Skilled Nursing Facility Care at Home for Adults Discharged From the Hospital: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

The Safety of Outpatient Health Care : Review of Electronic Health Records

BACKGROUND

Despite considerable emphasis on delivering safe care, substantial patient harm occurs. Although most care occurs in the outpatient setting, knowledge of outpatient adverse events (AEs) remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To measure AEs in the outpatient setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of the electronic health record (EHR).

SETTING

11 outpatient sites in Massachusetts in 2018.

PATIENTS

3103 patients who received outpatient care.

MEASUREMENTS

Using a trigger method, nurse reviewers identified possible AEs and physicians adjudicated them, ranked severity, and assessed preventability. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association of having at least 1 AE with age, sex, race, and primary insurance. Variation in AE rates was analyzed across sites.

RESULTS

The 3103 patients (mean age, 52 years) were more often female (59.8%), White (75.1%), English speakers (90.8%), and privately insured (70.4%) and had a mean of 4 outpatient encounters in 2018. Overall, 7.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 9.3%) of patients had at least 1 AE (8.6 events per 100 patients annually). Adverse drug events were the most common AE (63.8%), followed by health care-associated infections (14.8%) and surgical or procedural events (14.2%). Severity was serious in 17.4% of AEs, life-threatening in 2.1%, and never fatal. Overall, 23.2% of AEs were preventable. Having at least 1 AE was less often associated with ages 18 to 44 years than with ages 65 to 84 years (standardized risk difference, -0.05 [CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) and more often associated with Black race than with Asian race (standardized risk difference, 0.09 [CI, 0.01 to 0.17]). Across study sites, 1.8% to 23.6% of patients had at least 1 AE and clinical category of AEs varied substantially.

LIMITATION

Retrospective EHR review may miss AEs.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient harm was relatively common and often serious. Adverse drug events were most frequent. Rates were higher among older adults. Interventions to curtail outpatient harm are urgently needed.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.

Key Features of Smart Medication Adherence Products: Updated Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Older adults often face challenges in self-managing their medication owing to physical and cognitive limitations, complex medication regimens, and packaging of medications. Emerging smart medication dispensing and adherence products (SMAPs) offer the options of automated dispensing, tracking medication intake in real time, and reminders and notifications. A 2021 review identified 51 SMAPs owing to the rapid influx of digital technology; an update to this review is required.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to identify new products and summarize and compare the key features of SMAPs.

METHODS

Gray and published literature and videos were searched using Google, YouTube, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The first 10 pages of Google and the first 100 results of YouTube were screened using 4 and 5 keyword searches, respectively. SMAPs were included if they were able to store and allowed for the dispensation of medications, tracked real-time medication intake data, and could automatically analyze data. Products were excluded if they were stand-alone software applications, not marketed in English, not for in-home use, or only used in clinical trials. In total, 5 researchers independently screened and extracted the data.

RESULTS

This review identified 114 SMAPs, including 80 (70.2%) marketed and 34 (29.8%) prototypes, grouped into 15 types. Among the marketed products, 68% (54/80) were available for consumer purchase. Of these products, 26% (14/54) were available worldwide and 78% (42/54) were available in North America. There was variability in the hardware, software, data collection and management features, and cost of the products. Examples of hardware features include battery life, medication storage capacity, availability of types and number of alarms, locking features, and additional technology required for use of the product, whereas software features included reminder and notification capabilities and availability of manufacturer support. Data capture methods included the availability of sensors to record the use of the product and data-syncing capabilities with cloud storage with short-range communications. Data were accessible to users via mobile apps or web-based portals. Some SMAPs provided data security assurance with secure log-ins (use of personal identification numbers or facial recognition), whereas other SMAPs provided data through registered email addresses. Although some SMAPs were available at set prices or free of cost to end users, the cost of other products varied based on availability, shipping fees, and subscription fees.

CONCLUSIONS

An expanding market for SMAPs with features specific to at-home patient use is emerging. Health care professionals can use these features to select and suggest products that meet their patients' unique requirements.