Re-thinking all-cause COVID-19 hospitalizations as a surrogate measure for severe illness in observational surveillance studies.

All-cause COVID-19 hospitalization ≤ 30 days of infection is a common outcome for severe illness in observational/surveillance studies. Milder COVID-19 disease and COVID-19-specific measurements calls for an evaluation of this endpoint. This was a descriptive, retrospective cohort study of adults ≥ 18 who were established in primary care at Veteran Health Administration (VHA) facilities. The outcome was hospitalization within 30 days of a laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Between December 15, 2021 and May 1, 2022, a simple random sample of all VA facilities, excluding Puerto Rico or Philippines, was drawn to identify these hospitalized cases and determine whether hospitalization was due to COVID-19-specific causes. A chart review was conducted to record the inpatient clinical team's diagnosis and whether the inpatient team classified the diagnosis as COVID-19 related or not. These data were used to classify hospitalizations as either due to COVID-19-specific causes (direct manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection) or non-COVID-19-specific hospitalizations (incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection), A simple random sample of 9966 (12.3%) all-cause hospitalizations (95% CI: 12.1%, 12.5%) was used to select 300 representative patients. Of these, 226/300 (75.3%) were determined to be COVID-19-specific. COVID-19 pneumonia was most common (147/226, 65.0%). The highest proportion of COVID-19-specific hospitalizations occurred among unvaccinated (85.0%), followed by vaccinated but not boosted (73.7%) and boosted (59.4%) (p < 0.001). The proportion of non-COVID-19-specific hospitalizations was higher in the later period (15-30 days: 55.0%) than the early (0-15 days: 22.5%) (p = 0.003). This study supports the outcome of COVID-19-specific hospitalization instead of all-cause hospitalization in observational studies. The earlier outcome period (0-15 days) was less susceptible to potential measurement bias.

A national study of clinical discussions about cannabis use among Veteran patients prescribed opioids.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration tracks urine drug tests (UDTs) among patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and recommends discussing the health effects of cannabis use. OBJECTIVE: To determine the occurrence of cannabis-related discussions between providers and patients on LTOT during six months following UDT positive for cannabis, and examine factors associated with documenting cannabis use. DESIGN: We identified patients prescribed LTOT with a UDT positive for cannabis in 2019. We developed a text-processing tool to extract discussions around cannabis use from their charts. SUBJECTS: Twelve thousand seventy patients were included. Chart review was conducted on a random sample of 1,946 patients. MAIN MEASURES: The presence of a cannabis term in the chart suggesting documented cannabis use or cannabis-related discussions. Content of those discussions was extracted in a subset of patients. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between patient factors, including state of residence legal status, with documentation of cannabis use. KEY RESULTS: Among the 12,070 patients, 65.8% (N = 7,948) had a cannabis term, whereas 34.1% (N = 4,122) of patients lacked a cannabis term, suggesting that no documentation of cannabis use or discussion between provider and patient took place. Among the subset of patients who had a discussion documented, 47% related to cannabis use for medical reasons, 35% related to a discussion of VA policy or legal issues, and 17% related to a discussion specific to medical risks or harm reduction strategies. In adjusted analyses, residents of states with legalized recreational cannabis were less likely to have any cannabis-related discussion compared to patients in non-legal states [OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.82]. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of LTOT patients did not have documentation of cannabis use in the chart in the 6 months following a positive UDT for cannabis. Discussions related to the medical risks of cannabis use or harm reduction strategies were uncommon.

Comparative mRNA booster effectiveness against death or hospitalization with COVID-19 pneumonia across at-risk US Veteran populations.

Studies of comparative mRNA booster effectiveness among high-risk populations can inform mRNA booster-specific guidelines. The study emulated a target trial of COVID-19 vaccinated U.S. Veterans who received three doses of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccines. Participants were followed for up to 32 weeks between July 1, 2021 to May 30, 2022. Non-overlapping populations were average and high risk; high-risk sub-groups were age ≥65 years, high-risk co-morbid conditions, and immunocompromising conditions. Of 1,703,189 participants, 10.9 per 10,000 persons died or were hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia over 32 weeks (95% CI: 10.2, 11.8). Although relative risks of death or hospitalization with COVID-19 pneumonia were similar across at-risk groups, absolute risk varied when comparing three doses of BNT162b2 with mRNA-1273 (BNT162b2 minus mRNA-1273) between average-risk and high-risk populations, confirmed by the presence of additive interaction. The risk difference of death or hospitalization with COVID-19 pneumonia for high-risk populations was 2.2 (0.9, 3.6). Effects were not modified by predominant viral variant. In this work, the risk of death or hospitalization with COVID-19 pneumonia over 32 weeks was lower among high-risk populations who received three doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine instead of BNT162b2 vaccine; no difference was found among the average-risk population and age >65 sub-group.

Association of a Positive Drug Screening for Cannabis With Mortality and Hospital Visits Among Veterans Affairs Enrollees Prescribed Opioids.

Importance: Cannabis has been proposed as a therapeutic with potential opioid-sparing properties in chronic pain, and its use could theoretically be associated with decreased amounts of opioids used and decreased risk of mortality among individuals prescribed opioids. Objective: To examine the risks associated with cannabis use among adults prescribed opioid analgesic medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted among individuals aged 18 years and older who had urine drug screening in 2014 to 2019 and received any prescription opioid in the prior 90 days or long-term opioid therapy (LTOT), defined as more than 84 days of the prior 90 days, through the Veterans Affairs health system. Data were analyzed from November 2020 through March 2022. Exposures: Biologically verified cannabis use from a urine drug screen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 90-day and 180-day all-cause mortality. A composite outcome of all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, all-cause hospitalization, or all-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. Weights based on the propensity score were used to reduce confounding, and hazard ratios [HRs] were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Analyses were conducted among the overall sample of patients who received any prescription opioid in the prior 90 days and were repeated among those who received LTOT. Analyses were repeated among adults aged 65 years and older. Results: Among 297 620 adults treated with opioids, 30 514 individuals used cannabis (mean [SE] age, 57.8 [10.5] years; 28 784 [94.3%] men) and 267 106 adults did not (mean [SE] age, 62.3 [12.3] years; P < .001; 247 684 [92.7%] men; P < .001). Among all patients, cannabis use was not associated with increased all-cause mortality at 90 days (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92-1.22) or 180 days (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.10) but was associated with an increased hazard of the composite outcome at 90 days (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07) and 180 days (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06). Among 181 096 adults receiving LTOT, cannabis use was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality at 90 or 180 days but was associated with an increased hazard of the composite outcome at 90 days (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09) and 180 days (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09). Among 77 791 adults aged 65 years and older receiving LTOT, cannabis use was associated with increased 90-day mortality (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.17-2.04). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that cannabis use among adults receiving opioid analgesic medications was not associated with any change in mortality risk but was associated with a small increased risk of adverse outcomes and that short-term risks were higher among older adults receiving LTOT.

Protocol for evaluating external facilitation as a strategy to nationally implement a novel stigma reduction training tool for healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: Identity Development Evolution and Sharing (IDEAS) is a theatre-based intervention for reducing healthcare provider stigma. IDEAS films are created by collecting narratives from people who have experienced discrimination and healthcare inequity, partnering with professional playwrights to create theatrical scripts that maintain the words of the narratives while arranging them into compelling storylines involving several interviews, and hiring professional actors to perform and record scenes. IDEAS implementation requires a moderator to establish a respectful learning environment, play the filmed performance, set ground rules for discussion, and moderate a discussion between healthcare providers who viewed the film and invited panelists who are members of the minoritized population being discussed. IDEAS' impact on provider stigma is measured via pre/post Acceptance and Action Questionnaire - Stigma (AAQ-S) data collected from participating providers. The objectives of this manuscript are to provide narrative review of how provider stigma may lead to healthcare inequity and health disparities, describe the conceptual frameworks underpinning the IDEAS intervention, and outline methods for IDEAS implementation and implementation evaluation. METHODS: This manuscript describes a hybrid type 3 design study protocol that uses the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to evaluate external facilitation, used as an implementation strategy to expand the reach of IDEAS. CFIR is also used to assess the impact of characteristics of the intervention and implementation climate on implementation success. Implementation success is defined by intervention feasibility and acceptability as well as self-efficacy of internal facilitators. This manuscript details the protocol for collection and evaluation of implementation data alongside that of effectiveness data. The manuscript provides new information about the use of configurational analysis, which uses Boolean algebra to analyze pathways to implementation success considering each variable, within and across diverse clinical sites across the USA. DISCUSSION: The significance of this protocol is that it outlines important information for future hybrid type 3 designs wishing to incorporate configurational analyses and/or studies using behavioral or atypical, complex, innovative interventions. The current lack of evidence supporting occupational justice-focused interventions and the strong evidence of stigma influencing health inequities underscore the necessity for the IDEAS intervention.

Acceptability of a complex team-based quality improvement intervention for transient ischemic attack: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurologic Symptoms (PREVENT) program was a complex quality improvement (QI) intervention targeting transient ischemic attack (TIA) evidence-based care. The aim of this study was to evaluate program acceptability among the QI teams and factors associated with degrees of acceptability. METHODS: QI teams from six Veterans Administration facilities participated in active implementation for a one-year period. We employed a mixed methods study to evaluate program acceptability. Multiple data sources were collected over implementation phases and triangulated for this evaluation. First, we conducted 30 onsite, semi-structured interviews during active implementation with 35 participants at 6 months; 27 interviews with 28 participants at 12 months; and 19 participants during program sustainment. Second, we conducted debriefing meetings after onsite visits and monthly virtual collaborative calls. All interviews and debriefings were audiotaped, transcribed, and de-identified. De-identified files were qualitatively coded and analyzed for common themes and acceptability patterns. We conducted mixed-methods matrix analyses comparing acceptability by satisfaction ratings and by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). RESULTS: Overall, the QI teams reported the PREVENT program was acceptable. The clinical champions reported high acceptability of the PREVENT program. At pre-implementation phase, reviewing quality data, team brainstorming solutions and development of action plans were rated as most useful during the team kickoff meetings. Program acceptability perceptions varied over time across active implementation and after teams accomplished actions plans and moved into sustainment. We observed team acceptability growth over a year of active implementation in concert with the QI team's self-efficacy to improve quality of care. Guided by the TFA, the QI teams' acceptability was represented by the respective seven components of the multifaceted acceptability construct. CONCLUSIONS: Program acceptability varied by time, by champion role on QI team, by team self-efficacy, and by perceived effectiveness to improve quality of care aligned with the TFA. A complex quality improvement program that fostered flexibility in local adaptation and supported users with access to data, resources, and implementation strategies was deemed acceptable and appropriate by front-line clinicians implementing practice changes in a large, national healthcare organization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02769338 .

Heterogeneity in COVID-19 patient volume, characteristics and outcomes across US Department of Veterans Affairs facilities: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Studies describe COVID-19 patient characteristics and outcomes across populations, but reports of variation across healthcare facilities are lacking. The objectives were to examine differences in COVID-19 patient volume and mortality across facilities, and understand whether facility variation in mortality was due primarily to differences in patient versus facility characteristics. DESIGN: Observational cohort study with multilevel mixed effects logistic regression modelling. SETTING: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) is the largest healthcare system in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME: All-cause mortality within 45 days after COVID-19 testing (March-May, follow-up through 16 July 2020). RESULTS: Among 13 510 patients with COVID-19, 3942 (29.2%) were admitted (2266/3942 (57.5%) ward; 1676/3942 (42.5%) intensive care unit (ICU)) and 679/3942 (17.2%) received mechanical ventilation. Marked heterogeneity was observed across facilities in median age (range: 34.3-83.9 years; facility mean: 64.7, SD 7.2 years); patient volume (range: 1-737 at 160 facilities; facility median: 48.5, IQR 14-105.5); hospital admissions (range: 1-286 at 133 facilities; facility median: 11, IQR 1-26.5); ICU caseload (range: 1-85 at 115 facilities; facility median: 4, IQR 0-12); and mechanical ventilation (range: 1-53 at 90 facilities; facility median: 1, IQR 0-5). Heterogeneity was also observed in facility mortality for all patients with COVID-19 (range: 0%-29.7%; facility median: 8.9%, IQR 2.4%-13.7%); inpatients (range: 0%-100%; facility median: 18.0%, IQR 5.6%-28.6%); ICU patients (range: 0%-100%; facility median: 28.6%, IQR 14.3%-50.0%); and mechanical ventilator patients (range: 0%-100%; facility median: 52.7%, IQR 33.3%-80.6%). The majority of variation in facility mortality was attributable to differences in patient characteristics (eg, age). CONCLUSIONS: Marked heterogeneity in COVID-19 patient volume, characteristics and mortality were observed across VA facilities nationwide. Differences in patient characteristics accounted for the majority of explained variation in mortality across sites. Variation in unadjusted COVID-19 mortality across facilities or nations should be considered with caution.

Association of Intensive Care Unit Patient Load and Demand With Mortality Rates in US Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Although strain on hospital capacity has been associated with increased mortality in nonpandemic settings, studies are needed to examine the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care capacity and mortality. Objective: To examine whether COVID-19 mortality was associated with COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) strain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted among veterans with COVID-19, as confirmed by polymerase chain reaction or antigen testing in the laboratory from March through August 2020, cared for at any Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital with 10 or more patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. The follow-up period was through November 2020. Data were analyzed from March to November 2020. Exposures: Receiving treatment for COVID-19 in the ICU during a period of increased COVID-19 ICU load, with load defined as mean number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the patient's hospital stay divided by the number of ICU beds at that facility, or increased COVID-19 ICU demand, with demand defined as mean number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the patient's stay divided by the maximum number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality was recorded through 30 days after discharge from the hospital. Results: Among 8516 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 88 VA hospitals, 8014 (94.1%) were men and mean (SD) age was 67.9 (14.2) years. Mortality varied over time, with 218 of 954 patients (22.9%) dying in March, 399 of 1594 patients (25.0%) dying in April, 143 of 920 patients (15.5%) dying in May, 179 of 1314 patients (13.6%) dying in June, 297 of 2373 patients (12.5%) dying in July, and 174 of 1361 (12.8%) patients dying in August (P < .001). Patients with COVID-19 who were treated in the ICU during periods of increased COVID-19 ICU demand had increased risk of mortality compared with patients treated during periods of low COVID-19 ICU demand (ie, demand of ≤25%); the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.81-1.22; P = .93) for patients treated when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 25% to 50%, 1.19 (95% CI, 0.95-1.48; P = .13) when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 50% to 75%, and 1.94 (95% CI, 1.46-2.59; P < .001) when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 75% to 100%. No association between COVID-19 ICU demand and mortality was observed for patients with COVID-19 not in the ICU. The association between COVID-19 ICU load and mortality was not consistent over time (ie, early vs late in the pandemic). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that although facilities augmented ICU capacity during the pandemic, strains on critical care capacity were associated with increased COVID-19 ICU mortality. Tracking COVID-19 ICU demand may be useful to hospital administrators and health officials as they coordinate COVID-19 admissions across hospitals to optimize outcomes for patients with this illness.

Understanding the Association Between Electronic Health Record Satisfaction and the Well-Being of Nurses: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses experience high levels of burnout related to the high-stress environment. Management of electronic health records (EHR) is a contributing factor to physician burnout. However, limited research has established the relationship between the nurse's well-being and EHR use. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the association between EHR use and the well-being of nurses. METHODS: We surveyed registered nurses employed at a major Southeastern medical center in the United States about their demographics, experience with EHRs, satisfaction with EHRs, and elements of well-being. The correlation between subgroup demographics and survey questions was examined using Kendall and Fisher tests. RESULTS: A total of 113 ICU registered nurses responded to the survey, of which 93 (82.3%) were females. The population had a mean age of 35.18 years (SD 10.65). A significant association was found between satisfaction and well-being scores, where higher EHR satisfaction was associated with higher self-reported well-being (correlation 0.35, P<.001). Nurses who were unhappy with the time spent in EHR use compared with direct patient care reported higher levels of stress (P<.001) and isolation (P=.009). Older nurses reported higher dissatisfaction with the amount of time spent on EHR tasks related to direct patient care compared to younger nurses (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although nurses reported acceptable satisfaction scores with EHR use, deeper analysis suggests that EHR indirectly affects the well-being of nurses. These findings strongly indicate that lower EHR satisfaction can impact the well-being of nurses. More research is needed to optimize the nurse-EHR experience through more user-centered design approaches.

Managing Delirium and Agitation in the Older Emergency Department Patient: The ADEPT Tool.

Agitation and delirium are common reasons for older adults to seek care in the emergency department (ED). Providing care for this population in the ED setting can be challenging for emergency physicians. There are several knowledge translation gaps in how to best screen older adults for these conditions and how to manage them. A working group of subject-matter experts convened to develop an easy-to-use, point-of-care tool to assist emergency physicians in the care of these patients. The tool is designed to serve as a resource to address the knowledge translation and implementation gaps that exist in the field. The purpose of this article is present and explain the Assess, Diagnose, Evaluate, Prevent, and Treat tool. Participants were identified with expertise in emergency medicine, geriatric emergency medicine, geriatrics, and psychiatry. Background literature reviews were performed before the in-person meeting in key areas: delirium, dementia, and agitation in older adults. Participants worked electronically before and after an in-person meeting to finalize development of the tool in 2017. Subsequent work was performed electronically in the following months and additional expert review sought. EDs are an important point of care for older adults. Behavioral changes in older adults can be a manifestation of underlying medical problems, mental health concerns, medication adverse effects, substance abuse, or dementia. Five core principles were identified by the group that can help ensure adequate and thorough care for older adults with agitation or delirium: assess, diagnose, evaluate, prevent, and treat. This article provides background for and explains the importance of these principles related to the care of older adults with agitation. It is important for emergency physicians to recognize the spectrum of underlying causes of behavioral changes and have the tools to screen older adults for those causes, and methods to treat the underlying causes and ameliorate their symptoms.

Would Geriatric Patients Accept Using a Telemedicine Platform for Post ICU-Discharge Follow-Up Visits?

For those specialized in geriatric medicine, telemedicine innovations provide a new alternative to in-person follow-up care, allowing clinicians to connect and treat patients with more convenience. Telemedicine will likely play a vital role in reaching underserved populations in remote areas. This study investigates first impressions of a telemedicine-based delirium assessment tool. The overall response from participants is positive, supporting the theory that these types of tools will be welcome within the geriatric patient population. Feedback surrounding interactions with the interface are also positive, showing that while many elderly patients may refrain from working with tablets daily, they can successful interact with the tool when needed for care reasons. While this study and sample size are not all-inclusive regarding the diversity of patients and distinct challenges, it serves as a preliminary step towards future research exploring the feasibility and acceptability of such tools within this specific population.

Adapting Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy to Where Patients Live: A Comparative Case Study.

Objectives Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy has been demonstrated to effectively reverse the abnormal physiology of sleep apnea and improve a variety of patient outcomes, yet helping patients adapt and adhere to CPAP has proven to be a challenging issue in the effective treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). As a home-based intervention trial, the "Sleep Apnea in Transient Ischemic Attack and Stroke: Reducing Cardiovascular Risk with Positive Airway Pressure" ("sleep tight") study was uniquely positioned to capture and evaluate challenges faced by patients over time during their introduction to CPAP therapy.  Methods A comparative case study design was used to better understand the process whereby patients adapted CPAP therapy in order to fit their own personal set of circumstances. Cases were identified from patients enrolled in the "enhanced intervention" group of the sleep tight trial.  Results These comparative case studies illustrated how adherence to CPAP therapy is an adaptive process where personal context matters. The case studies also demonstrated how some patients overcame challenges and barriers by themselves to integrate CPAP therapy into their own lives, while others required help from study staff to overcome these barriers and some were never able to successfully adapt CPAP therapy in order to fit their personal contexts, despite study staffs' best efforts.  Conclusions A major opportunity to improve CPAP adherence appears to exist in placing greater emphasis on supporting patients in adapting CPAP therapy for "where they live."

Diagnosing and Treating Sleep Apnea in Patients With Acute Cerebrovascular Disease.

Background Obstructive sleep apnea ( OSA ) is common among patients with acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. We evaluated whether continuous positive airway pressure for OSA among patients with recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack improved clinical outcomes. Methods and Results This randomized controlled trial among patients with ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack compared 2 strategies (standard or enhanced) for the diagnosis and treatment of OSA versus usual care over 1 year. Primary outcomes were National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and modified Rankin Scale scores. Among 252 patients (84, control; 86, standard; 82, enhanced), OSA prevalence was as follows: control, 69%; standard, 74%; and enhanced, 80%. Continuous positive airway pressure use occurred on average 50% of nights and was similar among standard (3.9±2.1 mean hours/nights used) and enhanced (4.3±2.4 hours/nights used; P=0.46) patients. In intention-to-treat analyses, changes in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and modified Rankin Scale scores were similar across groups. In as-treated analyses among patients with OSA, increasing continuous positive airway pressure use was associated with improved National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (no/poor, -0.6±2.9; some, -0.9±1.4; good, -0.3±1.0; P=0.0064) and improved modified Rankin Scale score (no/poor, -0.3±1.5; some, -0.4±1.0; good, -0.9±1.2; P=0.0237). In shift analyses among patients with OSA, 59% of intervention patients had best neurological symptom severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 0-1) versus 38% of controls ( P=0.038); absolute risk reduction was 21% (number needed to treat, 4.8). Conclusions Although changes in neurological functioning and functional status were similar across the groups in the intention-to-treat analyses, continuous positive airway pressure use was associated with improved neurological functioning among patients with acute ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack with OSA . Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01446913.

Rapid Response Events in Hospitalized Patients: Patient Symptoms and Clinician Communication.

CONTEXT: Patients triggering rapid response team (RRT) intervention are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Data on symptom burden of these patients do not currently exist, and current symptom management and communication practices of RRT clinicians are unknown. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify the symptom experience of RRT patients and observe how RRT clinicians communicate with patients and their families. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study from August to December 2015. Investigators attending RRT events measured frequencies of symptom assessment, communication, and supportive behaviors by RRT clinicians. As the rapid response event concluded, investigators measured patient-reported pain, dyspnea, and anxiety using a numeric rating scale of 0 (none) to 10 (most severe), with uncontrolled symptoms defined as numeric rating scale score of ≥4. RESULTS: We observed a total of 52 RRT events. RRT clinicians assessed for pain during the event in 62% of alert patients, dyspnea in 38%, and anxiety in 21%. Goals of care were discussed during 3% of events and within 24 hours in 13%. For the primary outcome measure, at the RRT event conclusion, 44% of alert patients had uncontrolled pain, 39% had uncontrolled dyspnea, and 35% had uncontrolled anxiety. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized patients triggering RRT events have a high degree of uncontrolled symptoms that are infrequently assessed and treated. Although these patients experience an acute change in medical status and are at high risk for adverse outcomes, goals-of-care discussions with RRT patients or families are rarely documented in the period after the events.

Barriers and facilitators to provide quality TIA care in the Veterans Healthcare Administration.

OBJECTIVE: To identify key barriers and facilitators to the delivery of guideline-based care of patients with TIA in the national Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of 70 audiotaped interviews of multidisciplinary clinical staff involved in TIA care at 14 VHA hospitals. We de-identified and analyzed all transcribed interviews. We identified emergent themes and patterns of barriers to providing TIA care and of facilitators applied to overcome these barriers. RESULTS: Identified barriers to providing timely acute and follow-up TIA care included difficulties accessing brain imaging, a constantly rotating pool of housestaff, lack of care coordination, resource constraints, and inadequate staff education. Key informants revealed that both stroke nurse coordinators and system-level factors facilitated the provision of TIA care. Few facilities had specific TIA protocols. However, stroke nurse coordinators often expanded upon their role to include TIA. They facilitated TIA care by (1) coordinating patient care across services, communicating across service lines, and educating clinical staff about facility policies and evidence-based practices; (2) tracking individual patients from emergency departments to inpatient settings and to discharge for timely follow-up care; (3) providing and referring TIA patients to risk factor management programs; and (4) performing regular audit and feedback of quality performance data. System-level facilitators included clinical service leadership engagement and use of electronic tools for continuous care across services. CONCLUSIONS: The local organization within a health care facility may be targeted to cultivate internal facilitators and a systemic infrastructure to provide evidence-based TIA care.

Development, Validation, and Assessment of an Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack-Specific Prediction Tool for Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

BACKGROUND: Screening instruments for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), as used routinely to guide clinicians regarding patient referral for polysomnography (PSG), rely heavily on symptomatology. We sought to develop and validate a cerebrovascular disease-specific OSA prediction model less reliant on symptomatology, and to compare its performance with commonly used screening instruments within a population with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). METHODS: Using data on demographic factors, anthropometric measurements, medical history, stroke severity, sleep questionnaires, and PSG from 2 independently derived, multisite, randomized trials that enrolled patients with stroke or TIA, we developed and validated a model to predict the presence of OSA (i.e., Apnea-Hypopnea Index ≥5 events per hour). Model performance was compared with that of the Berlin Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, high blood Pressure, Body mass index, Age, Neck circumference, and Gender instrument, and the Sleep Apnea Clinical Score. RESULTS: The new SLEEP Inventory (Sex, Left heart failure, ESS, Enlarged neck, weight [in Pounds], Insulin resistance/diabetes, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) performed modestly better than other instruments in identifying patients with OSA, showing reasonable discrimination in the development (c-statistic .732) and validation (c-statistic .731) study populations, and having the highest negative predictive value of all in struments. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware of these limitations in OSA screening instruments when making decisions about referral for PSG. The high negative predictive value of the SLEEP INventory may be useful in determining and prioritizing patients with stroke or TIA least in need of overnight PSG.

Diagnosing and managing sleep apnea in patients with chronic cerebrovascular disease: a randomized trial of a home-based strategy.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is common and associated with poor outcomes after stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). We sought to determine whether the intervention strategy improved sleep apnea detection, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment, and hypertension control among patients with chronic cerebrovascular disease and hypertension. METHODS: In this randomized controlled strategy trial intervention, patients received unattended polysomnography at baseline, and patients with OSA (apnea-hypopnea index ≥5 events/h) received auto-titrating continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for up to 1 year. Control patients received usual care and unattended polysomnography at the end of the study, to identify undiagnosed OSA. Both groups received 24-h blood pressure assessments at baseline and end of the study. "Excellent" CPAP adherence was defined as cumulative use of ≥4 h/night for ≥70% of the nights. RESULTS: Among 225 randomized patients (115 control; 110 intervention), 61.9% (120/194) had sleep apnea. The strategy successfully diagnosed sleep apnea with 97.1% (102/105) valid studies; 90.6% (48/53, 95% CI 82.7-98.4%) of sleep apnea was undiagnosed among control patients. The intervention improved long-term excellent CPAP use: 38.6% (22/57) intervention versus 0% (0/2) control (p < 0.0001). The intervention did not improve hypertension control in this population with well-controlled baseline blood pressure: intervention, 132.7 mmHg (±standard deviation, 14.1) versus control, 133.8 mmHg (±14.0) (adjusted difference, -1.1 mmHg, 95% CI (-4.2, 2.0)), p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cerebrovascular disease and hypertension have a high prevalence of OSA. The use of portable polysomnography, and auto-titrating CPAP in the patients' homes, improved both the diagnosis and the treatment for sleep apnea compared with usual care but did not lower blood pressure.

Long-term outcomes of the bronchial artery embolization are diagnosis dependent.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial artery embolization (BAE) is an established, safe, and effective procedure for the treatment of hemoptysis but long-term outcomes of the BAE have never been investigated before. OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively analyze long-term outcomes of the BAE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart analysis was done from the hospital central database for all patients undergoing the BAE over a consecutive 14-year period (January 2000-February 2014). A total of 58 patients were identified from the database. Eight patients were excluded due to the lack of follow-up. Data such as patient demographics, reason for hemoptysis, medical imaging results, bronchoscopy findings, recurrence rates, and morbidity/mortality rates after the BAE were collected. RESULTS: Eighty three embolizations were performed in 50 patients. The median follow-up was of 2.2 years. Cystic fibrosis (CF) bronchiectasis was the most common etiology (21/50), followed by non-CF bronchiectasis (9/50). Cavitary lung disease occurred in 12/50 patients, an additional 4/50 had cancer (primary lung and metastatic), and one patient had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) vasculitis. In three patients the etiology was unknown. Postprocedural complications occurred in 5/83 (6%) patients, two patients with two major complications - stroke (one) and paraplegia (one) - and three patients with minor complications - chest pain (two) and bronchial artery dissection (one). A total of 15/50 patients died during the follow-up. Three patients died of hemoptysis, and the remaining deaths were unrelated to the procedure or hemoptysis. Twenty four patients had recurrent hemoptysis. A Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed an excellent long-term survival that was 85% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The BAE is a safe and effective procedure with excellent overall long-term survival.