Comparative oil extraction from mutt (Myliobatis goodei) liver by enzymatic hydrolysis: free versus immobilized biocatalyst.

BACKGROUND: The development and fine-tuning of biotechnological processes for fish oil extraction constitute a very important focus to contribute to the development of a food industry based on fish consumption. This work lies in a comparative analysis of the oil extraction yield of Myliobatis goodei livers using free and immobilized enzymes. RESULTS: An immobilized biocatalyst was designed from the cell-free extract of a Bacillus sp. Mcn4. A complete factorial design was used to study the components of the bacterial culture medium and select the condition with the highest titers of extracellular enzymatic activities. Wheat bran had a significant effect on the culture medium composition for enzymatic production. The immobilized biocatalyst was designed by covalent binding of the proteins present in the cocktail retaining a percentage of different types of enzymatic activities (Mult.Enz@MgFe2 O4 ). Among the biocatalyst used, Alcalase® 2.4 L and Purazyme® AS 60 L (free commercial proteases) showed extraction yields of 87.39% and 84.25%, respectively, while Mult.Enz@MgFe2 O4 achieved a better one of 89.97%. The oils obtained did not show significant differences in their physical-chemical properties while regarding the fatty acid content, the oil extracted with Purazyme® AS 60 L showed a comparatively lower proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the use of by-products of M. goodei is a valid alternative and encourages the use of immobilized multienzyme biocatalysts for the treatment of complex substrates in the fishing industry. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry.

Cluster analysis of COVID-19 recovery center patients at a clinic in Boston, MA 2021-2022: impact on strategies for access and personalized care.

BACKGROUND: There are known disparities in COVID-19 resource utilization that may persist during the recovery period for some patients. We sought to define subpopulations of patients seeking COVID-19 recovery care in terms of symptom reporting and care utilization to better personalize their care and to identify ways to improve access to subspecialty care. METHODS: Prospective study of adult patients with prior COVID-19 infection seen in an ambulatory COVID-19 recovery center (CRC) in Boston, Massachusetts from April 2021 to April 2022. Hierarchical clustering with complete linkage to differentiate subpopulations was done with four sociodemographic variables: sex, race, language, and insurance status. Outcomes included ICU admission, utilization of supplementary care, self-report of symptoms. RESULTS: We included 1285 COVID-19 patients referred to the CRC with a mean age of 47 years, of whom 71% were female and 78% White. We identified 3 unique clusters of patients. Cluster 1 and 3 patients were more likely to have had intensive care unit (ICU) admissions; Cluster 2 were more likely to be White with commercial insurance and a low percentage of ICU admission; Cluster 3 were more likely to be Black/African American or Latino/a and have commercial insurance. Compared to Cluster 2, Cluster 1 patients were more likely to report symptoms (ORs ranging 2.4-3.75) but less likely to use support groups, psychoeducation, or care coordination (all p < 0.05). Cluster 3 patients reported greater symptoms with similar levels of community resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Within a COVID-19 recovery center, there are distinct groups of patients with different clinical and socio-demographic profiles, which translates to differential resource utilization. These insights from different subpopulations of patients can inform targeted strategies which are tailored to specific patient needs.

A Retrospective Observational Study Exploring 30- and 90-Day Outcomes for Patients With COVID-19 After Percutaneous Tracheostomy and Gastrostomy Placement.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the 30- and 90-day outcomes of COVID-19 patients receiving tracheostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multisite, inpatient. PATIENTS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received tracheostomy and PEG at four Boston hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Tracheostomy and PEG placement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was mortality at 30 and 90 days post-procedure. Secondary outcomes included continued device presence, place of residence, complications, and rehospitalizations. Eighty-one COVID-19 patients with tracheostomy and PEG placement were included. At 90 days post-device placement, the mortality rate was 9.9%, 2.7% still had the tracheostomy, 32.9% still had the PEG, and 58.9% were at home. CONCLUSIONS: More than nine-in-10 patients in our population of COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy and PEG were alive 90 days later and most were living at home. This study provides new information regarding the outcomes of this patient population that may serve as a step in guiding clinicians, patients, and families when making decisions regarding these devices.

Adherence and Concordance between Serious Illness Care Planning Conversations and Oncology Clinician Documentation among Patients with Advanced Cancer.

Background: Serious illness conversations are part of advance care planning (ACP) and focus on prognosis, values, and goals in patients who are seriously ill. To be maximally effective, such conversations must be documented accurately and be easily accessible. Objectives: The two coprimary objectives of the study were to assess concordance between written documentation and recorded audiotaped conversations, and to evaluate adherence to the Serious Illness Conversation Guide questions. Methods: Data were obtained as part of a trial in patients with advanced cancer. Clinicians were trained to use a guide to conduct and document serious illness conversations. Conversations were audiotaped. Two researchers independently compared audiorecordings with the corresponding documentation in an electronic health record (EHR) template and free-text progress notes, and rated the degree of concordance and adherence. Results: We reviewed a total of 25 audiorecordings. Clinicians addressed 87% of the conversation guide elements. Prognosis was discussed least frequently, only in 55% of the patients who wanted that information. Documentation was fully concordant with the conversation 43% of the time. Concordance was best when documenting family matters and goals, and least frequently concordant when documenting prognostic communication. Most conversations (64%) were documented in the template, a minority (28%) only in progress notes and two conversations (8%) were not documented. Concordance was better when the template was used (62% vs. 28%). Conclusion: Clinicians adhered well to the conversation guide. However, key information elicited was documented and fully concordant less than half the time. Greater concordance was observed when clinicians used a prespecified template. The combined use of a guide and EHR template holds promise for ACP conversations.

Patients' and Their Caregivers' Interest in Learning About Post-ICU Syndrome and Seeking Help for It.

Critical Illness Recovery Programs report low attendance. We aimed to provide information about postintensive care syndrome and to learn which patients would pursue help in a Critical Illness Recovery Clinic. All patients who checked in to our Lung Center were given a survey regarding their ICU experience and offered information about postintensive care syndrome and an appointment in the clinic. Nine hundred and twenty respondents reported having had an ICU experience: 37% of former ICU patients reported difficulty returning to their normal lives afterward compared with 21% who were family or close friends of a former ICU patient. Only 5% requested information and less than 1% requested a dedicated appointment. More than one of three former ICU patients and one in five close friends or relatives of former ICU patients reported difficulty returning to their normal lives after their ICU experience. Very few pursued the opportunity to learn more about it or seek help.

Evaluating an Intervention to Improve Communication Between Oncology Clinicians and Patients With Life-Limiting Cancer: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial of the Serious Illness Care Program.

IMPORTANCE: Earlier clinician-patient conversations about patients' values, goals, and preferences in serious illness (ie, serious illness conversations) are associated with better outcomes but occur inconsistently in cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a communication quality-improvement intervention in improving the occurrence, timing, quality, and accessibility of documented serious illness conversations between oncology clinicians and patients with advanced cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: This cluster randomized clinical trial in outpatient oncology was conducted at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and included physicians, advanced-practice clinicians, and patients with cancer who were at high risk of death. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes (goal-concordant care and peacefulness at the end of life) are published elsewhere. Secondary outcomes are reported herein, including (1) documentation of at least 1 serious illness conversation before death, (2) timing of the initial conversation before death, (3) quality of conversations, and (4) their accessibility in the electronic medical record (EMR). RESULTS: We enrolled 91 clinicians (48 intervention, 43 control) and 278 patients (134 intervention, 144 control). Of enrolled patients, 58% died during the study (n=161); mean age was 62.3 years (95% CI, 58.9-65.6 years); 55% were women (n=88). These patients were cared for by 76 of the 91 enrolled clinicians (37 intervention, 39 control); years in practice, 11.5 (95% CI, 9.2-13.8); 57% female (n=43). Medical record review after patients' death demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of intervention patients had a documented discussion compared with controls (96% vs 79%, P = .005) and intervention conversations occurred a median of 2.4 months earlier (median, 143 days vs 71 days, P < .001). Conversation documentation for intervention patients was significantly more comprehensive and patient centered, with a greater focus on values or goals (89% vs 44%, P < .001), prognosis or illness understanding (91% vs 48%, P < .001), and life-sustaining treatment preferences (63% vs 32%, P = .004). Documentation about end-of-life care planning did not differ between arms (80% intervention vs 68% control, P = .08). Significantly more intervention patients had documentation that was accessible in the EMR (61% vs 11%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This communication quality-improvement intervention resulted in more, earlier, better, and more accessible serious illness conversations documented in the EMR. To our knowledge, this is the first such study to demonstrate improvement in all 4 of these outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01786811.

A Qualitative Study of Serious Illness Conversations in Patients with Advanced Cancer.

Background: Conversations with seriously ill patients about their values and goals have been associated with reduced distress, a better quality of life, and goal-concordant care near the end of life. Yet, little is known about how such conversations are conducted. Objective: To characterize the content of serious illness conversations and identify opportunities for improvement. Design: Qualitative analysis of audio-recorded, serious illness conversations using an evidence-based guide and obtained through a cluster randomized controlled trial in an outpatient oncology setting. Setting/Measurements: Clinicians assigned to the intervention arm received training to use the "Serious Illness Conversation Guide" to have a serious illness conversation about values and goals with advanced cancer patients. Conversations were de-identified, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded by two researchers. Key themes were analyzed. Results: A total of 25 conversations conducted by 16 clinicians were evaluated. The median conversation duration was 14 minutes (range 4-37), with clinicians speaking half of the time. Thematic analyses demonstrated five key themes: (1) supportive dialogue between patients and clinicians; (2) patients' openness to discuss emotionally challenging topics; (3) patients' willingness to articulate preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments; (4) clinicians' difficulty in responding to emotional or ambiguous patient statements; and (5) challenges in discussing prognosis. Conclusions: Data from this exploratory study suggest that seriously ill patients are open to discussing values and goals with their clinician. Yet, clinicians may struggle when disclosing a time-based prognosis and in responding to patients' emotions. Such skills should be a focus for additional training for clinicians caring for seriously ill patients.

An Ethical Framework for the Care of Patients with Prolonged Hospitalization Following Lung Transplantation.

The lung allocation score system in the United States and several European countries gives more weight to risk of death without transplantation than to survival following transplantation. As a result, centers transplant sicker patients, leading to increased length of initial hospitalization. The care of patients who have accumulated functional deficits or additional organ dysfunction during their prolonged stay can be ethically complex. Disagreement occurs between the transplant team, patients and families, and non-transplant health care professionals over the burdens of ongoing intensive intervention. These cases highlight important ethical issues in organ transplantation, including the nature and requirements of transplant informed consent, the limits of physician prognostication, patient autonomy and decision-making capacity following transplant, obligations to organ donors and to other potential recipients, and the impact of program metrics on individualized recipient care. We outline general ethical principles for the care of lung transplant recipients with prolonged hospitalization and give regulatory, research, and patient-centered recommendations for these cases.

Models of Peer Support to Remediate Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: A Report Developed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive International Peer Support Collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: Patients and caregivers can experience a range of physical, psychologic, and cognitive problems following critical care discharge. The use of peer support has been proposed as an innovative support mechanism. DESIGN: We sought to identify technical, safety, and procedural aspects of existing operational models of peer support, among the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive Peer Support Collaborative. We also sought to categorize key distinctions between these models and elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementation. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Seventeen Thrive sites from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were represented by a range of healthcare professionals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Via an iterative process of in-person and email/conference calls, members of the Collaborative defined the key areas on which peer support models could be defined and compared, collected detailed self-reports from all sites, reviewed the information, and identified clusters of models. Barriers and challenges to implementation of peer support models were also documented. Within the Thrive Collaborative, six general models of peer support were identified: community based, psychologist-led outpatient, models-based within ICU follow-up clinics, online, groups based within ICU, and peer mentor models. The most common barriers to implementation were recruitment to groups, personnel input and training, sustainability and funding, risk management, and measuring success. CONCLUSIONS: A number of different models of peer support are currently being developed to help patients and families recover and grow in the postcritical care setting.

Advance Care Planning Documentation in Electronic Health Records: Current Challenges and Recommendations for Change.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of clinically relevant recommendations to improve the state of advance care planning (ACP) documentation in the electronic health record (EHR). BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) is a key process that supports goal-concordant care. For preferences to be honored, clinicians must be able to reliably record, find, and use ACP documentation. However, there are no standards to guide ACP documentation in the electronic health record (EHR). METHODS: We interviewed 21 key informants to understand the strengths and weaknesses of EHR documentation systems for ACP and identify best practices. We analyzed these interviews using a qualitative content analysis approach and subsequently developed a preliminary set of recommendations. These recommendations were vetted and refined in a second round of input from a national panel of content experts. RESULTS: Informants identified six themes regarding current inadequacies in documentation and accessibility of ACP information and opportunities for improvement. DISCUSSION: We offer a set of concise, clinically relevant recommendations, informed by expert opinion, to improve the state of ACP documentation in the EHR.

Advance Care Planning Documentation Practices and Accessibility in the Electronic Health Record: Implications for Patient Safety.

CONTEXT: Documenting patients' advance care planning (ACP) wishes is essential to providing value-aligned care, as is having this documentation readily accessible. Little is known about ACP documentation practices in the electronic health record. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe ACP documentation practices and the accessibility of documented discussions in the electronic health record. METHODS: Participants were primary care patients at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, were ≥60 years old, and had ≥2 chronic/serious health conditions. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed the prevalence of ACP documentation, including any legal forms/orders and discussions in the prior five years. We also determined accessibility of discussions (i.e., accessible centralized posting vs. inaccessible free text in progress notes). RESULTS: The mean age of 414 participants was 71 years (SD ± 8), 9% were women, 43% were nonwhite, and 51% had documented ACP including 149 (36%) with forms/orders and 138 (33%) with discussions. Seventy-four participants (50%) with forms/orders lacked accompanying explanatory documentation. Most (55%) discussions were not easily accessible, including 70% of those documenting changes in treatment preferences from prior forms/orders. CONCLUSION: Half of chronically ill, older participants had documented ACP, including one-third with documented discussions. However, half of the patients with completed legal forms/orders had no accompanying documented explanatory discussions, and the majority of documented discussions were not easily accessible, even when wishes had changed. Ensuring that patients' preferences are documented and easily accessible is an important patient safety and quality improvement target to ensure patients' wishes are honored.

Conversations About Goals and Values Are Feasible and Acceptable in Long-Term Acute Care Hospitals: A Pilot Study.

RATIONALE: The chronically critically ill have survived acute critical illness but require prolonged mechanical ventilation. These patients are frequently transferred from acute care to long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) for prolonged recovery, yet many suffer setbacks requiring readmission to acute care. The patient's relatively improved condition while at the LTACH might be an opportunity for communication regarding care goals; however, there have been no prior studies of the feasibility of such conversations in the LTACH. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility, acceptability, and potential usefulness of conversations about serious illness with chronic critical illness patients or their surrogate decision makers after LTACH admission. METHODS: We adapted an existing conversation guide for use in chronically critically ill (defined by tracheotomy for prolonged ventilation) LTACH patients or their surrogates to explore views about quality of life, understanding of medical conditions, expectations, and planning for setbacks. These conversations were conducted by one interviewer and summarized for the patients' clinicians. We surveyed patients, surrogates, and clinicians to assess acceptability. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 subjects were approached and 50 (71%) were enrolled, including 30 patients and 20 surrogates. The median duration of the conversation was 14 minutes 45 seconds [IQR 12:46, 19]. The presence of ongoing mechanical ventilation did not lead to longer conversations; in fact, conversations with patients were shorter than those with surrogates. The majority of subjects (81%) described the conversation as worthwhile. The majority of clinicians (73%) reported that the conversation offered a new and significant understanding of the patient's preferences if a setback were to occur. CONCLUSIONS: Conversations about serious illness care goals can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time, are acceptable to chronically critically ill patients and their surrogate decision makers in the LTACH, and are perceived as worthwhile by patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

Opening the Door: The Experience of Chronic Critical Illness in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Chronically critically ill patients have recurrent infections, organ dysfunction, and at least half die within 1 year. They are frequently cared for in long-term acute care hospitals, yet little is known about their experience in this setting. Our objective was to explore the understanding and expectations and goals of these patients and surrogates. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews with chronically critically ill long-term acute care hospital patients or surrogates. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. SETTING: One long-term acute care hospital. SUBJECTS: Chronically critically ill patients, defined by tracheotomy for prolonged mechanical ventilation, or surrogates. INTERVENTION: Semi-structured conversation about quality of life, expectations, and planning for setbacks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 50 subjects (30 patients and 20 surrogates) were enrolled. Thematic analyses demonstrated: 1) poor quality of life for patients; 2) surrogate stress and anxiety; 3) optimistic health expectations; 4) poor planning for medical setbacks; and 5) disruptive care transitions. Nearly 80% of patient and their surrogate decision makers identified going home as a goal; 38% were at home at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Our study describes the experience of chronically critically ill patients and surrogates in an long-term acute care hospital and the feasibility of patient-focused research in this setting. Our findings indicate overly optimistic expectations about return home and unmet palliative care needs, suggesting the need for integration of palliative care within the long-term acute care hospital. Further research is also needed to more fully understand the challenges of this growing population of ICU survivors.

Peer Support as a Novel Strategy to Mitigate Post-Intensive Care Syndrome.

Post-intensive care syndrome, a condition defined by new or worsening impairment in cognition, mental health, and physical function after critical illness, has emerged in the past decade as a common and life-altering consequence of critical illness. New strategies are urgently needed to mitigate the risk of neuropsychological and functional impairment common after critical illness and to prepare and support survivors on their road toward recovery. The present state of critical care survivorship is described, and postdischarge care delivery in the United States and the potential impact of the present-day fragmented model of care delivery are detailed. A novel strategy that uses peer support groups could more effectively meet the needs of survivors of critical illness and mitigate post-intensive care syndrome.