACA for both groups of states.

The 2-year overall survival increased from 80.6% before the ACA to 82.2% post ACA in expansion states and from 78.7% to 80% in nonexpansion states.

This extrapolated to net increase of 0.44 percentage points in expansion states after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. By cancer site, the net increase was greater for colorectal cancer, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, and liver cancer.

For Hispanic patients, 2-year survival also increased but was similar in expansion and nonexpansion states, and little net change was associated with Medicaid expansion.

“Our study shows that the increase was largely driven by improvements in survival for cancer types with poor prognosis, suggesting improved access to timely and effective treatments,” said Dr. Han. “It adds to accumulating evidence of the multiple benefits of Medicaid expansion.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In states that adopted Medicaid expansion following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), patients with cancer have improved 2-year overall survival rates, compared with patients in states that did not adopt the expansion.

The finding comes from an American Cancer Society study of more than 2 million patients with newly diagnosed cancer, published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The analysis also showed that the evidence was strongest for malignancies with poor prognosis such as lung, pancreatic, and liver cancer, and also for colorectal cancer.

Importantly, improvements in survival were larger in non-Hispanic Black patients and individuals residing in rural areas, suggesting there was a narrowing of disparities in cancer survival by race and rurality.

“Our findings provide further evidence of the importance of expanding Medicaid eligibility in all states, particularly considering the economic crisis and health care disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said lead author Xuesong Han, PhD, scientific director of health services research at the American Cancer Society, in a statement. “What’s encouraging is the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provides new incentives for Medicaid expansion in states that have yet to increase eligibility.”

The ACA provided states with incentives to expand Medicaid eligibility to all low-income adults under 138% federal poverty level, regardless of parental status.

As of last month, just 12 states have not yet opted for Medicaid expansion, even though the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provides new incentives for those remaining jurisdictions. But to date, none of the remaining states have taken advantage of these new incentives.

An interactive map showing the status of Medicare expansion by state is available here. The 12 states that have not adopted Medicare expansion (as of April) are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  

The benefit of Medicaid expansion on cancer outcomes has already been observed in other studies. The first study to show a survival benefit was presented at the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. That analysis showed that cancer mortality declined by 29% in states that expanded Medicaid and by 25% in those that did not. The authors also noted that the greatest mortality benefit was observed in Hispanic patients.
 

Improved survival with expansion

In the current paper, Dr. Han and colleagues used population-based cancer registries from 42 states and compared data on patients aged 18-62 years who were diagnosed with cancer in a period of 2 years before (2010-2012) and after (2014-2016) ACA Medicaid expansion. They were followed through Sept. 30, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2017, respectively.

The analysis involved a total of 2.5 million patients, of whom 1.52 million lived in states that adopted Medicaid expansion and compared with 1 million patients were in states that did not.

Patients with grouped by sex, race and ethnicity, census tract-level poverty, and rurality. The authors note that non-Hispanic Black patients and those from high poverty areas and nonmetropolitan areas were disproportionately represented in nonexpansion states. 

During the 2-year follow-up period, a total of 453,487 deaths occurred (257,950 in expansion states and 195,537 in nonexpansion states).

Overall, patients in expansion states generally had better survival versus those in nonexpansion states, the authors comment. However, for most cancer types, overall survival improved after the ACA for both groups of states.

The 2-year overall survival increased from 80.6% before the ACA to 82.2% post ACA in expansion states and from 78.7% to 80% in nonexpansion states.

This extrapolated to net increase of 0.44 percentage points in expansion states after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. By cancer site, the net increase was greater for colorectal cancer, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, and liver cancer.

For Hispanic patients, 2-year survival also increased but was similar in expansion and nonexpansion states, and little net change was associated with Medicaid expansion.

“Our study shows that the increase was largely driven by improvements in survival for cancer types with poor prognosis, suggesting improved access to timely and effective treatments,” said Dr. Han. “It adds to accumulating evidence of the multiple benefits of Medicaid expansion.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In states that adopted Medicaid expansion following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), patients with cancer have improved 2-year overall survival rates, compared with patients in states that did not adopt the expansion.

The finding comes from an American Cancer Society study of more than 2 million patients with newly diagnosed cancer, published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The analysis also showed that the evidence was strongest for malignancies with poor prognosis such as lung, pancreatic, and liver cancer, and also for colorectal cancer.

Importantly, improvements in survival were larger in non-Hispanic Black patients and individuals residing in rural areas, suggesting there was a narrowing of disparities in cancer survival by race and rurality.

“Our findings provide further evidence of the importance of expanding Medicaid eligibility in all states, particularly considering the economic crisis and health care disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said lead author Xuesong Han, PhD, scientific director of health services research at the American Cancer Society, in a statement. “What’s encouraging is the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provides new incentives for Medicaid expansion in states that have yet to increase eligibility.”

The ACA provided states with incentives to expand Medicaid eligibility to all low-income adults under 138% federal poverty level, regardless of parental status.

As of last month, just 12 states have not yet opted for Medicaid expansion, even though the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provides new incentives for those remaining jurisdictions. But to date, none of the remaining states have taken advantage of these new incentives.

An interactive map showing the status of Medicare expansion by state is available here. The 12 states that have not adopted Medicare expansion (as of April) are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  

The benefit of Medicaid expansion on cancer outcomes has already been observed in other studies. The first study to show a survival benefit was presented at the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. That analysis showed that cancer mortality declined by 29% in states that expanded Medicaid and by 25% in those that did not. The authors also noted that the greatest mortality benefit was observed in Hispanic patients.
 

Improved survival with expansion

In the current paper, Dr. Han and colleagues used population-based cancer registries from 42 states and compared data on patients aged 18-62 years who were diagnosed with cancer in a period of 2 years before (2010-2012) and after (2014-2016) ACA Medicaid expansion. They were followed through Sept. 30, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2017, respectively.

The analysis involved a total of 2.5 million patients, of whom 1.52 million lived in states that adopted Medicaid expansion and compared with 1 million patients were in states that did not.

Patients with grouped by sex, race and ethnicity, census tract-level poverty, and rurality. The authors note that non-Hispanic Black patients and those from high poverty areas and nonmetropolitan areas were disproportionately represented in nonexpansion states. 

During the 2-year follow-up period, a total of 453,487 deaths occurred (257,950 in expansion states and 195,537 in nonexpansion states).

Overall, patients in expansion states generally had better survival versus those in nonexpansion states, the authors comment. However, for most cancer types, overall survival improved after the ACA for both groups of states.

The 2-year overall survival increased from 80.6% before the ACA to 82.2% post ACA in expansion states and from 78.7% to 80% in nonexpansion states.

This extrapolated to net increase of 0.44 percentage points in expansion states after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. By cancer site, the net increase was greater for colorectal cancer, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, and liver cancer.

For Hispanic patients, 2-year survival also increased but was similar in expansion and nonexpansion states, and little net change was associated with Medicaid expansion.

“Our study shows that the increase was largely driven by improvements in survival for cancer types with poor prognosis, suggesting improved access to timely and effective treatments,” said Dr. Han. “It adds to accumulating evidence of the multiple benefits of Medicaid expansion.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded an emergency use authorization (EUA), allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster shot for children ages 5 to 11 who are at least 5 months out from their first vaccine series.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28.6% of children in this age group have received both initial doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and 35.3% have received their first dose.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial involving 4,500 children showed few side effects among children younger than 12 who received a booster, or third dose, according to a company statement.

Pfizer asked the FDA for an amended authorization in April, after submitting data showing that a third dose in children between 5 and 11 raised antibodies targeting the Omicron variant by 36 times.

“While it has largely been the case that COVID-19 tends to be less severe in children than adults, the omicron wave has seen more kids getting sick with the disease and being hospitalized, and children may also experience longer-term effects, even following initially mild disease,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

A study done by the New York State Department of Health showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine series fell from 68% to 12% 4-5 months after the second dose was given to children 5 to 11 during the Omicron surge. A CDC study published in March also showed that the Pfizer shot reduced the risk of Omicron by 31% in children 5 to 11, a significantly lower rate than for kids 12 to 15, who had a 59% risk reduction after receiving two doses.

To some experts, this data suggest an even greater need for children under 12 to be eligible for a third dose.

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” says Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The CDC still needs to sign off on the shots before they can be allowed. The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to meet on May 19 to discuss boosters in this age group.

FDA advisory panels plan to meet next month to discuss allowing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 years old.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded an emergency use authorization (EUA), allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster shot for children ages 5 to 11 who are at least 5 months out from their first vaccine series.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28.6% of children in this age group have received both initial doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and 35.3% have received their first dose.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial involving 4,500 children showed few side effects among children younger than 12 who received a booster, or third dose, according to a company statement.

Pfizer asked the FDA for an amended authorization in April, after submitting data showing that a third dose in children between 5 and 11 raised antibodies targeting the Omicron variant by 36 times.

“While it has largely been the case that COVID-19 tends to be less severe in children than adults, the omicron wave has seen more kids getting sick with the disease and being hospitalized, and children may also experience longer-term effects, even following initially mild disease,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

A study done by the New York State Department of Health showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine series fell from 68% to 12% 4-5 months after the second dose was given to children 5 to 11 during the Omicron surge. A CDC study published in March also showed that the Pfizer shot reduced the risk of Omicron by 31% in children 5 to 11, a significantly lower rate than for kids 12 to 15, who had a 59% risk reduction after receiving two doses.

To some experts, this data suggest an even greater need for children under 12 to be eligible for a third dose.

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” says Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The CDC still needs to sign off on the shots before they can be allowed. The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to meet on May 19 to discuss boosters in this age group.

FDA advisory panels plan to meet next month to discuss allowing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 years old.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded an emergency use authorization (EUA), allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster shot for children ages 5 to 11 who are at least 5 months out from their first vaccine series.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28.6% of children in this age group have received both initial doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and 35.3% have received their first dose.

Pfizer’s vaccine trial involving 4,500 children showed few side effects among children younger than 12 who received a booster, or third dose, according to a company statement.

Pfizer asked the FDA for an amended authorization in April, after submitting data showing that a third dose in children between 5 and 11 raised antibodies targeting the Omicron variant by 36 times.

“While it has largely been the case that COVID-19 tends to be less severe in children than adults, the omicron wave has seen more kids getting sick with the disease and being hospitalized, and children may also experience longer-term effects, even following initially mild disease,” FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a news release.

A study done by the New York State Department of Health showed the effectiveness of Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine series fell from 68% to 12% 4-5 months after the second dose was given to children 5 to 11 during the Omicron surge. A CDC study published in March also showed that the Pfizer shot reduced the risk of Omicron by 31% in children 5 to 11, a significantly lower rate than for kids 12 to 15, who had a 59% risk reduction after receiving two doses.

To some experts, this data suggest an even greater need for children under 12 to be eligible for a third dose.

“Since authorizing the vaccine for children down to 5 years of age in October 2021, emerging data suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine in all authorized populations,” says Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

The CDC still needs to sign off on the shots before they can be allowed. The agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to meet on May 19 to discuss boosters in this age group.

FDA advisory panels plan to meet next month to discuss allowing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for children under 6 years old.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The Food and Drug Administration announced on May 10 that it is taking several steps to improve the supply of baby formula in the United States.

The nationwide formula shortage has grown worse in recent weeks due to supply chain issues and a recall of certain Abbott Nutrition products, including major labels such as Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare.

“We recognize that many consumers have been unable to access infant formula and critical medical foods they are accustomed to using and are frustrated by their inability to do so,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

“We are doing everything in our power to ensure there is adequate product available where and when they need it,” he said.

About three-quarters of babies are fed formula for the first 6 months of their lives as a substitute for human milk, Axios reported.

In mid-February, the FDA warned consumers not to use certain powdered infant formula products from Abbott’s facility in Sturgis, Mich. Since then, the FDA has been working with Abbott and other manufacturers to increase the supply in the U.S. market.

“In fact, other infant formula manufacturers are meeting or exceeding capacity levels to meet current demand,” the FDA said in the statement. “Notably, more infant formula was purchased in the month of April than in the month prior to the recall.”

The FDA released a list of steps the agency is taking to increase supply, such as meeting with major infant formula makers to increase output and prioritize product lines in high demand, particularly specialty formulas for infants with allergies or specific diet needs.

But other manufacturers have struggled to quickly increase production because their operations tend to focus on a steady level of supply, according to The New York Times.

“Some industries are very good at ramping up and ramping down,” Rudi Leuschner, PhD, an associate professor of supply chain management at Rutgers Business School, Newark, N.J., told the newspaper.

“You flip a switch and they can produce 10 times as much,” he said. “Baby formula is not that type of a product.”

The FDA is also keeping an eye on the infant formula shortage by using the agency’s 21 Forward food supply chain continuity system. The system was developed during the pandemic to provide a full understanding of how COVID-19 is impacting food supply chains, the FDA said.

The FDA is compiling data on trends for in-stock rates at national and regional levels to understand where infant formula is available and where it should go.

Products are also being brought in from other countries, the FDA said. The agency is trying to speed up the process to get more formula into the U.S. and move it more quickly around the country.

For babies on a special diet, the FDA has decided to release some Abbott products that have been on hold at the Sturgis facility to those who need an urgent supply of metabolic formulas, on a case-by-case basis.

“In these circumstances, the benefit of allowing caregivers, in consultation with their health care providers, to access these products may outweigh the potential risk of bacterial infection,” the FDA said in the statement.

The FDA continues to advise against making homemade infant formulas and recommends talking to the child’s health care provider for recommendations on changing feeding practices or switching to other formulas, if necessary.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMd.com.

The Food and Drug Administration announced on May 10 that it is taking several steps to improve the supply of baby formula in the United States.

The nationwide formula shortage has grown worse in recent weeks due to supply chain issues and a recall of certain Abbott Nutrition products, including major labels such as Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare.

“We recognize that many consumers have been unable to access infant formula and critical medical foods they are accustomed to using and are frustrated by their inability to do so,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

“We are doing everything in our power to ensure there is adequate product available where and when they need it,” he said.

About three-quarters of babies are fed formula for the first 6 months of their lives as a substitute for human milk, Axios reported.

In mid-February, the FDA warned consumers not to use certain powdered infant formula products from Abbott’s facility in Sturgis, Mich. Since then, the FDA has been working with Abbott and other manufacturers to increase the supply in the U.S. market.

“In fact, other infant formula manufacturers are meeting or exceeding capacity levels to meet current demand,” the FDA said in the statement. “Notably, more infant formula was purchased in the month of April than in the month prior to the recall.”

The FDA released a list of steps the agency is taking to increase supply, such as meeting with major infant formula makers to increase output and prioritize product lines in high demand, particularly specialty formulas for infants with allergies or specific diet needs.

But other manufacturers have struggled to quickly increase production because their operations tend to focus on a steady level of supply, according to The New York Times.

“Some industries are very good at ramping up and ramping down,” Rudi Leuschner, PhD, an associate professor of supply chain management at Rutgers Business School, Newark, N.J., told the newspaper.

“You flip a switch and they can produce 10 times as much,” he said. “Baby formula is not that type of a product.”

The FDA is also keeping an eye on the infant formula shortage by using the agency’s 21 Forward food supply chain continuity system. The system was developed during the pandemic to provide a full understanding of how COVID-19 is impacting food supply chains, the FDA said.

The FDA is compiling data on trends for in-stock rates at national and regional levels to understand where infant formula is available and where it should go.

Products are also being brought in from other countries, the FDA said. The agency is trying to speed up the process to get more formula into the U.S. and move it more quickly around the country.

For babies on a special diet, the FDA has decided to release some Abbott products that have been on hold at the Sturgis facility to those who need an urgent supply of metabolic formulas, on a case-by-case basis.

“In these circumstances, the benefit of allowing caregivers, in consultation with their health care providers, to access these products may outweigh the potential risk of bacterial infection,” the FDA said in the statement.

The FDA continues to advise against making homemade infant formulas and recommends talking to the child’s health care provider for recommendations on changing feeding practices or switching to other formulas, if necessary.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMd.com.

The Food and Drug Administration announced on May 10 that it is taking several steps to improve the supply of baby formula in the United States.

The nationwide formula shortage has grown worse in recent weeks due to supply chain issues and a recall of certain Abbott Nutrition products, including major labels such as Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare.

“We recognize that many consumers have been unable to access infant formula and critical medical foods they are accustomed to using and are frustrated by their inability to do so,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

“We are doing everything in our power to ensure there is adequate product available where and when they need it,” he said.

About three-quarters of babies are fed formula for the first 6 months of their lives as a substitute for human milk, Axios reported.

In mid-February, the FDA warned consumers not to use certain powdered infant formula products from Abbott’s facility in Sturgis, Mich. Since then, the FDA has been working with Abbott and other manufacturers to increase the supply in the U.S. market.

“In fact, other infant formula manufacturers are meeting or exceeding capacity levels to meet current demand,” the FDA said in the statement. “Notably, more infant formula was purchased in the month of April than in the month prior to the recall.”

The FDA released a list of steps the agency is taking to increase supply, such as meeting with major infant formula makers to increase output and prioritize product lines in high demand, particularly specialty formulas for infants with allergies or specific diet needs.

But other manufacturers have struggled to quickly increase production because their operations tend to focus on a steady level of supply, according to The New York Times.

“Some industries are very good at ramping up and ramping down,” Rudi Leuschner, PhD, an associate professor of supply chain management at Rutgers Business School, Newark, N.J., told the newspaper.

“You flip a switch and they can produce 10 times as much,” he said. “Baby formula is not that type of a product.”

The FDA is also keeping an eye on the infant formula shortage by using the agency’s 21 Forward food supply chain continuity system. The system was developed during the pandemic to provide a full understanding of how COVID-19 is impacting food supply chains, the FDA said.

The FDA is compiling data on trends for in-stock rates at national and regional levels to understand where infant formula is available and where it should go.

Products are also being brought in from other countries, the FDA said. The agency is trying to speed up the process to get more formula into the U.S. and move it more quickly around the country.

For babies on a special diet, the FDA has decided to release some Abbott products that have been on hold at the Sturgis facility to those who need an urgent supply of metabolic formulas, on a case-by-case basis.

“In these circumstances, the benefit of allowing caregivers, in consultation with their health care providers, to access these products may outweigh the potential risk of bacterial infection,” the FDA said in the statement.

The FDA continues to advise against making homemade infant formulas and recommends talking to the child’s health care provider for recommendations on changing feeding practices or switching to other formulas, if necessary.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMd.com.

Hospital leaders report the most common aim of peer review (PR) is to improve quality and patient safety, thus it is a potentially powerful quality improvement (QI) driver.¹ “When conducted systematically and credibly, peer review for quality management can result in both short-term and long-term improvements in patient care by revealing areas for improvement in the provision of care,” Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1190 states. “This ultimately contributes to organizational improvements.” At the same time, there are anecdotal concerns that PR may be used punitively and driven by case outcomes rather than by accepted best practices supporting QI.

Studies of the PR process suggest these concerns are valid. A key tenet of QI is standardization. PR is problematic in that regard; studies show poor interrater reliability for judgments on care, as well as hindsight bias—the fact that raters are strongly influenced by the outcome of care, not the process of care.^2-5 There are concerns that case selection or review process when not standardized may be wielded as punitive too.⁶ In this study, we sought to identify the relationship between PR findings and subsequent institution quality metrics. If PR does lead to an improvement in quality, or if quality concerns are managed within the PR committee, it should be possible to identify a measurable relationship between the PR process and a facility’s subsequent quality measures.

A handful of studies describe the association between PR and quality of care. Itri and colleagues noted that random, not standardized PR in radiology does not achieve reductions in diagnostic error rate.⁷ However, adoption of just culture principles in PR resulted in a significant improvement in facility leaders’ self-reports of quality measures at surveyed institutions.⁸ The same author reported that increases in PR standardization and integration with performance improvement activities could explain up to 18% of objective quality measure variation.⁹

We sought to determine whether a specific aspect of the PR process, the PR committee judgment of quality of care by clinicians, was related to medical center quality in a cross-sectional study of 136 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers. The VHA is a good source of study because there are standardized PR processes and training for committee members and reviewers. Our hypothesis was that medical centers with a higher number of Level 2 (“most experienced and competent clinicians might have managed the case differently”) and Level 3 (“most experienced and competent providers would have managed the case differently”) PR findings would also have lower quality metric scores for processes and outcomes of care.

Methods

We used PR data from fiscal year 2018 and 2019. VHA PR data are available quarterly and are self-reported by each facility to the VHA Office of Clinical Risk Management. These data are broken down by facility. The following data, when available in both fiscal years 2018 and 2019, were used for this analysis: percent and number of PR that are ranked as level 1, 2, or 3; medical center group (MCG) acuity measure assigned by the VHA (1 is highest, 3 is lowest); and number of PR per 100,000 unique veteran encounters in 2019. Measures of facility quality are drawn from Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) data from 2019, which are available quarterly by facility and are rolling for 12 months. SAIL measures processes and outcomes of care. Table 1 indicates which measures are focused on outcomes vs quality processes.

SAS Version 9.2 was used to perform statistical analyses. We used Spearman correlation to estimate the PR and quality relationship.

Results

There were 136 facilities with 2 years of PR data available. The majority of these facilities (89) were highest complexity MCG 1 facilities; 19 were MCG 2, and 28 were MCG 3. Of 13,515 PRs, most of the 9555 PR findings were level 1 (70.7%). The between-facility range of level 2 and 3 findings was large, varying from 3.5% to nearly 70% in 2019 (Table 2). Findings were similar in 2018; facilities level 2 and 3 ratings ranged from 3.6% to 73.5% of all PR findings.

There was no correlation between most quality measures and facility PR findings (Table 3). The only exception was for Global Measures (GM90), an inpatient process of care measure. Unexpectedly, the correlation was positive—facilities with a higher percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings had better inpatient processes of care SAIL score. The strongest correlation was between 2018 and 2019 PR findings.

Discussion

We hypothesized that a high percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings would be negatively associated with objective facility measures of care processes in SAIL but we did not see this association. The only quality measure associated with PR findings was GM90, a score of inpatient care processes. However, the association was positive, with better performance associated with more level 2 and 3 PR findings.

The best predictor of the proportion of a facility’s PR findings is the previous year’s PR findings. With an R = 0.59, the previous year findings explain about 35% of the variability in level assignment. Our analysis may describe a new bias in PR, in which committees consistently assign either low or high proportions of level 2 and 3 findings. This correlation could be due to individual PR committee culture or composition, but it does not relate to objective quality measures.

Strengths

For this study we use objective measures of PR processes, the assignment of levels of care. PR findings should reflect not only outcomes, but also the quality of the care, reflected by adherence to evidence-based processes, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescription in heart failure. Therefore, we used SAIL scores, an objective and standardized process and outcome quality measures. Additionally, VHA is likely a national leader in the standardization of PR: VHA mandates as well as provides training for reviewers and PR committee members, has a standardized case-referral process, and mandates the documentation of feedback to health care professionals when care did not meet standards. While other publications show that PR has poor interrater reliability, VHA provides an outside contract to perform a second review on a percentage of cases to improve the validity of PR level assignments.

Limitations

Facilities self-report PR outcomes, so there could be errors in reporting. In addition, this study was cross sectional and not longitudinal and it is possible that change in quality measures over time are correlated with PR findings. Future studies using the VHA PR and SAIL data could evaluate whether changes over time, and perhaps in response to level 2 and 3 findings, would be a more sensitive indicator of the impact of the PR process on quality metrics. Future studies could incorporate the relationship between findings from the All Employee Survey, which is conducted annually, such as psychologic safety, as well as the distance the facility has gone on the high reliability organization journey, with PR findings and SAIL metrics. Finally, PR is focused on the practice of an individual clinician, while SAIL quality metrics reflect facility performance. Interventions possibly stay at the clinician level and do not drive subsequent QI processes. This is a missed opportunity, and future studies could evaluate practices by the PR coordinators to determine whether differences in these processes are associated with quality measures.

What does this mean for PR? Since the early 1990s, there have been exhortations from experts to improve PR, by adopting a QI model, or for a deeper integration of PR and QI.^1,2,10 Just culture tools, which include QI, are promoted as a means to improve PR.^8,11,12 Other studies show PR remains problematic in terms of standardization, incorporation of best practices, redesigning systems of care, or demonstrable improvements to facility safety and care quality.^1,4,6,8 Several publications have described interventions to improve PR. Deyo-Svedson discussed a program with standardized training and triggers, much like VHA.¹³ Itri and colleagues standardized PR in radiology to target areas of known diagnostic error, as well as use the issues assessed in PR to perform QI and education. One example of a successful QI effort involved changing the radiology reporting template to make sure areas that are prone to diagnostic error are addressed.⁷

Conclusions

Since 35% of PR level variance is correlated with prior year’s results, PR committees should look at increased standardization in reviews and findings. We endorse a strong focus on standardization, application of just culture tools to case reviews, and tighter linkage between process and outcome metrics measured by SAIL and PR case finding. Studies should be performed to pilot interventions to improve the linkage between PR and quality, so that greater and faster gains can be made in quality processes and, leading from this, outcomes. Additionally, future research should investigate why some facilities consistently choose higher or lower PR ratings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dr. George “Web” Ross for his helpful edits.

Hospital leaders report the most common aim of peer review (PR) is to improve quality and patient safety, thus it is a potentially powerful quality improvement (QI) driver.¹ “When conducted systematically and credibly, peer review for quality management can result in both short-term and long-term improvements in patient care by revealing areas for improvement in the provision of care,” Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1190 states. “This ultimately contributes to organizational improvements.” At the same time, there are anecdotal concerns that PR may be used punitively and driven by case outcomes rather than by accepted best practices supporting QI.

Studies of the PR process suggest these concerns are valid. A key tenet of QI is standardization. PR is problematic in that regard; studies show poor interrater reliability for judgments on care, as well as hindsight bias—the fact that raters are strongly influenced by the outcome of care, not the process of care.^2-5 There are concerns that case selection or review process when not standardized may be wielded as punitive too.⁶ In this study, we sought to identify the relationship between PR findings and subsequent institution quality metrics. If PR does lead to an improvement in quality, or if quality concerns are managed within the PR committee, it should be possible to identify a measurable relationship between the PR process and a facility’s subsequent quality measures.

A handful of studies describe the association between PR and quality of care. Itri and colleagues noted that random, not standardized PR in radiology does not achieve reductions in diagnostic error rate.⁷ However, adoption of just culture principles in PR resulted in a significant improvement in facility leaders’ self-reports of quality measures at surveyed institutions.⁸ The same author reported that increases in PR standardization and integration with performance improvement activities could explain up to 18% of objective quality measure variation.⁹

We sought to determine whether a specific aspect of the PR process, the PR committee judgment of quality of care by clinicians, was related to medical center quality in a cross-sectional study of 136 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers. The VHA is a good source of study because there are standardized PR processes and training for committee members and reviewers. Our hypothesis was that medical centers with a higher number of Level 2 (“most experienced and competent clinicians might have managed the case differently”) and Level 3 (“most experienced and competent providers would have managed the case differently”) PR findings would also have lower quality metric scores for processes and outcomes of care.

Methods

We used PR data from fiscal year 2018 and 2019. VHA PR data are available quarterly and are self-reported by each facility to the VHA Office of Clinical Risk Management. These data are broken down by facility. The following data, when available in both fiscal years 2018 and 2019, were used for this analysis: percent and number of PR that are ranked as level 1, 2, or 3; medical center group (MCG) acuity measure assigned by the VHA (1 is highest, 3 is lowest); and number of PR per 100,000 unique veteran encounters in 2019. Measures of facility quality are drawn from Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) data from 2019, which are available quarterly by facility and are rolling for 12 months. SAIL measures processes and outcomes of care. Table 1 indicates which measures are focused on outcomes vs quality processes.

SAS Version 9.2 was used to perform statistical analyses. We used Spearman correlation to estimate the PR and quality relationship.

Results

There were 136 facilities with 2 years of PR data available. The majority of these facilities (89) were highest complexity MCG 1 facilities; 19 were MCG 2, and 28 were MCG 3. Of 13,515 PRs, most of the 9555 PR findings were level 1 (70.7%). The between-facility range of level 2 and 3 findings was large, varying from 3.5% to nearly 70% in 2019 (Table 2). Findings were similar in 2018; facilities level 2 and 3 ratings ranged from 3.6% to 73.5% of all PR findings.

There was no correlation between most quality measures and facility PR findings (Table 3). The only exception was for Global Measures (GM90), an inpatient process of care measure. Unexpectedly, the correlation was positive—facilities with a higher percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings had better inpatient processes of care SAIL score. The strongest correlation was between 2018 and 2019 PR findings.

Discussion

We hypothesized that a high percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings would be negatively associated with objective facility measures of care processes in SAIL but we did not see this association. The only quality measure associated with PR findings was GM90, a score of inpatient care processes. However, the association was positive, with better performance associated with more level 2 and 3 PR findings.

The best predictor of the proportion of a facility’s PR findings is the previous year’s PR findings. With an R = 0.59, the previous year findings explain about 35% of the variability in level assignment. Our analysis may describe a new bias in PR, in which committees consistently assign either low or high proportions of level 2 and 3 findings. This correlation could be due to individual PR committee culture or composition, but it does not relate to objective quality measures.

Strengths

For this study we use objective measures of PR processes, the assignment of levels of care. PR findings should reflect not only outcomes, but also the quality of the care, reflected by adherence to evidence-based processes, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescription in heart failure. Therefore, we used SAIL scores, an objective and standardized process and outcome quality measures. Additionally, VHA is likely a national leader in the standardization of PR: VHA mandates as well as provides training for reviewers and PR committee members, has a standardized case-referral process, and mandates the documentation of feedback to health care professionals when care did not meet standards. While other publications show that PR has poor interrater reliability, VHA provides an outside contract to perform a second review on a percentage of cases to improve the validity of PR level assignments.

Limitations

Facilities self-report PR outcomes, so there could be errors in reporting. In addition, this study was cross sectional and not longitudinal and it is possible that change in quality measures over time are correlated with PR findings. Future studies using the VHA PR and SAIL data could evaluate whether changes over time, and perhaps in response to level 2 and 3 findings, would be a more sensitive indicator of the impact of the PR process on quality metrics. Future studies could incorporate the relationship between findings from the All Employee Survey, which is conducted annually, such as psychologic safety, as well as the distance the facility has gone on the high reliability organization journey, with PR findings and SAIL metrics. Finally, PR is focused on the practice of an individual clinician, while SAIL quality metrics reflect facility performance. Interventions possibly stay at the clinician level and do not drive subsequent QI processes. This is a missed opportunity, and future studies could evaluate practices by the PR coordinators to determine whether differences in these processes are associated with quality measures.

What does this mean for PR? Since the early 1990s, there have been exhortations from experts to improve PR, by adopting a QI model, or for a deeper integration of PR and QI.^1,2,10 Just culture tools, which include QI, are promoted as a means to improve PR.^8,11,12 Other studies show PR remains problematic in terms of standardization, incorporation of best practices, redesigning systems of care, or demonstrable improvements to facility safety and care quality.^1,4,6,8 Several publications have described interventions to improve PR. Deyo-Svedson discussed a program with standardized training and triggers, much like VHA.¹³ Itri and colleagues standardized PR in radiology to target areas of known diagnostic error, as well as use the issues assessed in PR to perform QI and education. One example of a successful QI effort involved changing the radiology reporting template to make sure areas that are prone to diagnostic error are addressed.⁷

Conclusions

Since 35% of PR level variance is correlated with prior year’s results, PR committees should look at increased standardization in reviews and findings. We endorse a strong focus on standardization, application of just culture tools to case reviews, and tighter linkage between process and outcome metrics measured by SAIL and PR case finding. Studies should be performed to pilot interventions to improve the linkage between PR and quality, so that greater and faster gains can be made in quality processes and, leading from this, outcomes. Additionally, future research should investigate why some facilities consistently choose higher or lower PR ratings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dr. George “Web” Ross for his helpful edits.

Hospital leaders report the most common aim of peer review (PR) is to improve quality and patient safety, thus it is a potentially powerful quality improvement (QI) driver.¹ “When conducted systematically and credibly, peer review for quality management can result in both short-term and long-term improvements in patient care by revealing areas for improvement in the provision of care,” Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1190 states. “This ultimately contributes to organizational improvements.” At the same time, there are anecdotal concerns that PR may be used punitively and driven by case outcomes rather than by accepted best practices supporting QI.

Studies of the PR process suggest these concerns are valid. A key tenet of QI is standardization. PR is problematic in that regard; studies show poor interrater reliability for judgments on care, as well as hindsight bias—the fact that raters are strongly influenced by the outcome of care, not the process of care.^2-5 There are concerns that case selection or review process when not standardized may be wielded as punitive too.⁶ In this study, we sought to identify the relationship between PR findings and subsequent institution quality metrics. If PR does lead to an improvement in quality, or if quality concerns are managed within the PR committee, it should be possible to identify a measurable relationship between the PR process and a facility’s subsequent quality measures.

A handful of studies describe the association between PR and quality of care. Itri and colleagues noted that random, not standardized PR in radiology does not achieve reductions in diagnostic error rate.⁷ However, adoption of just culture principles in PR resulted in a significant improvement in facility leaders’ self-reports of quality measures at surveyed institutions.⁸ The same author reported that increases in PR standardization and integration with performance improvement activities could explain up to 18% of objective quality measure variation.⁹

We sought to determine whether a specific aspect of the PR process, the PR committee judgment of quality of care by clinicians, was related to medical center quality in a cross-sectional study of 136 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers. The VHA is a good source of study because there are standardized PR processes and training for committee members and reviewers. Our hypothesis was that medical centers with a higher number of Level 2 (“most experienced and competent clinicians might have managed the case differently”) and Level 3 (“most experienced and competent providers would have managed the case differently”) PR findings would also have lower quality metric scores for processes and outcomes of care.

Methods

We used PR data from fiscal year 2018 and 2019. VHA PR data are available quarterly and are self-reported by each facility to the VHA Office of Clinical Risk Management. These data are broken down by facility. The following data, when available in both fiscal years 2018 and 2019, were used for this analysis: percent and number of PR that are ranked as level 1, 2, or 3; medical center group (MCG) acuity measure assigned by the VHA (1 is highest, 3 is lowest); and number of PR per 100,000 unique veteran encounters in 2019. Measures of facility quality are drawn from Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) data from 2019, which are available quarterly by facility and are rolling for 12 months. SAIL measures processes and outcomes of care. Table 1 indicates which measures are focused on outcomes vs quality processes.

SAS Version 9.2 was used to perform statistical analyses. We used Spearman correlation to estimate the PR and quality relationship.

Results

There were 136 facilities with 2 years of PR data available. The majority of these facilities (89) were highest complexity MCG 1 facilities; 19 were MCG 2, and 28 were MCG 3. Of 13,515 PRs, most of the 9555 PR findings were level 1 (70.7%). The between-facility range of level 2 and 3 findings was large, varying from 3.5% to nearly 70% in 2019 (Table 2). Findings were similar in 2018; facilities level 2 and 3 ratings ranged from 3.6% to 73.5% of all PR findings.

There was no correlation between most quality measures and facility PR findings (Table 3). The only exception was for Global Measures (GM90), an inpatient process of care measure. Unexpectedly, the correlation was positive—facilities with a higher percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings had better inpatient processes of care SAIL score. The strongest correlation was between 2018 and 2019 PR findings.

Discussion

We hypothesized that a high percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings would be negatively associated with objective facility measures of care processes in SAIL but we did not see this association. The only quality measure associated with PR findings was GM90, a score of inpatient care processes. However, the association was positive, with better performance associated with more level 2 and 3 PR findings.

The best predictor of the proportion of a facility’s PR findings is the previous year’s PR findings. With an R = 0.59, the previous year findings explain about 35% of the variability in level assignment. Our analysis may describe a new bias in PR, in which committees consistently assign either low or high proportions of level 2 and 3 findings. This correlation could be due to individual PR committee culture or composition, but it does not relate to objective quality measures.

Strengths

For this study we use objective measures of PR processes, the assignment of levels of care. PR findings should reflect not only outcomes, but also the quality of the care, reflected by adherence to evidence-based processes, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescription in heart failure. Therefore, we used SAIL scores, an objective and standardized process and outcome quality measures. Additionally, VHA is likely a national leader in the standardization of PR: VHA mandates as well as provides training for reviewers and PR committee members, has a standardized case-referral process, and mandates the documentation of feedback to health care professionals when care did not meet standards. While other publications show that PR has poor interrater reliability, VHA provides an outside contract to perform a second review on a percentage of cases to improve the validity of PR level assignments.

Limitations

Facilities self-report PR outcomes, so there could be errors in reporting. In addition, this study was cross sectional and not longitudinal and it is possible that change in quality measures over time are correlated with PR findings. Future studies using the VHA PR and SAIL data could evaluate whether changes over time, and perhaps in response to level 2 and 3 findings, would be a more sensitive indicator of the impact of the PR process on quality metrics. Future studies could incorporate the relationship between findings from the All Employee Survey, which is conducted annually, such as psychologic safety, as well as the distance the facility has gone on the high reliability organization journey, with PR findings and SAIL metrics. Finally, PR is focused on the practice of an individual clinician, while SAIL quality metrics reflect facility performance. Interventions possibly stay at the clinician level and do not drive subsequent QI processes. This is a missed opportunity, and future studies could evaluate practices by the PR coordinators to determine whether differences in these processes are associated with quality measures.

What does this mean for PR? Since the early 1990s, there have been exhortations from experts to improve PR, by adopting a QI model, or for a deeper integration of PR and QI.^1,2,10 Just culture tools, which include QI, are promoted as a means to improve PR.^8,11,12 Other studies show PR remains problematic in terms of standardization, incorporation of best practices, redesigning systems of care, or demonstrable improvements to facility safety and care quality.^1,4,6,8 Several publications have described interventions to improve PR. Deyo-Svedson discussed a program with standardized training and triggers, much like VHA.¹³ Itri and colleagues standardized PR in radiology to target areas of known diagnostic error, as well as use the issues assessed in PR to perform QI and education. One example of a successful QI effort involved changing the radiology reporting template to make sure areas that are prone to diagnostic error are addressed.⁷

Conclusions

Since 35% of PR level variance is correlated with prior year’s results, PR committees should look at increased standardization in reviews and findings. We endorse a strong focus on standardization, application of just culture tools to case reviews, and tighter linkage between process and outcome metrics measured by SAIL and PR case finding. Studies should be performed to pilot interventions to improve the linkage between PR and quality, so that greater and faster gains can be made in quality processes and, leading from this, outcomes. Additionally, future research should investigate why some facilities consistently choose higher or lower PR ratings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dr. George “Web” Ross for his helpful edits.

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who are not vaccinated against a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2 present a disproportionate infectious risk to those who are vaccinated, according to a mathematical modeling study.

The study, which simulated patterns of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, showed that, as the populations mixed less, attack rates decreased among vaccinated people (from 15% to 10%) and increased among unvaccinated people (from 62% to 79%). The unvaccinated increasingly became the source of infection, however.

“When the vaccinated and unvaccinated mix, indirect protection is conferred upon the unvaccinated by the buffering effect of vaccinated individuals, and by contrast, risk in the vaccinated goes up,” lead author David Fisman, MD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

As the groups mix less and less, the size of the epidemic increases among the unvaccinated and decreases among the vaccinated. “But the impact of the unvaccinated on risk in the vaccinated is disproportionate to the numbers of contacts between the two groups,” said Dr. Fisman.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Relative contributions to risk

The researchers used a model of a respiratory viral disease “similar to SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta variant.” They included reproduction values to capture the dynamics of the Omicron variant, which was emerging at the time. In the study, vaccines ranged in effectiveness from 40% to 80%. The study incorporated various levels of mixing between a partially vaccinated and an unvaccinated population. The mixing ranged from random mixing to like-with-like mixing (“assortativity”). There were three possible “compartments” of people in the model: those considered susceptible to infection, those considered infected and infectious, and those considered immune because of recovery.

The model showed that, as mixing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated populations increased, case numbers rose, “with cases in the unvaccinated subpopulation accounting for a substantial proportion of infections.” However, as mixing between the populations decreased, the final attack rate decreased among vaccinated people, but the relative “contribution of risk to vaccinated people caused by infection acquired from contact with unvaccinated people ... increased.”

When the vaccination rate was increased in the model, case numbers among the vaccinated declined “as expected, owing to indirect protective effects,” the researchers noted. But this also “further increased the relative contribution to risk in vaccinated people by those who were unvaccinated.”
 

Self-regarding risk?

The findings show that “choices made by people who forgo vaccination contribute disproportionately to risk among those who do get vaccinated,” the researchers wrote. “Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to those who are unvaccinated, the choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.”

The fact that like-with-like mixing cannot mitigate the risk to vaccinated people “undermines the assertion that vaccine choice is best left to the individual and supports strong public actions aimed at enhancing vaccine uptake and limiting access to public spaces for unvaccinated people,” they wrote.
 

Mandates and passports

“Our model provides support for vaccine mandates and passports during epidemics, such that vaccination is required for people to take part in nonessential activities,” said Dr. Fisman. The choice to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 should not be considered “self-regarding,” he added. “Risk is self-regarding when it only impacts the person engaging in the activity. Something like smoking cigarettes (alone, without others around) creates a lot of risk over time, but if nobody is breathing your secondhand smoke, you’re only creating risk for yourself. By contrast, we regulate, in Ontario, your right to smoke in public indoor spaces such as restaurants, because once other people are around, the risk isn’t self-regarding anymore. You’re creating risk for others.”

The authors also noted that the risks created by the unvaccinated extend beyond those of infection by “creating a risk that those around them may not be able to obtain the care they need.” They recommended that considerations of equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be included in formulating vaccination policy.
 

Illuminating the discussion

Asked to comment on the study, Matthew Oughton, MD, assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said: “It is easy to dismiss a mathematical model as a series of assumptions that leads to an implausible conclusion. ... However, they can serve to illustrate and, to an extent, quantify the results of complex interactions, and this study does just that.” Dr. Oughton was not involved in the research.

During the past 2 years, the scientific press and the general press have often discussed the individual and collective effects of disease-prevention methods, including nonpharmaceutical interventions. “Models like this can help illuminate those discussions by highlighting important consequences of preventive measures,” said Dr. Oughton, who also works in the division of infectious diseases at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal.

It’s worth noting that the authors modeled vaccine effectiveness against all infection, “rather than the generally greater and more durable effects we have seen for vaccines in prevention of severe infection,” said Dr. Oughton. He added that the authors did not include the effect of vaccination in reducing forward transmission. “Inclusion of this effect would presumably have reduced overall infectious burden in mixed populations and increased the difference between groups at lower levels of mixing between populations.”

The research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Fisman has served on advisory boards related to influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines and has served as a legal expert on issues related to COVID-19 epidemiology for the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Dr. Oughton disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.