Sustainable Approach to Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Through Better Quality Measurement

The US health care industry has broadly adopted performance and quality measures that are extracted from electronic health records and connected to payment incentives that hope to improve declining life expectancy and health status and reduce costs. While the development of a quality measurement infrastructure based on electronic health record data was an important first step in addressing US health outcomes, these metrics, reflecting the average performance across diverse populations, do not adequately adjust for population demographic differences, social determinants of health, or ecosystem vulnerability. Like society as a whole, health care must confront the powerful impact that social determinants of health, race, ethnicity, and other demographic variations have on key health care performance indicators and quality metrics. Tools that are currently available to capture and report the health status of Americans lack the granularity, complexity, and standardization needed to improve health and address disparities at the local level. In this article, we discuss the current and future state of electronic clinical quality measures through a lens of equity.

Understanding the role of left and right ventricular strain assessment in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause cardiac injury resulting in abnormal right or left ventricular function (RV/LV) with worse outcomes. We hypothesized that two-dimensional (2D) speckle-tracking assessment of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and RV free wall strain (FWS) by transthoracic echocardiography can assist as markers for subclinical cardiac injury predicting increased mortality.

Methods

We performed 2D strain analysis via proprietary software in 48 patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Clinical information, demographics, comorbidities, and lab values were collected via retrospective chart review. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality based on an optimized abnormal LV GLS value via ROC analysis and RV FWS.

Results

The optimal LV GLS cutoff to predict death was −13.8%, with a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 55–98%) and specificity of 54% (95% CI 36–71%). Abnormal LV GLS >-13.8% was associated with a higher risk of death [unadjusted hazard ratio 5.15 (95% CI 1.13–23.45), p = 0.034], which persisted after adjustment for clinical variables. Among patients with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%, those with LV GLS > −13.8% had higher mortality compared to those with LV GLS <-13.8% (41% vs. 10%, p = 0.030). RV FWS value was higher in patients with LV GLS >-13.8% (−13.7 ± 5.9 vs. −19.6 ± 6.7, p = 0.003), but not associated with decreased survival.

Conclusion

Abnormal LV strain with a cutoff of >−13.8% in patients with COVID-19 is associated with significantly higher risk of death. Despite normal LVEF, abnormal LV GLS predicted worse outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. There was no mortality difference based on RV strain.

Abstract 242: Evaluating the Impact and Barriers to a Collaborative Physician-pharmacist Care Model to Control Hypertension in a Low-income Population

Objectives: Physician-pharmacist collaborative practice models have emerged as an effective model for managing hypertension (HTN). We implemented this model in a low-income, hospital-based cardiology clinic and sought to identify programmatic features necessary to control HTN in this vulnerable population.

Methods: Patients with persistently elevated blood pressure (>130/80) were referred by their primary cardiologist. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, had acute kidney injury, or acute cardiovascular complaints including anginal chest pain, decompensated heart failure, or unstable arrhythmia. The initial pharmacist appointment occurred within 2 weeks of referral, with the goal of bi-weekly visits for 6 weeks or until blood pressure was controlled. Patients were prescribed home blood pressure cuffs and given specific instructions for home-based monitoring. Telehealth visits were made available to interested patients. During each encounter, pharmacists assessed response and side effects to medication, adherence, lifestyle behaviors, stressors, and social barriers to blood pressure control. Clinical management and barriers to HTN control were reviewed at standing weekly staff meetings that included cardiologists and pharmacists.

Early results: Among 35 people referred, 22 patients attended at least one pharmacist visit. A total of 139 reminder or follow-up calls were made for these 22 patients. Among the first 35 referrals (mean age 58; 57% male; 65% African American or Latinx), 26% have documented substance use disorders, 34% have a mental health comorbidity, 20% were not taking their medications as prescribed on intake, and 17% had side effects from 2 or more prior antihypertensive medications. Medications adjustments were made in 21/43 patient visits (49% of visits). In 8/43 visits more than 1 medication change was made. The most common patient reported barriers to care include transportation (20%) and language barriers (11%).

Discussion and Future Direction: Managing HTN in a low-income population requires attention to the social and contextual factors impacting blood pressure control. We plan to: 1) support the uptake of telehealth to address issues of transportation and access; 2) pilot blue-tooth connected blood pressure cuffs to facilitate home monitoring and management; and 3) partner with community health workers to assess best practices for capturing and addressing social determinants of health in the clinical setting.