Dexamethasone, Glycemic Control, and Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Elective, Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Background: Dexamethasone (DEX) has been shown to reduce pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting for patients undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty (TJA). We investigated the impact of DEX on glycemic control and outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing elective primary TJA. Methods: All patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing primary elective TJA between January 2016 and December 2021 at 4 sites within 1 hospital system were identified. Propensity scores were calculated to match patients receiving or not receiving DEX. Primary outcomes were perioperative blood glucose levels and the incidence of hyperglycemia. Secondary outcomes were the amount of insulin administered, the occurrence of 30-day postoperative surgical site infections, hospital readmission, and mortality. Results: After matching, we identified 1372 patients. DEX administration was associated with a significant increase in mean blood glucose levels in mg/dL on postoperative days (PODs) 0 to 2: POD 0 (28.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.6-32.1), POD 1 (14.4, 95% CI: 10.1-18.8), POD 2 (12.4, 95% CI: 7.5-17.2) when comparing patients who did or did not receive DEX. Additionally, patients receiving DEX, compared to patients who did not receive DEX, had increased odds of experiencing hyperglycemia on POD 0 (odds ratio: 4.0, 95% CI: 3.1-5.2). DEX was not associated with a significant difference in insulin administration, surgical site infections, hospital readmission, or mortality. Conclusions: In our review of 1372 patients with propensity-matched type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing elective, primary TJA, we found that DEX administration was associated with an increased risk of elevated mean glucose on POD 0-2, hyperglycemia on POD 0, but was not associated with an increase in total insulin dose administered nor occurrence of surgical site infections, hospital readmission, or mortality within 30 days of surgery in patients who received DEX compared to patients who did not receive DEX. Level of Evidence: IV.

Emergency Department Visits Before Cancer Diagnosis Among Women at Mayo Clinic.

Objective: To determine associations of incident cancer diagnoses in women with recent emergency department (ED) care. Patients and Methods: A retrospective cohort study analyzing biological females aged 18 years and older, who were diagnosed with an incident primary cancer (12 cancer types studied) from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2021, from electronic health records. The primary outcome was a cancer diagnosis within 6 months of a preceding ED visit. Secondary outcomes included patient factors associated with a preceding ED visit. Results: Of 25,736 patients (median age of 62 years, range 18-101) diagnosed with an incident primary cancer, 1938 (7.5%) had an ED visit ≤6 months before a diagnosis. The ED-associated cancer cases were highest in lung cancer (n=514, 14.7%) followed by acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n=22, 13.3%). Patient factors increasing the likelihood of ED evaluation before diagnosis included 18-50 years of age (OR=1.32; 95% CI, 1.09-1.61), Elixhauser score (measure of comorbidities) >4 (OR=17.90; 95% CI, 14.21-22.76), use of Medicaid or other government insurance (OR=2.10; 95% CI, 1.63-2.69), residence within the institutional catchment areas (OR=3.18; 95% CI, 2.78-3.66), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (OR=1.41; 95% CI, 1.04-1.88), and established primary care provider at Mayo Clinic (OR=1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65). The ED visits were more likely in those who died within 6 months of diagnosis (n=327, 37.8%) than those who did not die (n=1611, 6.5%). Conclusion: Patient characteristics identified in this study offer opportunities to provide cancer risk assessment and health navigation, particularly among individuals with comorbidities and limited health care access.

Temporary vs. permanent stoma: factors associated with the development of complications and costs for rectal cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare in-hospital complication rates and treatment costs between rectal cancer patients receiving permanent and temporary stomas. Surgical complications and costs associated with permanent stoma formation are still poorly understood. While choosing between the two stoma options is usually based on clinical and technical factors, disparities exist. METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer, stoma formation, complications, and cost of care were identified from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Discharge Database. Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery and received a permanent or temporary stoma were identified using ICD-10 codes. Patients who underwent colostomy with resection were included in the "Permanent stoma" group, and those who underwent "resection with ileostomy" were included in the "temporary stoma" group. Multivariable models compared patients receiving temporary vs. permanent stomas. RESULTS: Regression models revealed no difference in the odds of having a complication between patients who obtained permanent versus temporary stoma (OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.70-1.32). Further, after adjusting for the number of surgeries, demographic variables, socioeconomic and regional factors, comorbidities, and type of surgery, there was a significant difference between permanent and temporary stomas for rectal cancer (ß - 0.05, p = 0.03) in the log cost of creating a permanent stoma. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest there are no differences associated with complications, and reduced cost for permanent compared to temporary stomas. Increased costs are also associated with receiving minimally invasive surgery. As a result, disparities associated with receipt of MIS could ultimately influence the type of stoma received.

Permanent stoma: a quality outcome in treatment of rectal cancer and its impact on length of stay.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to identify socioeconomic predictors of permanent stoma in rectal cancer treatment and examine its association with length of stay at the treatment facility. METHODS: Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery between January 2015 and December 2018 were identified from the Agency for Health Care Administration Florida Hospital Inpatient Discharge Dataset. Multivariate regression models were utilized to identify demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with receiving a permanent stoma as well as the associated length of stay of these patients. RESULTS: Of 2630 rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer, 21% had a permanent stoma. The odds of receiving permanent stoma increased with higher Elixhauser score, metastatic disease, advanced age, having open surgery, residence in Southwest Florida, and having Medicaid insurance or no insurance/self-payers (p < 0.05). Patients with a permanent stoma had a significantly extended stay after surgery (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a permanent stoma following cancer resection were more likely to have open surgery, had more comorbidities, and had a longer length of stay. Having permanent stoma was higher in patients living in South West Florida, patients with Medicaid insurance, and in the uninsured. Additionally, the payer type significantly affected the length of stay.

Hospital-Acquired Conditions Reduction Program, Patient Safety, and Magnet Designation in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the association between hospitals' nursing excellence accreditation and patient safety performance-measured by the Hospital-Acquired Conditions Reduction Program (HACRP). METHODS: We linked data from the American Nursing Credentialing Center Magnet Recognition Program, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services HACRP, and the American Hospital Association annual survey from 2014 to 2016. We constrained the analysis to hospitals participating in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' HACRP and deployed propensity score matching models to calculate the coefficients for our HACRP patient safety measures. These measures consisted of (a) patient safety indicator 90, (b) hospital-associated infection measures, and (c) total HAC scores. In addition, we used propensity score matching to assess HACRP scores between hospitals achieving Magnet recognition in the past 2 versus longer and within the past 5 years versus longer. RESULTS: Our primary findings indicate that Magnet hospitals have an increased likelihood of experiencing lower patient safety indicator 90 scores, higher catheter-associated urinary tract infection and surgical site infection scores, and no different total HAC scores. Finally, when examining the impact of Magnet tenure, our analysis revealed that there were no differences in Magnet tenure. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the processes, procedures, and educational aspects associated with Magnet recognition seem to provide important improvements associated with care that is controlled by nursing practice. However, because these improvements do not differ when comparing total HAC scores nor Magnet hospitals with different tenure, there are likely opportunities for Magnet hospitals to continue process improvements focused on HACRP scores.