Nursing home-sensitive conditions: analysis of routine health insurance data and modified Delphi analysis of potentially avoidable hospitalizations

Background: Hospitalizations of nursing home residents are associated with various health risks. Previous research indicates that, to some extent, hospitalizations of this vulnerable population may be inappropriate and even avoidable. This study aimed to develop a consensus list of hospital discharge diagnoses considered to be nursing home-sensitive, i.e., avoidable. Methods: The study combined analyses of routine data from six statutory health insurance companies in Germany and a two-stage Delphi panel, enhanced by expert workshop discussions, to identify and corroborate relevant diagnoses. Experts from four different disciplines estimated the proportion of hospitalizations that could potentially have been prevented under optimal conditions. Results: We analyzed frequencies and costs of data for hospital admissions from 242,236 nursing home residents provided by statutory health insurance companies. We identified 117 hospital discharge diagnoses, which had a frequency of at least 0.1%. We recruited experts (primary care physicians, hospital specialists, nursing home professionals and researchers) to estimate the proportion of potentially avoidable hospitalizations for the 117 diagnoses deemed avoidable in two Delphi rounds (n=107 in Delphi Round 1 and n=96 in Delphi Round 2, effective response rate=91%). A total of 35 diagnoses with high and consistent estimates of the proportion of potentially avoidable hospitalizations were identified as nursing home-sensitive. In an expert workshop (n=16), a further 25 diagnoses were discussed that had not reached the criteria, of which another 23 were consented to be nursing home-sensitive conditions. Extrapolating the frequency and mean costs of these 58 diagnoses to the national German context yielded total potentially avoidable care costs of €768,304,547, associated with 219,955 nursing home-sensitive hospital admissions. Conclusion: A total of 58 nursing home-relevant diagnoses (ICD-10-GM three-digit level) were classified as nursing home-sensitive using an adapted Delphi procedure. Interventions should be developed to avoid hospital admission from nursing homes for these diagnoses.

Mobile Alert and Warning in the United States and Japan: Confronting the Challenges of International Harmonization

A U.S.-Japan expert workshop on mobile alert and warning was held online 8–10 September 2021. Funded by the Japan Foundation’s Center for Global Partnership (CGP) and responding to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, the workshop compared U.S. and Japanese mobile alert and warning contexts, systems, policies, and messages to investigate possibilities for international harmonization of mobile device-based early warning. The workshop’s sessions revealed two interrelated issues that repeatedly surfaced among workshop participants: culture and policy. The workshop illuminated several possibilities and problems confronting U.S., Japanese, and global stakeholders as they develop, deploy, and seek to improve the effectiveness of mobile alert and warning systems and messages.

Setting-Sensitive Conceptualization and Assessment of Quality of Life in Telemedical Care—Study Protocol of the Tele-QoL Project

Quality of life (QoL) is a core patient-reported outcome in healthcare research, alongside primary clinical outcomes. A conceptual, operational, and psychometric elaboration of QoL in the context of TM is needed, because standardized instruments to assess QoL do not sufficiently represent essential aspects of intended outcomes of telemedical applications (TM). The overall aim is to develop an instrument that can adequately capture QoL in TM. For that purpose, an extended working model of QoL will be derived. Subsequently, an instrument will be developed and validated that captures those aspects of QoL that are influenced by TM. The initial exploratory study section includes (a) a systematic literature review, (b) a qualitative survey for concept elicitation, and (c) pre-testings using cognitive debriefings with patients and an expert workshop. The second quantitative section consists of an online expert survey and two patient surveys for piloting and validation of the newly developed instrument. The resulting questionnaire will assess central experiences of patients regarding telemedical applications and its impact on QoL more sensitively. Its use as adjunct instrument will lead to a more appropriate evaluation of TM and contribute to the improvement of care tailored to patients’ individual needs.

Reducing bias in trials from reactions to measurement: the MERIT study including developmental work and expert workshop

Background Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the ‘question–behaviour effect’). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates. Objectives The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health. Methods We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018;19:653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants’ health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups. Results Systematic reviews – we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n = 104,096, I 2 = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question–behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09—0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure – substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop – 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias. Limitation The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about. Conclusion We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias. Future work The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity. Study registration The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.

CAUSAL MAPPING TO EXPLORE EMERGENCE OF CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES

Disputes, frequently encountered in construction projects, can substantially affect project success, necessitating a clear understanding of how and why disputes occur. Previous studies on disputes mostly yielded exhaustive lists or hierarchies of possible causes of disputes, which can hardly be used to understand how these causes come together to form a dispute. To address this gap, this study provides an alternative approach to understand the underlying causes of disputes, and their relationship within a specific context, using causal map analysis. This study is conducted using causal mapping approach to understand dispute emergence patterns in practice. Initially, a causal map of construction disputes is developed based on literature. The map is altered and verified through an expert workshop, considering projects contracted through FIDIC Yellow Book. The causal representation of the dispute emergence patterns highlights the importance of pre-construction studies, people factor, and contract terms. It is revealed that significant causes are either result of a chain of preceding factors or are triggers for further ones. This finding reinforces that the occurrence of disputes does not only depend on individual causes; rather, these causes combine with a series of other factors for a dispute to occur.

Publication Categories in Toxicologic Pathology

Toxicologic Pathology is the official journal of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP), the British Society of Toxicological Pathology, and the European STP (ESTP). Toxicologic Pathology publishes articles related to topics in various aspects of toxicologic pathology such as anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, experimental pathology, and biomarker research. Publications include society-endorsed Best Practice/Position and Points to Consider publications and ESTP Expert Workshop articles that are relevant to toxicologic pathology and scientific regulatory processes, Opinion articles under the banner of the STP Toxicologic Pathology Forum, Original Articles, Review Articles (unsolicited/contributed, mini, and invited), Brief Communications, Letters to the Editor, Meeting Reports, and Book Reviews. This article provides details on the various publication categories in Toxicologic Pathology and will serve as a reference for authors and readers.

The Application, Challenges, and Advancement Toward Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Toxicologic Pathology: Results of the 7th ESTP International Expert Workshop (September 20-21, 2019)

With advancements in whole slide imaging technology and improved understanding of the features of pathologist workstations required for digital slide evaluation, many institutions are investigating broad digital pathology adoption. The benefits of digital pathology evaluation include remote access to study or diagnostic case materials and integration of analysis and reporting tools. Diagnosis based on whole slide images is established in human medical pathology, and the use of digital pathology in toxicologic pathology is increasing. However, there has not been broad adoption in toxicologic pathology, particularly in the context of regulatory studies, due to lack of precedence. To address this topic, as well as practical aspects, the European Society of Toxicologic Pathology coordinated an expert international workshop to assess current applications and challenges and outline a set of minimal requirements needed to gain future regulatory acceptance for the use of digital toxicologic pathology workflows in research and development, so that toxicologic pathologists can benefit from digital slide technology.