Assessment of the quality, content, and reliability of YouTube® videos on diabetes mellitus and PCOS: a systematic review with cross-sectional analysis comparing peer-reviewed videos.

YouTube® is one of the leading platforms for health information. However, the lack of regulation of content and quality raises concerns about accuracy and reliability. CoMICs (Concise Medical Information Cines) are evidenced-based short videos created by medical students and junior doctors and reviewed by experts to ensure clinical accuracy. We performed a systematic review to understand the impact of videos on knowledge and awareness about diabetes and PCOS. We then evaluated the quality of YouTube® videos about diabetes and PCOS using various validated quality assessment tools and compared these with CoMICs videos on the same topics. Quality assessment tools like DISCERN, JAMA benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Score (GQS) were employed. Some of the authors of this study also co-authored the creation of some of the CoMICs evaluated. Our study revealed that while videos effectively improve understanding of diabetes and PCOS, there are notable differences in quality and reliability of the videos on YouTube®. For diabetes, CoMICs videos had higher DISCERN scores (CoMICs vs YouTube®: 2.4 vs 1.6), superior reliability (p<0.01) and treatment quality (p<0.01), and met JAMA criteria for authorship (100% vs. 30.6%) and currency (100% vs. 53.1%). For PCOS, CoMICs had higher DISCERN scores (2.9 vs. 1.9), reliability (p<0.01), and treatment quality (p<0.01); and met JAMA criteria for authorship (100% vs. 34.0%) and currency (100% vs. 54.0%); and had higher GQS scores (4.0 vs 3.0). In conclusion, CoMICs outperformed other similar sources on YouTube® in providing reliable evidence-based medical information which may be used for patient education.

Real-World Application of Oral Therapy for Infective Endocarditis: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare the outcomes of patients treated with intravenous (IV)-only vs oral transitional antimicrobial therapy for infective endocarditis (IE) after implementing a new expected practice within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC DHS). METHODS: We conducted a multicentered, retrospective cohort study of adults with definite or possible IE treated with IV-only vs oral therapy at the 3 acute care public hospitals in the LAC DHS system between December 2018 and June 2022. The primary outcome was clinical success at 90 days, defined as being alive and without recurrence of bacteremia or treatment-emergent infectious complications. RESULTS: We identified 257 patients with IE treated with IV-only (n = 211) or oral transitional (n = 46) therapy who met study inclusion criteria. Study arms were similar for many demographics; however, the IV cohort was older, had more aortic valve involvement, were hemodialysis patients, and had central venous catheters present. In contrast, the oral cohort had a higher percentage of IE caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. There was no significant difference between the groups in clinical success at 90 days or last follow-up. There was no difference in recurrence of bacteremia or readmission rates. However, patients treated with oral therapy had significantly fewer adverse events. Multivariable regression adjustments did not find significant associations between any selected variables and clinical success across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate similar outcomes of real-world use of oral vs IV-only therapy for IE, in accord with prior randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Characteristics and Outcomes of 360 Consecutive COVID-19 Patients Discharged From the Emergency Department With Supplemental Oxygen.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics and outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients with new supplemental oxygen requirements discharged from a large public urban emergency department (ED) with supplemental oxygen. METHODS: This observational case series describes the characteristics and outcomes of 360 consecutive COVID-19 patients with new supplemental oxygen requirements discharged from a large urban public ED between April 2020 and March 2021 with supplemental oxygen. Primary outcomes included 30-day survival and 30-day survival without unscheduled inpatient admission. Demographic and clinical data were collected through a structured chart review. RESULTS: Among 360 patients with COVID-19 discharged from the ED with supplemental oxygen, 30-day survival was 97.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.3 to 98.9%; n=351), and 30-day survival without unscheduled admission was 81.1% (95% CI 76.7 to 85.0%; n=292). A sensitivity analysis incorporating worst-case-scenario for 12 patients without complete follow-up 30 days after index visit yields 30-day survival of 95.5% (95% CI 92.5 to 97.2%; n=343), and 30-day survival without unscheduled admission of 78.9% (95% CI 74.3 to 83.0%; n=284). Among study patients, 32.2% (n=116) had a nadir ED oxygen saturation of <90%, among these 30-day survival was 97.4% (95% CI 92.6 to 99.4%; n=113), and 30-day survival without unscheduled admission was 76.7% (95% CI 68.8 to 84.1%; n=89). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients with new supplemental oxygen requirements discharged from the ED had survival comparable to COVID-19 ED patients with mild exertional hypoxia treated with supplemental oxygen in other settings, and this held true when the analysis was restricted to patients with nadir ED index visit oxygen saturations <90%. Discharge of select COVID-19 patients with supplemental oxygen from the ED may provide a viable alternative to hospitalization, particularly when inpatient capacity is limited.

Effect of mortality from COVID-19 on inpatient outcomes.

When hospitals first encountered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there was a dearth of therapeutic options and nearly 1 in 3 patients died from the disease. By the summer of 2020, as deaths from the disease declined nationally, multiple single-center studies began to report declining mortality of patients with COVID-19. To evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on hospital-based mortality, we searched the Vizient Clinical Data Base for outcomes data from approximately 600 participating hospitals, including 130 academic medical centers, from January 2017 through December 2020. More than 32 million hospital admissions were included in the analysis. After an initial spike, mortality from COVID-19 declined in all regions of the country to under 10% by June 2020 and remained constant for the remainder of the year. Despite this, inpatient, all-cause mortality has increased since the beginning of the pandemic, even those without respiratory failure. Inpatient mortality has particularly increased in elderly patients and in those requiring intubation for respiratory failure. Since June 2020, COVID-19 kills one in every 10 patients admitted to the hospital with this diagnosis. The addition of this new disease has raised overall hospital mortality especially those who require intubation for respiratory failure.

From the hospital to the streets: Bringing care to the unsheltered homeless in Los Angeles.

Homelessness is a neglected crisis throughout the United States. In Los Angeles (L.A.) County, nearly 59,000 residents are homeless, and the vast majority are unsheltered. An academic institution and L.A county's largest public hospital formed a partnership to launch a Street Medicine (SM) program. SM assists the inpatient team with discharge planning and builds rapport with the patient experiencing homelessness. After discharge, the SM team follows up and brings care to the patient on the streets, often developing a trusting relationship and establishing continuity of primary care. During a 12-month period, SM provided inpatient consults for 206 unsheltered homeless patients.

Mortality and Readmission Rates Among Patients With COVID-19 After Discharge From Acute Care Setting With Supplemental Oxygen.

Importance: To optimize patient outcomes and preserve critical acute care access during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services developed the SAFE @ HOME O2 Expected Practice (expected practice), enabling ambulatory oxygen management for COVID-19. Objective: To assess outcomes of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia discharged via the expected practice approach to home or quarantine housing with supplemental home oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 621 adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who were discharged from 2 large urban public hospitals caring primarily for patients receiving Medicaid from March 20 to August 19, 2020. Patients were included in the analysis cohort if they received emergency or inpatient care for COVID-19 and were discharged with home oxygen. Interventions: Patients receiving at least 3 L per minute of oxygen, stable without other indication for inpatient care, were discharged from either emergency or inpatient encounters with home oxygen equipment, educational resources, and nursing telephone follow-up within 12 to 18 hours of discharge. Nurses provided continued telephone follow up as indicated, always with physician back-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and all-cause 30-day return admission. Results: A total of 621 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (404 male [65.1%] and 217 female [34.9%]) were discharged with home oxygen. Median age of these patients was 51 years (interquartile range, 45-61 years), with 149 (24.0%) discharged from the emergency department and 472 (76%) discharged from inpatient encounters. The all-cause mortality rate was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.5%) and the 30-day return hospital admission rate was 8.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-10.7%) with a median follow-up time of 26 days (interquartile range, 15-55 days). No deaths occurred in the ambulatory setting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia discharged on home oxygen had low rates of mortality and return admission within 30 days of discharge. Ambulatory management of COVID-19 with home oxygen has an acceptable safety profile, and the expected practice approach may help optimize outcomes, by ensuring right care in the right place at the right time and preserving access to acute care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Addressing Diabetes in Primary Care: Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Study of Lifestyle Redesign® Occupational Therapy.

IMPORTANCE: Primary health care is rapidly developing as an occupational therapy practice area. Yet, to date, little evidence supports occupational therapy's feasibility and efficacy in primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To report on the implementation and preliminary clinical outcomes of a Lifestyle Redesign® (LR)-occupational therapy (LR-OT) diabetes management intervention in a primary care clinic. DESIGN: Patients were randomized to be offered LR-OT or to a no-contact comparison group (data not reported). We assessed implementation outcomes using mixed methods. SETTING: Safety-net primary care clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Clinic providers and staff; English- or Spanish-speaking clinic patients ages 18-75 yr with diabetes and a current hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 9.0%. INTERVENTION: Eight 1-hr individual sessions of LR-OT focused on diabetes management. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical and health behavior outcomes were assessed via electronic medical record (EMR) review and self-report surveys of patients receiving LR-OT at initial evaluation and discharge. We assessed implementation outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, efficiency, and timeliness) using patient and staff surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observations. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were offered LR-OT: 51 completed one or more sessions, and 38 completed the program. Clinical outcomes among program completers indicate beneficial changes in HbA1c, diabetes self-care, and health status. Implementation challenges included a need for patient and staff education, securing adequate workspace, and establishing a referral process. Factors contributing to implementation success included strong buy-in from clinic leadership, colocation, and shared EMR documentation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: LR-OT is a feasible approach to enhancing service delivery and clinical outcomes in primary care. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: This study provides insight into factors that may create challenges or contribute to the success of implementing occupational therapy services within primary health care settings. In addition, this study provides preliminary evidence of occupational therapy's effectiveness in improving clinical outcomes among ethnically diverse, low-income patients with diabetes in a safety-net primary care setting.