Search

Introduction: Interhospital transfer is an important mechanism for improving access to specialized neurologic care but there are large gaps in our understanding of interhospital transfer for the management of non-stroke-related neurologic disease., Methods: This observational study included consecutive patients admitted to an adult academic general neurology service via interhospital transfer from July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2017. Characteristics of the referring hospital and transferred patients were obtained through the American Hospital Association Directory, a hospital transfer database maintained by the accepting hospital, and the electronic medical record. The analyses used descriptive statistics to examine the cohort overall and compare characteristics of patients transferred from an emergency department and inpatient service., Results: 504 patients were admitted via interhospital transfer during the study period. Of these, 395 patients (78.4%) were transferred because the referring hospital lacked capability, and 139 patients (27.6%) were transferred from an emergency department as opposed to inpatient service. Seizures was the most common diagnosis (23.8%). Patients who were transferred from an emergency department had a higher proportion covered by Medicaid (44.6%) than those transferred from an inpatient service (28.8%) and had a shorter median length of stay (3 days; IQR 2-7 vs 7 days; IQR 4-12)., Conclusions: The majority of observed interhospital non-stroke neurologic transfers occurred to improve access to specialized neurological care for patients, though patients transferred from the ED, as opposed to an inpatient service, had lower health care utilization, and this will be important to consider when developing systems of care and in future research., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

We describe a case of a 41-year-old male with a history of end-stage renal disease, hypertension, epilepsy, ischemic stroke, and traumatic brain injury transferred to our tertiary care center for subacute, progressive cognitive impairment. He was found to have disproportionate brain atrophy, focal seizures, and refractory hypertension. Given suspicion for an underlying genetic etiology, a genetic panel for progressive renal disease was sent, revealing two known pathogenic variants in a gene for a cobalamin metabolism disorder, Cobalamin C deficiency. He was started on targeted metabolic supplementation with subsequent improvement in his cognition. Our case highlights the crucial need to expand diagnostic workup to include genetic and metabolic causes in patients with neurologic disease, atypical features, relevant family history and multi-organ dysfunction., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Ischemic stroke is one of the most debilitating and deadliest conditions worldwide. Intravenous t-PA is the current standard treatment within 4 hours after onset of symptoms. Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of neurointerventional intra-arterial treatment in acute ischemic stroke. About 20% of acute ischemic stroke are classified as wake-up strokes, which falls out of the conventional treatment time window. New evidence suggests that some patients with longer time from symptom onset (up to 24 hours) may benefit from thrombectomy, probably in part due to variations in collateral circulation among individual patients. Advanced imaging can play a crucial role in identifying patients who could benefit from endovascular intervention presenting within extended treatment time windows. In this article, we review the advanced imaging algorithm for ischemic stroke workup in the multiple studies published to date and summarize the results of the clinical trials for late ischemic stroke that can be clinically useful., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Background: To explore intubation rates among patients with status epilepticus (SE) and the degree of institutional variation., Methods: Serial cross-sectional study of SE-related hospitalizations from 2004 to 2013 using data from the National Inpatient Sample. The primary outcome was intubation of patients with SE. Multivariable models identified predictors of intubation, institutional variation in intubation rates, and the proportion of variance attributable to individual hospitals. This analysis was repeated using data from 5 states in the State Inpatient Databases (SID)., Results: There were 119 337 SE hospitalizations. The overall intubation rate was 32.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.2%-33.3%). There was marked variation in estimated intubation rates, ranging from 2% to 80% in the lowest and highest quintile after adjustment. There was somewhat less variability in the SID cohort where quintiles ranged from 10% to 54%. Those undergoing intubation were more often men and presenting with stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, central nervous system infection, hyponatremia, and alcohol withdrawal. Urban location (odds ratio [OR]: 3.8, 95% CI: 2.7-5.5) and hospitalization at a teaching institution (OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 1.2-12.6) were even stronger predictors of intubation after adjustment for clinical factors. A regression including both patient- and hospital-level variables to predict intubation also performed better than a regression including patient factors alone (C statistic 0.81 vs 0.59, respectively)., Conclusions: There is considerable institutional variation in intubation rates for SE independent of patient characteristics suggesting that decisions around intubation rest heavily on where one is hospitalized. Further work is needed to clarify how this variation influences outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background and Purpose: Neurohospitalist neurology is a fast-growing subspecialty with a variety of practice settings featuring neurohospitalist models of care. Since inception, the subspecialty has responded to new challenges in resident training, hospital reimbursement, practice, and burnout., Methods: To characterize neurohospitalists' current practice and perspectives, we surveyed the neurohospitalists and trainees affiliated with the Neurohospitalist Society using an electronic survey distributed through the society listserv., Results: Of 501 individuals surveyed by e-mail, 119 began the survey (23.8% response rate), with 88.2% self-identifying as neurohospitalists. Most neurohospitalists (63%) are 10 years or less out of training, devoting 70% of their professional time to inpatient clinical activities while also performing administrative or teaching activities. Only 38% are employed by an academic department. Call schedules are common, with 75% of neurohospitalists participating in a hospital or emergency call schedule, while 55% provide telemedicine services. The majority (97%) of neurohospitalists primarily care for adults, most commonly treating patients with cerebrovascular disease, seizures, and delirium/encephalopathy. The majority (87%) are overall pleased with their work, but 36% report having experienced burnout., Conclusions: Neurohospitalists are a diverse group of neurologists primarily practicing in the inpatient setting while performing a variety of additional activities. They provide a wide array of clinical expertise for acute neurological diseases and neurological emergencies that require hospitalization, including stroke, seizure, and encephalopathy. Neurohospitalists in general are very pleased with their work, while burnout, as in neurology and other areas of medicine, remains a concern., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Studies of emergent neuroimaging in the management of patients presenting with a breakthrough seizure are lacking. We sought to determine how often emergent computed tomography (CT) scans are obtained in patients with known epilepsy presenting with a seizure and how often acute abnormalities are found., Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed in the emergency department at 2 academic medical centers. The primary outcomes were percentage of visits where a CT scan was obtained, whether CT findings represented acute abnormalities, and whether these findings changed acute management., Results: Of the 396 visits included, CT scans were obtained in 39%, and 8% of these scans demonstrated acute abnormalities. Patients who were older, had status epilepticus, a brain tumor, head trauma, or an abnormal examination were all significantly more likely to undergo acute neuroimaging ( P < .05). In the multivariable model, only history of brain tumor (odds ratio [OR] 5.88, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-26.1) and head trauma as a result of seizure (OR 3.92, 95% CI, 1.01-15.2) reached statistical significance in predicting an acutely abnormal scan. The likelihood of an acute imaging abnormality in visits for patients without a history of brain tumor or head trauma as a result of the seizure was 2.7% (2 visits). Both of these patients had abnormal neurological examinations., Conclusion: Obtaining an emergent CT scan for patients with epilepsy presenting with a seizure may be avoidable in most cases, but might be indicated for patients with a history of brain tumor or head trauma as a result of seizure., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: VCD receives compensation as Editor-in-Chief of The Neurohospitalist. SAJ receives personal compensation in his role as Editor-in-Chief of JAMA Neurology and as Associate Editor for Continuum Audio. JPB receives personal compensation for serving as web editor of JAMA Neurology. KAK reports no conflict of interest.

Introduction: Reducing unplanned hospital readmissions has become a national focus due to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) penalties for hospitals with high rates. A first step in reducing unplanned readmission is to understand which patients are at high risk for readmission, which readmissions are planned, and how well planned readmissions are currently captured in comparison to patient-level chart review., Methods: We examined all 5455 inpatient neurology admissions over a 2-year period to University of California San Francisco Medical Center and Johns Hopkins Hospital via chart review. We collected information such as patient age, procedure codes, diagnosis codes, all-payer diagnosis-related group, observed length of stay (oLOS), and expected length of stay. We performed multivariate logistic modeling to determine predictors of readmission. Discharge summaries were reviewed for evidence that a subsequent readmission was planned., Results: A total of 353 (6.5%) discharges were readmitted within 30 days. Fifty-five (15.6%) of the 353 readmissions were planned, most often for a neurosurgical procedure (41.8%) or immunotherapy (23.6%). Only 8 of these readmissions would have been classified as planned using current CMS methodology. Patient age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01 for each 10-year increase, P < .001) and estimated length of stay (OR = 1.04, P = .002) were associated with a greater likelihood of readmission, whereas index admission oLOS was not., Conclusions: Many neurologic readmissions are planned; however, these are often classified by current CMS methodology as unplanned and penalized accordingly. Modifications of the CMS lists for potentially planned neurological and neurosurgical procedures and for acute discharge neurologic diagnoses should be considered., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Josephson receives personal compensation as editor in chief of NEJM Journal Watch and in an editorial capacity for Continuum Audio; Dr. Probasco received a grant as a section editor for Oxford University Press.

Background and Purpose: Medicine hospitalist programs have effectively incorporated hospitalist-run discharge clinics into clinical practice to help bridge the vulnerable transition periods after hospital discharge. A neurohospitalist discharge clinic would similarly allow continuity with the inpatient provider while addressing challenges in the coordination of neurologic care. We anticipated that this would afford a greater total number of patients to be seen and at a shorter interval., Methods: The number of posthospital discharge patients who were seen in general continuity per month in the 6 months prior to establishment of neurohospitalist discharge clinic and those seen over 1 full calendar year 6 months after clinic began was compared by reviewing medical records. Average length of time between discharge from hospital and first clinic visit was compared between patients seen in general neurology continuity clinic and those seen in discharge clinic., Results: There was a significant increase in the average number of postdischarge visits per month after initiation of neurohospitalist discharge clinic compared to prior (16.1 visits vs 10.5 visits, P = .001). Patients were seen significantly sooner after hospitalization in discharge clinic (35.9 ± 4.3 days) compared to those seen in general continuity clinic during the same time epoch (57.6 ± 4.1 days; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Creation of a neurohospitalist discharge clinic was effective in increasing posthospital discharge follow-up frequency and shortening duration of time to follow-up.

Background: Patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with a primary neurologic disorder often receive multiple radiation-based diagnostic studies of the head and neck. Although radiation exposure puts them at risk of intracranial and neck tumors, the amount of radiation received is largely unknown., Methods: We sought to accurately collect cumulative radiation exposure data from radiation-based studies in a retrospective cohort of patients admitted to the neuroscience ICU (NICU) at a single institution. Radiation doses of studies were converted to estimated effective doses in mSv via literature-published formulas. To impact ordering practices, we piloted an educational initiative on patient radiation exposure to a cohort of physicians caring for patients with a diagnosis of acute subarachnoid hemorrhage. Patients were randomized to have radiation exposure data posted at the bedside for physician viewing., Results: We identified 641 patients from July 2010 to March 2011 who had received at least 1 computed tomography-based study of the head. Patients received on average 18.4 mSv of radiation from head and neck imaging. Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage received the highest average levels of radiation exposure (37.1 mSv). Attributable risk of carcinogenesis was estimated to be low. A pilot educational initiative did not reduce the total estimated effective dose per patient., Conclusions: Accurate reporting of estimated effective doses for NICU patients is feasible and can be provided to ordering physicians to assist with clinical decision making and potentially lower exposure risk. Further strategies are needed to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure at the physician ordering level.

Background and Purpose: Dizziness is a frequent reason for neuroimaging and neurological consultation, but little is known about the utility of either practice. We sought to characterize the patterns and yield of neuroimaging and neurological consultation for dizziness in the emergency department (ED)., Methods: We retrospectively identified consecutive adults presenting to an academic ED from 2007 to 2009, with a primary complaint of dizziness, vertigo, or imbalance. Neurologists reviewed medical records to determine clinical characteristics, whether a neuroimaging study (head computed tomography [CT] or brain magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) or neurology consultation was obtained in the ED, and to identify relevant findings on neuroimaging studies. Two neurologists assigned a final diagnosis for the cause of dizziness. Logistic regression was used to evaluate bivariate and multivariate predictors of neuroimaging and consultation., Results: Of 907 dizzy patients (mean age 59 years; 58% women), 321 (35%) had a neuroimaging study (28% CT, 11% MRI, and 4% both) and 180 (20%) had neurological consultation. Serious neurological disease was ultimately diagnosed in 13% of patients with neuroimaging and 21% of patients with neurological consultation, compared to 5% of the overall cohort. Headache and focal neurological deficits were associated with both neuroimaging and neurological consultation, while age ≥60 years and prior stroke predicted neuroimaging but not consultation, and positional symptoms predicted consultation but not neuroimaging., Conclusion: In a tertiary care ED, neuroimaging and neurological consultation were frequently utilized to evaluate dizzy patients, and their diagnostic yield was substantial.