The implementation of a required book club for medical students and faculty.

More medical schools are incorporating wellness activities and the medical humanities into their curriculum. Finding implementable programming that is feasible and enjoyable is challenging. Both student participants and faculty who might facilitate programs are busy with clinical and educational responsibilities. Book club discussions in general are an activity that bring people together and expose groups to literature. In medical education, informal books clubs have been shown to increase camaraderie and expose participants to topics in medicine that they may not have encountered without the structure of the group assignment. At one large private urban medical school, all fourth year medical students were required to participate in a one-time hour-long book discussion with a faculty member one week before Match Day 2021. This paper describes the implementation of that program and discusses survey results from 179 students who broadly indicated that the books were enjoyable, the discussions were enriching, and that the program should continue for future classes of medical students.

SISTER (system implementation of select transfers in emergency room) model to reduce ED boarding.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes a novel transfer model implemented between an academic, level 1 trauma center (Hospital A) and a nearby affiliate community hospital (Hospital B). Primary outcome is change in boarding hours and percentage of boarders in the Hospital A emergency department. Secondary objectives of this study include how improved flow in the emergency department to reduce boarding improves length of stay, prevents patients from escalating to more acute acuity levels of care, reduces patient morbidity and mortality and therefore improves health care costs as well. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted over a consecutive 14-months period of all patients that presented to main hospital emergency department who were transferred to the Hospital B for inpatient admission. This included analysis of patient cohort characteristics, hospital LOS, return rate to the Hospital A (boomerang), rates of against medical advice (AMA) dispositions, post-discharge recidivism, in addition to enterprise data on total number of boarders, percent of boarders, and total boarding hours. RESULTS: There was a total of 718 transfer encounters during the study period. Percent boarding decreased from 70.6% in the pre-period to 63.8% in the post-period (p < 0.001). Total boarding hours decreased at both the main hospital and the sister hospital with this transfer process. The median length of stay at the sister hospital was 74 h, with 9 upgrades to ICU admissions. Five patients were dispositioned back to the hospital A after admission to hospital B. CONCLUSION: A distributive model was useful in transferring admissions within a healthcare system, reducing number of boarders, percent of boarders, and boarding hours in Hospital A emergency department. Furthermore, the Hospital B was an appropriate location for transfers, based on the low number of ICU transfers and dispositions back to the main hospital.

External validation of the COVID-19 4C mortality score in an urban United States cohort.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients at risk for mortality from COVID-19 is crucial to triage, clinical decision-making, and the allocation of scarce hospital resources. The 4C Mortality Score effectively predicts COVID-19 mortality, but it has not been validated in a United States (U.S.) population. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the 4C Mortality Score accurately predicts COVID-19 mortality in an urban U.S. adult inpatient population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted to a single-center, tertiary care hospital (Philadelphia, PA) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR from 3/01/2020 to 6/06/2020. Variables were extracted through a combination of automated export and manual chart review. The outcome of interest was mortality during hospital admission or within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: This study included 426 patients; mean age was 64.4 years, 43.4% were female, and 54.5% self-identified as Black or African American. All-cause mortality was observed in 71 patients (16.7%). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of the 4C Mortality Score was 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians may use the 4C Mortality Score in an urban, majority Black, U.S. inpatient population. The derivation and validation cohorts were treated in the pre-vaccine era so the 4C Score may over-predict mortality in current patient populations. With stubbornly high inpatient mortality rates, however, the 4C Score remains one of the best tools available to date to inform thoughtful triage and treatment allocation.

Tolerability of memantine monotherapy versus adding memantine as combination therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies have focused on the clinical efficacy of combination therapy, donepezil and memantine, for patient's diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. As a result, it has become increasingly routine for providers to prescribe both medications for all-cause neurodegenerative disorders in variable stages of disease. However, the potential adverse drug reactions while described as mild can have serious sequelae in older adults who are already managing the side effects of polypharmacy. This study looks to explore the tolerability of switching cholinesterase inhibitors to memantine monotherapy versus adding memantine as combination therapy for all-cause neurodegenerative disorders. MATERIALS & METHODS: The study is an IRB approved retrospective chart review that includes 175 patients diagnosed with neurocognitive disorders (ICD 10 F00-F03.91 and ICD10 G30-G31.84). Only side effects reported to and recorded by a neurocognitive subspecialist at Jefferson's Memory Disorder Center from 2016 to 2019 were included. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: The odds of a patient reporting side effects on combination therapy in comparison with those patients on memantine monotherapy reporting side effects were significantly greater (OR = 4.33, CI 95% (1.62, 11.52), p = 0.003). In our patient sample, more than 80% of the patients reporting side effects qualified as polypharmacy or excessive polypharmacy (Table 2). As a result, variable polypharmacy (p = 0.047) was statistically significant in the in a binary logistic regression model for predicting outcomes for patients on combination therapy (Table 3). Therefore, as a patient progresses to moderate-severe stages of disease, we recommend switching CI monotherapy to memantine monotherapy as opposed to adding memantine as combination therapy for those patients on more than 10 other medications to increase tolerability. Given the limitations of a smaller sample size, variables such as severity of disease, renal and liver impairment as well as medication dosing were not significant predictors (Table 3) for those reporting side effects on combination therapy.

Comparing reliability of ICD-10-based COVID-19 comorbidity data to manual chart review, a retrospective cross-sectional study.

International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision codes (ICD-10) are used to characterize cohort comorbidities. Recent literature does not demonstrate standardized extraction methods. OBJECTIVE: Compare COVID-19 cohort manual-chart-review and ICD-10-based comorbidity data; characterize the accuracy of different methods of extracting ICD-10-code-based comorbidity, including the temporal accuracy with respect to critical time points such as day of admission. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. MEASUREMENTS: ICD-10-based-data performance characteristics relative to manual-chart-review. RESULTS: Discharge billing diagnoses had a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.85; comorbidity range: 0.35-0.96). The past medical history table had a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69-0.76; range: 0.44-0.87). The active problem list had a sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.63-0.71; range: 0.47-0.71). On day of admission, the active problem list had a sensitivity of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.54-0.63; range: 0.30-0.68)and past medical history table had a sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.43-0.53; range: 0.30-0.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ICD-10-based comorbidity data performance varies depending on comorbidity, data source, and time of retrieval; there are notable opportunities for improvement. Future researchers should clearly outline comorbidity data source and validate against manual-chart-review.

Association of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status with COVID-19 30-day mortality at a Philadelphia medical center using a retrospective cohort study.

COVID-19 has disproportionately affected low-income communities and people of color. Previous studies demonstrated that race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) are not independently correlated with COVID-19 mortality. The purpose of our study is to determine the effect of race/ethnicity and SES on COVID-19 30-day mortality in a diverse, Philadelphian population. This is a retrospective cohort study in a single-center tertiary care hospital in Philadelphia, PA. The study includes adult patients hospitalized with polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and June 6, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite of COVID-19 death or hospice discharge within 30 days of discharge. The secondary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The study included 426 patients: 16.7% died, 3.3% were discharged to hospice, and 20.0% were admitted to the ICU. Using multivariable analysis, race/ethnicity was not associated with the primary nor secondary outcome. In Model 4, age greater than 75 (odds ratio [OR]: 11.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.96-61.97) and renal disease (OR: 2.78; 95% CI: 1.31-5.90) were associated with higher odds of the composite primary outcome. Living in a "very-low-income area" (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.71) and body mass index (BMI) 30-35 (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.69) were associated with lower odds of the primary outcome. When controlling for demographics, SES, and comorbidities, race/ethnicity was not independently associated with the composite primary outcome. Very-low SES, as extrapolated from census-tract-level income data, was associated with lower odds of the composite primary outcome.

The ethical implications of paradoxical lucidity in persons with dementia.

This case report describes the ethical implications of paradoxical lucidity in persons with severe stage dementia. Paradoxical lucidity describes an episode of unexpected communication or connectedness in a person who is believed to be noncommunicative due to a progressive and pathological process that causes dementia. A caregiver who witnesses an event of paradoxical lucidity may experience it as ethically and emotionally transformative. We provide an ethical framework for addressing this event in clinical practice. The framework addresses clinician interactions with the patient, caregiver, and family to improve understanding of paradoxical lucidity and to enhance patient care, caregiver well-being, and decision-making. Participants for this case study consented to having the case published. Participant names are changed to protect confidentiality.

Empathy of Medical Students and Compassionate Care for Dying Patients: An Assessment of "No One Dies Alone" Program.

The "No One Dies Alone" (NODA) program was initiated to provide compassionate companions to the bedside of dying patients. This study was designed to test the following hypotheses: (1) Empathy scores would be higher among medical students who volunteered to participate in the NODA program than nonvolunteers; (2) Spending time with dying patients would enhance empathy in medical students. Study sample included 525 first- and second-year medical students, 54 of whom volunteered to participate in the NODA program. Of these volunteers, 26 had the opportunity to visit a dying patient (experimental group), and 28 did not, due to scheduling conflicts (volunteer control group). The rest of the sample (n = 471) comprised the "nonvolunteer control group." Comparisons of the aforementioned groups on scores of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy confirmed the first research hypothesis (P < .05, Cohen d = 0.37); the second hypothesis was not confirmed. This study has implications for the assessment of empathy in physicians-in-training, and timely for recruiting compassionate companion volunteers (armed with personal protective equipment) at the bedside of lonely dying patients infected by COVID-19.