Incidence and predictors of case cancellation within 24 h in patients scheduled for elective surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Avoidable case cancellations within 24 h reduce operating room (OR) efficiency, add unnecessary costs, and may have physical and emotional consequences for patients and their families. We developed and validated a prediction tool that can be used to guide same day case cancellation reduction initiatives. DESIGN: Retrospective hospital registry study. SETTING: University-affiliated hospitals network (NY, USA). PATIENTS: 246,612 (1/2016-6/2021) and 58,662 (7/2021-6/2022) scheduled elective procedures were included in the development and validation cohort. MEASUREMENTS: Case cancellation within 24 h was defined as cancelling a surgical procedure within 24 h of the scheduled date and time. Our candidate predictors were defined a priori and included patient-, procedural-, and appointment-related factors. We created a prediction tool using backward stepwise logistic regression to predict case cancellation within 24 h. The model was subsequently recalibrated and validated in a cohort of patients who were recently scheduled for surgery. MAIN RESULTS: 8.6% and 8.7% scheduled procedures were cancelled within 24 h of the intended procedure in the development and validation cohort, respectively. The final weighted score contains 29 predictors. A cutoff value of 15 score points predicted a 10.3% case cancellation rate with a negative predictive value of 0.96, and a positive predictive value of 0.21. The prediction model showed good discrimination in the development and validation cohort with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0. 80) and an AUC of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.73), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We present a validated preoperative prediction tool for case cancellation within 24 h of surgery. We utilize the instrument in our institution to identify patients with high risk of case cancellation. We describe a process for recalibration such that other institutions can also use the score to guide same day case cancellation reduction initiatives.

A Comparison Between Clinical Guidelines and Real-World Treatment Data in Examining the Use of Session Summaries: Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Although behavioral interventions have been found to be efficacious and effective in randomized clinical trials for most mental illnesses, the quality and efficacy of mental health care delivery remains inadequate in real-world settings, partly owing to suboptimal treatment fidelity. This "therapist drift" is an ongoing issue that ultimately reduces the effectiveness of treatments; however, until recently, there have been limited opportunities to assess adherence beyond large randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: This study explored therapists' use of a standard component that is pertinent across most behavioral treatments-prompting clients to summarize their treatment session as a means for consolidating and augmenting their understanding of the session and the treatment plan. METHODS: The data set for this study comprised 17,607 behavioral treatment sessions administered by 322 therapists to 3519 patients in 37 behavioral health care programs across the United States. Sessions were captured by a therapy-specific artificial intelligence (AI) platform, and an automatic speech recognition system transcribed the treatment meeting and separated the data to the therapist and client utterances. A search for possible session summary prompts was then conducted, with 2 psychologists validating the text that emerged. RESULTS: We found that despite clinical recommendations, only 54 (0.30%) sessions included a summary. Exploratory analyses indicated that session summaries mostly addressed relationships (n=27), work (n=20), change (n=6), and alcohol (n=5). Sessions with meeting summaries were also characterized by greater therapist interventions and included greater use of validation, complex reflections, and proactive problem-solving techniques. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess a large, diverse data set of real-world treatment practices. Our findings provide evidence that fidelity with the core components of empirically designed psychological interventions is a challenge in real-world settings. The results of this study can inform the development of machine learning and AI algorithms and offer nuanced, timely feedback to providers, thereby improving the delivery of evidence-based practices and quality of mental health care services and facilitating better clinical outcomes in real-world settings.

Integrating Advocacy for Marginalized Children and Families Into Evidence-Based Care During COVID-19: Clinical Vignettes.

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has disproportionately impacted the health and socioeconomic outcomes for low-income populations, people of color, and immigrant children and families in the United States. As inequities in resources (i.e., food, internet, housing), health care, and education increased for marginalized families as a result of COVID-19, child-focused clinicians had to broaden their professional scope and implement new advocacy efforts. The current paper uses clinical vignettes taken from a New York State Office of Mental Health-licensed child and adolescent outpatient clinic in the Bronx, New York. The vignettes highlight the social inequities that impacted marginalized children and families during the pandemic, as well as the clinical team's response through the integration of evidence-base practice and advocacy. Implications for practice with vulnerable populations as the COVID-19 pandemic persists are discussed.

Sleep disturbances in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder: epidemiology, impact and approaches to management.

Subjective reports of sleep disturbance indicate that 70-91% of patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have difficulty falling or staying asleep. Nightmares are reported by 19-71% of patients, depending on the severity of their PTSD and their exposure to physical aggression. Objective measures of sleep disturbance are inconsistent, with some studies that used these measures indicating poor sleep and others finding no differences compared with non-PTSD controls. Future research in this area may benefit from examining measures of instability in the microstructure of sleep. Additionally, recent findings suggest that sleep disordered breathing (SDB) and sleep movement disorders are more common in patients with PTSD than in the general population and that these disorders may contribute to the brief awakenings, insomnia and daytime fatigue in patients with PTSD. Overall, sleep problems have an impact on the development and symptom severity of PTSD and on the quality of life and functioning of patients. In terms of treatments, SSRIs are commonly used to treat PTSD, and evidence suggests that they have a small but significant positive effect on sleep disruption. Studies of serotonin-potentiating non-SSRIs suggest that nefazodone and trazodone lead to significant reductions in insomnia and nightmares, whereas cyproheptadine may exacerbate sleep problems in patients with PTSD. Prazosin, a centrally acting alpha1-adrenoceptor antagonist, has led to large reductions in nightmares and insomnia in small studies of patients with PTSD. Augmentation of SSRIs with olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, may be effective for treatment-resistant nightmares and insomnia, although adverse effects can be significant. Additional medications, including zolpidem, buspirone, gabapentin and mirtazapine, have been found to improve sleep in patients with PTSD. Large randomised, placebo-controlled trials are needed to confirm the above findings. In contrast, evidence suggests that benzodiazepines, TCAs and MAOIs are not useful for the treatment of PTSD-related sleep disorders, and their adverse effect profiles make further studies unlikely. Cognitive behavioural interventions for sleep disruption in patients with PTSD include strategies targeting insomnia and imagery rehearsal therapy (IRT) for nightmares. One large randomised controlled trial of group IRT demonstrated significant reductions in nightmares and insomnia. Similarly, uncontrolled studies combining IRT and insomnia strategies have demonstrated good outcomes. Uncontrolled studies of continuous positive airway pressure for SDB in patients with PTSD show that this treatment led to significant decreases in nightmares, insomnia and PTSD symptoms. Controlled studies are needed to confirm these promising findings.