Search

Background Debilitating symptoms of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) often lead to long-term effects on health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL). In ECOSPOR III, SER-109, an investigational oral microbiome therapeutic, was superior to placebo in reducing rCDI. We investigated the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a 32-item, CDI-specific questionnaire—the Clostridium difficile Quality of Life Survey (Cdiff32)—across mental, physical, and social domains in patients with rCDI. Methods In this post hoc analysis of a phase 3 clinical trial, 182 outpatients with rCDI completed Cdiff32 and EQ-5D at baseline and at 1 and 8 weeks. Cdiff32 was evaluated for item performance, internal reliability, and convergent validity. To assess known-groups validity, Cdiff32 scores were compared by disease recurrence status at week 1; internal responsiveness was evaluated in the nonrecurrent disease group by 8 weeks by means of paired t test. Results All 182 patients (mean age [standard deviation], 65.5 [16.5] years; 59.9% female) completed baseline Cdiff32. Confirmatory factor analysis identified 3 domains (physical, mental, and social relationships) with good item fit. High internal reliability was demonstrated (Cronbach α = 0.94 with all subscales >0.80). Convergent validity was evidenced by significant correlations between Cdiff32 subscales and EQ-5D (r = 0.29–0.37; P <.001). Cdiff32 differentiated patients by disease recurrence status at week 1 (effect sizes, 0.38–0.42; P <.05 overall), with significant improvement from baseline through week 8 in patients with nonrecurrent disease at week 1 (effect sizes, 0.75–1.02; P <.001 overall). Conclusions Cdiff32 is a valid, reliable, and responsive disease-specific HRQOL questionnaire that is fit for purpose for interventional treatment trials. The significant improvement in patients with nonrecurrent disease by 8 weeks demonstrates the negative impact of rCDI on HRQOL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective For patients diagnosed with the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, evidence is needed to understand the effect of treatment by physical therapists in the acute hospital on patient outcomes. The primary aims of this study were to examine the relationship of physical therapy visit frequency and duration in the hospital with patients' mobility status at discharge and probability of discharging home. Methods This retrospective study included patients with COVID-19 admitted to any of 11 hospitals in 1 health system. The primary outcome was mobility status at discharge, measured using the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care 6-Clicks basic mobility (6-Clicks mobility) and the Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility scales. Discharge to home versus to a facility was a secondary outcome. Associations between these outcomes and physical therapy visit frequency or mean duration were tested using multiple linear or modified Poisson regression. Potential moderation of these relationships by particular patient characteristics was examined using interaction terms in subsequent regression models. Results For the 312 patients included, increased physical therapy visit frequency was associated with higher 6-Clicks mobility (b = 3.63; 95% CI, 1.54–5.71) and Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility scores (b = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.37–1.93) at hospital discharge and with increased probability of discharging home (adjusted relative risk = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.25–2.63). Longer mean visit duration was also associated with improved mobility at discharge and the probability of discharging home, though the effects were less pronounced. Few moderation effects were observed. Conclusion Patients with COVID-19 demonstrated improved mobility at hospital discharge and higher probability of discharging home with increased frequency and longer mean duration of physical therapy visits. These associations were not generally moderated by patient characteristics. Impact Physical therapy should be an integral component of care for patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Providing sufficient physical therapist interventions to improve outcomes must be balanced against protection from viral spread. Lay Summary Patients with COVID-19 can benefit from more frequent and longer physical therapy visits in the hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Home‐based primary care promotes aging in place but is not immediately responsive to urgent needs. Community paramedicine leverages emergency medical services clinicians to expedite in‐home care, though limited evidence supports this model. We evaluated the primary care and acute care use of older adults evaluated urgently by a community paramedic with telemedicine physician compared to a physician home visit model. Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled older adults in home‐based primary care who requested an urgent evaluation. We allocated participants to the physician home visit model or physician home visit plus community paramedic model by ZIP code. We observed primary care and acute care use for 6 months following enrollment. The primary outcome was the median number of primary care and acute care visits per participant. Secondary outcomes included 30‐day readmission rates, median wait times, and physician productivity. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, comparison of means and proportions, and negative binomial regression modeling reported as incidence rate ratios (IRR). Results: We screened 255 participants, determined 203 eligible, allocated 199, and completed observation for 167 (84 community paramedicine, 83 physician home visit). Participants were mostly female, age 76–86 years, with 3–5 comorbidities, living in a home/apartment. Community paramedic participants had 29% more primary care visits (IRR 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.57) and shorter wait times for urgent evaluations (1 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001) without increasing acute care use (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48–1.18) or 30‐day readmissions (IRR 1.32, 95% CI 0.49–3.55). Physician productivity increased 81% (40 vs. 22 visits/week, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Older adults evaluated by a community paramedic for urgent needs were seen sooner, used acute care similarly to patients evaluated by a physician home visit, and nearly doubled physician efficiency. This suggests that older adults may benefit from combining emergency medical services and primary care resources for urgent evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) and determine the effect of migraine subtype on patient‐reported outcome measures (PROM). Background: Prior studies have characterized migraine in the general population. While this provides a basis for our understanding of migraine, we have less insight into the characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes of migraine patients who present to subspecialty headache clinics. These patients represent a subset of the population that bears the greatest burden of migraine disability and are more representative of migraine patients who seek medical care. Valuable insights can be gained from a better understanding of CM and EM in this population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with CM or EM seen in the Cleveland Clinic Headache Center between January 2012 and June 2017. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and patient‐reported outcome measures (3‐Level European Quality of Life 5‐Dimension [EQ‐5D‐3L], Headache Impact Test‐6 [HIT‐6], Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 [PHQ‐9]) were compared between groups. Results: Eleven thousand thirty‐seven patients who had 29,032 visits were included. More CM patients reported being on disability 517/3652 (14.2%) than EM patients 249/4881 (5.1%) and had significantly worse mean HIT‐6 (67.3 ± 7.4 vs. 63.1 ± 7.4, p < 0.001) and median [interquartile range] EQ‐5D‐3L (0.77 [0.44–0.82] vs. 0.83 [0.77–1.00], p < 0.001), and PHQ‐9 (10 [6–16] vs. 5 [2–10], p < 0.001). Conclusions: There are multiple differences in demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions between patients with CM and EM. After adjustment for these factors, CM patients had higher PHQ‐9 scores, lower quality of life scores, greater disability, and greater work restrictions/unemployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics among outpatient headache clinic patients who do and do not self‐report visiting the emergency department for headache. Background: Headache is the fourth most common reason for emergency department visits, compromising 1%–3% of visits. Limited data exist about patients who are seen in an outpatient headache clinic but still opt to frequent the emergency department. Clinical characteristics may differ between patients who self‐report emergency department use and those who do not. Understanding these differences may help identify which patients are at greatest risk for emergency department overutilization. Methods: This observational cohort study included adults treated at the Cleveland Clinic Headache Center between October 12, 2015 and September 11, 2019, who completed self‐reported questionnaires. Associations between self‐reported emergency department utilization and demographics, clinical characteristics, and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs: Headache Impact Test [HIT‐6], headache days per month, current headache/face pain, Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 [PHQ‐9], Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global Health [GH]) were evaluated. Results: Of the 10,073 patients (mean age 44.7 ± 14.9, 78.1% [7872/10,073] female, 80.3% [8087/10,073] White patients) included in the study, 34.5% (3478/10,073) reported visiting the emergency department at least once during the study period. Characteristics significantly associated with self‐reported emergency department utilization included younger age (odds ratio = 0.81 [95% CI = 0.78–0.85] per decade), Black patients (vs. White patients) (1.47 [1.26–1.71]), Medicaid (vs. private insurance) (1.50 [1.29–1.74]), and worse area deprivation index (1.04 [1.02–1.07]). Additionally, worse PROMs were associated with greater odds of emergency department utilization: higher (worse) HIT‐6 (1.35 [1.30–1.41] per 5‐point increase), higher (worse) PHQ‐9 (1.14 [1.09–1.20] per 5‐point increase), and lower (worse) PROMIS‐GH Physical Health T‐scores (0.93 [0.88–0.97]) per 5‐point increase. Conclusion: Our study identified several characteristics associated with self‐reported emergency department utilization for headache. Worse PROM scores may be helpful in identifying which patients are at greater risk for utilizing the emergency department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we examined anesthetic records before and after the implementation of an electronic anesthetic record documentation (AIMS) in a single surgical population. The purpose of this study was to identify any inconsistencies in anesthetic care based on handwritten documentation (paper) or AIMS. We hypothesized that the type of anesthetic record (paper or AIMS) would lead to differences in the documentation and management of hypotension. Consecutive patients who underwent esophageal surgery between 2009 and 2014 by a single surgeon were eligible for the study. Patients were grouped in to 'paper' or 'AIMS' based on the type of anesthetic record identified in the chart. Pertinent patient identifiers were removed and data collated after collection. Predetermined preoperative and intraoperative data variables were reviewed. Consecutive esophageal surgery patients ( N = 189) between 2009 and 2014 were evaluated. 92 patients had an anesthetic record documented on paper and 97 using AIMS. The median number of unique blood pressure recordings was lower in the AIMS group (median (Q1,Q3) AIMS 30.0 (24.0, 39.0) vs. Paper 35.0 (28.5, 43.5), p < 0.01). However, the median number of hypotensive events (HTEs) was higher in the AIMS group (median (Q1,Q3) 8.0 (4.0, 18.0) vs. 4.0 (1.0, 10.5), p < 0.001), and the percentage of HTEs per blood pressure recording was higher in the AIMS group (30.4 ((Q1, Q3) (9.5, 60.9)% vs. 12.5 (2.4, 27.5)%), p < 0.01). Multivariable regression analysis identified independent predictors of HTEs. The incidence of HTEs was found to increase with AIMS (IRR = 1.88, p < 0.01). Preoperative systolic blood pressure, increased blood loss, and phenylephrine. A phenylephrine infusion was negatively associated with hypotensive events (IRR = 0.99, p = 0.03). We noted an increased incidence of HTEs associated with the institution of an AIMS. Despite this increase, no change in medical therapy for hypotension was seen. AIMS did not appear to have an effect on the management of intraoperative hypotension in this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although many studies have illustrated the discomfort that resident physicians feel when discussing end-of-life (EOL) issues with their patients, fewer studies have addressed interventions to directly increase medical resident proficiency and comfort in conducting these discussions and for translating these beliefs into a formal advance care plan. Objectives: We report on an innovative curriculum conducted at The University of Chicago (NorthShore) internal medicine residency to improve residents' proficiency and comfort in leading outpatient advance care planning (ACP) discussions. Methods: Four educational components were executed. First, residents completed an on-line module introducing ACP and guiding residents to complete their own ACP. Second, residents attended a didactic 'How To' lecture given by physicians with expertise in ACP that emphasized ACP communication tools and a video demonstration. Third, residents completed a video-recorded simulation-based ACP discussion with a standardized patient. Finally, residents conducted an ACP outpatient encounter with one of their continuity clinic patients. Expert preceptors directly observed, evaluated, and provided feedback to residents during both patient encounters. Residents were surveyed before and immediately after the curriculum using a nine-variable questionnaire, which assessed the resident's training and comfort with ACP. Results: Sixteen second year residents completed the curriculum and surveys. Precurriculum and post-curriculum mean change on a Likert scale of 1 (uncomfortable) to 5 (very comfortable) was compared using paired t-tests. Results demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the following comfort level variables: eliciting understanding of health and prognosis (pre 3.63 vs. post 4.38, p = 0.035), discussing EOL care based on patient values (pre 3.50 vs. post 4.38, p = 0.008), specifically discussing EOL care based on patient values in the outpatient setting (pre 2.75 vs. post 4.31, p = 0.001) and initiating an advance directive and medical power of attorney (pre 2.56 vs. post 4.19, p < 0.001). Conclusion: A multimodality curriculum including self-directed learning, lectures, and practice with simulated and actual outpatients with active reflection and feedback is effective in improving resident comfort level and formal training in ACP. Further research is needed to understand whether these interventions will translate into an increased frequency of discussions with patients about ACP after residency training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]