Publications
Department of Medicine faculty members published more than 3,600 peer-reviewed articles in 2024.
2016
2016
2016
2016
OBJECTIVE
To characterize the frequency of and risk factors for out-of-hospital sudden neurologic deaths.
METHODS
During the initial 25 months (February 1, 2011-March 1, 2013) of the San Francisco Postmortem Systematic Investigation of Sudden Cardiac Death Study, we captured incident WHO criteria sudden cardiac deaths (SCDs) through active surveillance of consecutive out-of-hospital deaths, which must be reported to the medical examiner by law. All cases were referred for full autopsy with detailed examination of the heart and cranial vault, toxicology, and histology. A multidisciplinary committee adjudicated a final cause of death.
RESULTS
Of 352 incident SCDs, 335 (95%) underwent systematic evaluation including full autopsy. Of these 335 cases, 18 (5.4%) were sudden neurologic deaths (mean age 60.6 years [SD 17.6, range 27-87]; 67.7% female), which accounted for 14.9% of the 121 noncardiac sudden deaths. The risk of sudden neurologic death compared to non-neurologic SCD was lower in male and white participants (p < 0.01). Neurologic causes included intracranial hemorrhage (8), sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (6, including 2 with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy), aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (2), acute ischemic stroke (1), and aspiration from Huntington disease (1). Most deaths were unwitnessed (16; 89%) with asystole at presentation (17; 94%). Prior stroke/TIA was not associated with risk of stroke (odds ratio [OR] 1.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18-11.8], p = 0.73), but antithrombotic medication use was (OR 3.9 [95% 1.01-15.5], p = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Sudden neurologic death is an important cause of out-of-hospital apparent SCDs. Low prevailing autopsy rates may result in systematic misclassification of apparent SCDs and underestimation of the incidence of sudden neurologic death.
View on PubMed2016
2016
OBJECTIVE
To highlight the opportunities and challenges of developing and implementing performance outcome measures in rheumatology for accountability purposes.
METHODS
We constructed a hypothetical performance outcome measure to demonstrate the benefits and challenges of designing quality measures that assess patient outcomes. We defined the data source, measure cohort, reporting period, period at risk, measure outcome, outcome attribution, risk adjustment, reliability and validity, and reporting approach. We discussed outcome measure challenges specific to rheumatology and to fields where patients have predominantly chronic, complex, ambulatory care-sensitive conditions.
RESULTS
Our hypothetical outcome measure was a measure of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity intended for evaluating Accountable Care Organization performance. We summarized the components, benefits, challenges, and tradeoffs between feasibility and usability. We highlighted how different measure applications, such as for rapid cycle quality improvement efforts versus pay for performance programs, require different approaches to measure development and testing. We provided a summary table of key take-home points for clinicians and policymakers.
CONCLUSION
Performance outcome measures are coming to rheumatology, and the most effective and meaningful measures can only be created through the close collaboration of patients, providers, measure developers, and policymakers. This study provides an overview of key issues and is intended to stimulate a productive dialogue between patients, practitioners, insurers, and government agencies regarding optimal performance outcome measure development.
View on PubMed2016
2016
2016
2016