Contemporary Management and Outcomes of Veterans Hospitalized With Alcohol Withdrawal: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies describe contemporary alcohol withdrawal management in hospitalized settings or review current practices considering the guidelines by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with alcohol withdrawal on medical or surgical wards in 19 Veteran Health Administration (VHA) hospitals between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019. Demographic and comorbidity data were obtained from the Veteran Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse. Inpatient management and hospital outcomes were obtained by chart review. Factors associated with treatment duration and complicated withdrawal were examined. RESULTS: Of the 594 patients included in this study, 51% were managed with symptom-triggered therapy alone, 26% with fixed dose plus symptom-triggered therapy, 10% with front loading regimens plus symptom-triggered therapy, and 3% with fixed dose alone. The most common medication given was lorazepam (87%) followed by chlordiazepoxide (33%), diazepam (14%), and phenobarbital (6%). Symptom-triggered therapy alone (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.80) and front loading with symptom-triggered therapy (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92) were associated with reduced treatment duration. Lorazepam (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41) and phenobarbital (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54) were associated with increased treatment duration. Lorazepam (adjusted odds ratio, 4.30; 95% CI, 1.05-17.63) and phenobarbital (adjusted odds ratio, 6.51; 95% CI, 2.08-20.40) were also associated with complicated withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results support guidelines by the ASAM to manage patients with long-acting benzodiazepines using symptom-triggered therapy. Health care systems that are using shorter acting benzodiazepines and fixed-dose regimens should consider updating alcohol withdrawal management pathways to follow ASAM recommendations.

A Multicenter Observational Study Comparing Virtual with In-Person Morning Reports during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted how educational conferences were delivered, leaving programs to choose between in-person and virtual morning report formats. The objective of our study was to describe morning reports during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of virtual formats, attendance, leadership, and content. METHODS: A prospective observational study of morning reports was conducted at 13 Internal Medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020 and March 30, 2021, including a follow-up survey of current morning report format in January 2023. RESULTS: In total, 257 reports were observed; 74% used virtual formats, including single hospital, multiple hospital, and a hybrid format with both in-person and virtual participants. Compared with in-person reports, virtual reports had more participants, with increased numbers of learners (median 21 vs 7; P < 0.001) and attendings (median 4 vs 2; P < 0.001), and they were more likely to involve medical students (83% vs 40%; P < 0.001), interns (99% vs 53%; P < 0.001), and program directors (68% vs 32%; P < 0.001). Attendings were less likely to lead virtual reports (3% vs 28%, P < 0.001). Virtual reports also were more likely to be case based (88% vs 69%; P < 0.001) and to use digital presentation slides (91% vs 36%; P < 0.001). There was a marked increase in the number of slides (median 20 vs 0; P < 0.001). As of January 2023, all 13 programs had returned to in-person reports, with only 1 program offering an option to participate virtually. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual morning report formats predominated. Compared with traditional in-person reports, virtual report increased attendance, favored resident leadership, and approached a similar range of patient diagnoses with a greater number of case-based presentations and slides. In spite of these characteristics, all programs returned to an in-person format for morning report as pandemic restrictions waned.

What internal medicine attendings talk about at morning report: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Morning report is a core educational activity in internal medicine resident education. Attending physicians regularly participate in morning report and influence the learning environment, though no previous study has described the contribution of attending physicians to this conference. This study aims to describe attending comments at internal medicine morning reports. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of morning reports conducted at 13 internal medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020, and March 30, 2021. Each attending comment was described including its duration, whether the comment was teaching or non-teaching, teaching topic, and field of practice of the commenter. We also recorded morning report-related variables including number of learners, report format, program director participation, and whether report was scripted (facilitator has advance knowledge of the case). A regression model was developed to describe variables associated with the number of attending comments per report. RESULTS: There were 2,344 attending comments during 250 conferences. The median number of attendings present was 3 (IQR, 2-5). The number of comments per report ranged across different sites from 3.9 to 16.8 with a mean of 9.4 comments/report (SD, 7.4). 66% of comments were shorter than one minute in duration and 73% were categorized as teaching by observers. The most common subjects of teaching comments were differential diagnosis, management, and testing. Report duration, number of general internists, unscripted reports, and in-person format were associated with significantly increased number of attending comments. CONCLUSIONS: Attending comments in morning report were generally brief, focused on clinical teaching, and covered a wide range of topics. There were substantial differences between programs in terms of the number of comments and their duration which likely affects the local learning environment. Morning report stakeholders that are interested in increasing attending involvement in morning report should consider employing in-person and unscripted reports. Additional studies are needed to explore best practice models of attending participation in morning report.

Simple signature/countersignature shared-accountability quality improvement initiative to improve reliability of blood sample collection: an essential clinical task.

BACKGROUND: Timely lab results are important to clinical decision-making and hospital flow. However, at our institution, unreliable blood sample collection for patients with central venous access jeopardised this outcome and created staff dissatisfaction. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of nurses including a specialist clinical nurse leader (CNL), the hospital intravenous team and quality improvement (QI) consultants aimed to achieve >80% blood sample collection reliability among patients with central venous access by employing a simple signature/countersignature form coupled with audit-feedback and behavioural economics strategies. The form was piloted on one 25-bed unit. Data were collected for 60 weeks and interpreted per standard run chart rules. RESULTS: Blood sample collection reliability exceeded the 80% goal by week 22. The practice was sustained on the pilot unit and spread successfully to other wards despite significant operational threats including the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, a simple signature/countersignature form supplemented by audit-feedback and behavioural economics strategies led to sustained practice change among staff. The pairing of CNL to QI consultant enhanced change potency and durability.

A Comparative Study of Scripted versus Unscripted Morning Reports: Results from a Prospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: Morning report is one of the central activities of internal medicine residency education. The two most common morning report formats are scripted reports, which use preselected cases with prepared didactics, and unscripted reports in which a case is discussed without preparation. No previous study has compared these two formats. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of morning report conducted at 10 academic medical centers across the United States. RESULTS: A total of 198 case-based morning reports were observed. Of these, 169 (85%) were scripted and 29 (15%) were unscripted. Scripted reports were more likely to present a case with a known final diagnosis (89% vs 76%, P = 0.04), use electronic slides (76% vs 52%, P = 0.01), involve more than 15 slides (55% vs 3%, P < 0.001), and reference the medical literature (61% vs 34%, P = 0.02), including professional guidelines (32% vs 10%, P = 0.02) and original research (25% vs 0%, P = 0.001). Scripted reports also consumed more time in prepared didactics (8.0 vs 0 minutes, P < 0.001). Unscripted reports consumed more time in case history (10.0 vs 7.0 minutes, P < 0.001), physical examination (3.0 vs 2.0 minutes, P = 0.06), and differential diagnosis (10.0 vs 7.0 minutes, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most contemporary morning reports are scripted. Compared with traditional unscripted reports, scripted reports are more likely to involve a case with a known diagnosis, use extensive electronic presentation slides, and consume more time in didactics, while unscripted reports consume more time in the early diagnostic process, including history, physical examination, and differential diagnosis. Residency programs interested in emphasizing these aspects of medical education should encourage unscripted morning reports.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes in emergency versus nonemergency open umbilical hernia repair and opportunities for elective repair in a national cohort of patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Whether to perform umbilical hernia repair in patients with cirrhosis is a common dilemma for surgeons. We aimed to determine the incidence, morbidity, and mortality associated with emergency and nonemergency umbilical hernia repair in patients with and without cirrhosis, and to explore opportunities for nonemergency repair. METHODS: Veterans diagnosed with cirrhosis between 2001 and 2014 and a frequency-matched sample of veterans without cirrhosis were followed through September 2017. Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program data provided outcomes and risk factors for mortality after umbilical hernia repair. We performed chart review of a random sample of patients undergoing emergency umbilical hernia repair. RESULTS: Among 119,605 veterans with cirrhosis and 118,125 matched veterans without cirrhosis, the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database included 1,475 and 552 open umbilical hernia repairs, respectively. In patients with cirrhosis, 30-day mortality was 1.2% after nonemergency umbilical hernia repair and 12.2% after emergency umbilical hernia repair, contrasting with zero deaths in patients without cirrhosis undergoing these repairs. In patients with cirrhosis but no ascites in the prior month, 30-day mortality after nonemergency umbilical hernia repair was 0.7%, compared to 2.2% in those with ascites. Chart review of patients requiring emergency umbilical hernia repair revealed that elective umbilical hernia repair may have been feasible in 30% of these patients in the prior year; fewer than half of those undergoing emergency umbilical hernia repair had received a general surgery consultation in the prior 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Nonemergency open umbilical hernia repair was associated with relatively low perioperative mortality in patients with cirrhosis and no recent ascites. About 30% of patients undergoing emergency umbilical hernia repair may have been candidates for nonemergency repair in the prior year.

Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Virtual Morning Report: a Multicenter Survey.

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted graduate medical education, compelling training programs to abruptly transition to virtual educational formats despite minimal experience or proficiency. We surveyed residents from a national sample of internal medicine (IM) residency programs to describe their experiences with the transition to virtual morning report (MR), a highly valued core educational conference. OBJECTIVE: Assess resident views about virtual MR content and teaching strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Anonymous, web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Residents from 14 academically affiliated IM residency programs. MAIN MEASURES: The 25-item survey on virtual MR included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend and teach; how the virtual format affects the learning environment; how virtual MR compares to in-person MR with regard to participation, engagement, and overall education; and whether virtual MR should continue after in-person conferences can safely resume. The survey included a combination of Likert-style, multiple option, and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Six hundred fifteen residents (35%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of interns (39%), second-year (31%), and third-year (30%) residents. When comparing their overall assessment of in-person and virtual MR formats, 42% of residents preferred in-person, 18% preferred virtual, and 40% felt they were equivalent. Most respondents endorsed better peer-engagement, camaraderie, and group participation with in-person MR. Chat boxes, video participation, audience response systems, and smart boards/tablets enhanced respondents' educational experience during virtual MR. Most respondents (72%) felt that the option of virtual MR should continue when it is safe to resume in-person conferences. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual MR was a valued alternative to traditional in-person MR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Residents feel that the virtual platform offers unique educational benefits independent of and in conjunction with in-person conferences. Residents support the integration of a virtual platform into the delivery of MR in the future.

Preoperative Insulin Intensification to Improve Day of Surgery Blood Glucose Control.

Background: Guidelines offer varying recommendations for preoperative long-acting basal insulin dosing, despite mounting evidence of the advantages of maintaining perioperative glucose levels between 80 and 180 mg/dL. Observations: We iteratively adjusted health care practitioner (HCP) instructions to intensify insulin dosing on the evening before surgery for 195 consecutive patients with diabetes mellitus treated with long-acting basal insulin with an evening dosage. Baseline data was collected in phase 1. In phase 2, the preoperative insulin dose on the evening before surgery was increased for patients with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > 8%; in phase 3, it was increased for patients with HbA1c ≤ 8% while sustaining the phase 2 change. Increased preoperative insulin doses did not change the rates of day of surgery (DOS) hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. Overall, HCP adherence to the modified protocols was high (89%). A decline in HCP adherence after phase 2 protocol change was associated with a transient increase in DOS hyperglycemia. Patient adherence to preoperative medication instructions was high (86%) and was not affected by protocol changes. Conclusions: Preoperative insulin intensification the evening before surgery did not change rates of DOS hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. HCP adherence decreased transiently, which briefly increased DOS hyperglycemia rates in some patients. Perioperative hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose levels ≥ 180 mg/dL in the immediate pre- and postoperative period, is associated with increased postoperative morbidity, including infections, preoperative interventions, and in-hospital mortality.1-3 Despite being identified as a barrier to optimal perioperative glycemic control, limited evidence is available on patient or health care practitioner (HCP) adherence to preoperative insulin protocols.4-6.

Focusing on the Medically Ready for Discharge Patient Using a Reliable Design Strategy: A Quality Improvement Project to Improve Length of Stay on a Medicine Service.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Length of stay is a common measure of efficiency of care. We aimed to reduce length of stay on a general medicine service through a structured quality improvement project. METHODS: A reliable design strategy was implemented in successive stages at a 238-bed academically-affiliated VA hospital. Over a 2-year period, continuous improvement efforts were directed at discrete cohorts of patients deemed medically appropriate for discharge but who remained hospitalized because of discharge barriers. We compared the mean length of stay and medically-ready bed days of care for a hospital in statistical control charts. Pre- and post-intervention comparisons were made using t -tests. RESULTS: In total, 5321 discharges were included in this improvement project, accounting for 35 852 bed days of care. Overall, average length of stay was reduced by 15.7%, from 7.62 to 6.40 days ( P < .05). There was a significant reduction in the mean number of medically-ready bed days of care from 2.3 to 1.72. Statistical process control charts demonstrated special cause variation across patient cohorts. CONCLUSION: A quality improvement project using reliable design principles was associated with shorter length of stay.

Virtual Interactive Case-Based Education (VICE): A Conference for Deliberate Practice of Diagnostic Reasoning.

Introduction: Current approaches to teaching diagnostic reasoning minimally address the need for deliberate practice. We developed an educational conference for internal medicine residents to practice diagnostic reasoning and examine how biases affect their differential diagnoses through cognitive autopsies. Methods: We formatted the Virtual Interactive Case-Based Education (VICE) conference as a clinical problem-solving exercise, in which a facilitator presents a case to a single discussant selected from the audience. We delivered VICE on an internet-based conferencing platform with screen-sharing capability over approximately 30 minutes. To maximize learners' psychological safety, we employed an active facilitation model that normalized uncertainty and prioritized the diagnostic process over arriving at the correct diagnosis. Results: Resident attitudes toward VICE were assessed by utilizing a postconference survey and gathering descriptive data for 11 sessions. Ninety-seven percent of respondents (n = 35) felt that VICE was a novel and valuable addition to their curriculum. Qualitative data suggested that positive features of the conference included the opportunity to practice diagnostic reasoning, the single-discussant format, and the supportive learning environment. Discussants reported that holding the conference in person would have negatively impacted their experience. Discussion: Internal medicine residents universally valued the opportunity to engage in deliberate practice of case-based reasoning in a psychologically safe environment during the VICE conference. The virtual nature of the conference contributed significantly to discussants' positive experience. This resource includes all materials necessary to implement VICE, as well as an instructional video on facilitation.

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Internal Medicine Residents' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Current Practices Regarding Patient Transitions to Post-Acute Care.

OBJECTIVES: Prior studies have found suboptimal knowledge about post-acute care (PAC) among inpatient providers and poor communication at discharge that can lead to unsafe discharge transitions, but little is known about residents and the PAC transition. The aim of this study is to assess internal medicine residents' knowledge, attitudes, and current practice regarding patient transitions to PAC. DESIGN: A multisite, cross-sectional 36-question survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Internal Medicine and Medicine-Pediatrics residents at 3 university-based Internal Medicine training programs in the United States. METHODS: Survey delivered electronically to residents in 2018 and 2019. Survey responses were described by collapsing 4-point Likert responses into dichotomous variables, and thematic content analysis was used to evaluate free text responses. RESULTS: Of 482 residents surveyed, 236 responded (49%). Despite high reported confidence in their ability to transition patients to PAC, only 31% of residents knew how often patients received skilled therapies at skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and 23% knew how frequently nursing services are provided. The majority of residents (79%) identified the discharge summary as the main way they communicated care instructions to the SNF, but only 55% reported always completing it prior to discharge. Upper-level residents were more likely to know how much therapy patients received at a SNF, but resident knowledge about PAC did not vary by residency year in other domains. Residents who experienced a clinical rotation at a SNF had higher levels of knowledge compared to residents who did not. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey of internal medicine residents identified common knowledge gaps regarding PAC. These knowledge gaps did not improve throughout residency without deliberate exposure to PAC environments. This suggests a need for dedicated curriculum development as discharges to PAC continue to rise exponentially.

Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Morning Report: a Multicenter Survey.

BACKGROUND: Residents rate morning report (MR) as an essential educational activity. Little contemporary evidence exists to guide medical educators on the optimal content or most effective delivery strategies, particularly in the era of resident duty-hour limitations and shifts towards learner-centric pedagogy in graduate medical education. OBJECTIVE: Assess resident views about MR content and teaching strategies. DESIGN: Anonymous, online survey. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residents from 10 VA-affiliated residency programs. MAIN MEASURES: The 20-item survey included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend, who should teach, and how to prioritize the teaching; and respondents' comfort level with participating in MR. The survey included a combination of Likert-style and multiple-choice questions with the option for multiple responses. KEY RESULTS: A total of 497 residents (46%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of R1s (33%), R2s (35%), and R3s (31%). Self-reported MR attendance was high (31% always attend; 39% attend > 50% of the time), with clinical duties being the primary barrier to attendance (85%). Most respondents felt that medical students (89%), R1 (96%), and R2/R3s (96%) should attend MR; there was less consensus regarding including attendings (61%) or fellows (34%). Top-rated educational topics included demonstration of clinical reasoning (82%), evidence-based medicine (77%), and disease pathophysiology (53%). Respondents valued time spent on diagnostic work-up (94%), management (93%), and differential building (90%). Overall, 82% endorsed feeling comfortable speaking; fewer R1s reported comfort (76%) compared with R2s (87%) or R3s (83%, p = 0.018). Most (81%) endorsed that MR was an inclusive learning environment (81%), with no differences by level of training. CONCLUSIONS: MR remains a highly regarded, well-attended educational conference. Residents value high-quality cases that emphasize clinical reasoning, diagnosis, and management. A supportive, engaging learning environment with expert input and concise, evidence-based teaching is desired.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity After Elective Versus Emergent Abdominal Surgery in a National Sample of 8193 Patients With Cirrhosis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence and risk factors for mortality and morbidity in patients with cirrhosis undergoing elective or emergent abdominal surgeries. BACKGROUND: Postoperative morbidity and mortality are higher in patients with cirrhosis; variation by surgical procedure type and cirrhosis severity remain unclear. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively-collected data from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Surgical Quality Improvement Program for 8193 patients with cirrhosis, 864 noncirrhotic controls with chronic hepatitis B infection, and 5468 noncirrhotic controls without chronic liver disease, who underwent abdominal surgery from 2001 to 2017. Data were analyzed using random-effects models controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: Patients with cirrhosis had significantly higher 30-day mortality than noncirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis B [4.4% vs 1.3%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57-4.98] or with no chronic liver disease (0.8%, aOR 4.68, 95% CI 3.27-6.69); mortality difference was highest in patients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score ≥10. Among patients with cirrhosis, postoperative mortality was almost 6 times higher after emergent rather than elective surgery (17.2% vs. 2.1%, aOR 5.82, 95% CI 4.66-7.27). For elective surgeries, 30-day mortality was highest after colorectal resection (7.0%) and lowest after inguinal hernia repair (0.6%). Predictors of postoperative mortality included cirrhosis-related characteristics (high MELD score, low serum albumin, ascites, encephalopathy), surgery-related characteristics (emergent vs elective, type of surgery, intraoperative blood transfusion), comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, sepsis, ventilator dependence, functional status), and age. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate preoperative risk assessments in patients with cirrhosis should account for cirrhosis severity, comorbidities, type of procedure, and whether the procedure is emergent versus elective.

A Multicenter VA Study of the Format and Content of Internal Medicine Morning Report.

BACKGROUND: There are more than five hundred internal medicine residency programs in the USA, involving 27,000 residents. Morning report is a central educational activity in resident education, but no recent studies describe its format or content. OBJECTIVE: To describe the format and content of internal medicine morning reports. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational study of morning reports occurring between September 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, in ten different VA academic medical centers in the USA. MAIN MEASURES: Report format, number and type of learner, number and background of attending, frequency of learner participation, and the type of media used. Content areas including quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, evidence-based medicine, ethics, and bedside teaching. For case-based reports, the duration of different aspects of the case was recorded, the ultimate diagnosis when known, and if the case was scripted or unscripted. RESULTS: A total of 225 morning reports were observed. Reports were predominantly case-based, moderated by a chief resident, utilized digital presentation slides, and involved a range of learners including medicine residents, medical students, and non-physician learners. The most common attending physician present was a hospitalist. Reports typically involved a single case, which the chief resident reviewed prior to report and prepared a teaching presentation using digital presentation slides. One-half of cases were categorized as either rare or life-threatening. The most common category of diagnosis was medication side effects. Quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, and evidence-based medicine were commonly discussed. Medical ethics was rarely addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Although a wide range of formats and content were described, internal medicine morning report most commonly involves a single case that is prepared ahead of time by the chief resident, uses digital presentation slides, and emphasizes history, differential diagnosis, didactics, and rare or life-threatening diseases.