Search

Background Poor diet quality significantly contributes to hypertension disparities affecting Black adults. While the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern lowers blood pressure (BP), access to DASH-patterned groceries is a major barrier for residents of urban food deserts. Methods The Groceries for Black Residents of Boston to Stop Hypertension among Adults without Treated Hypertension (GoFresh) study is one of five projects in the RESTORE Network, an AHA-funded initiative focused on hypertension prevention. GoFresh is testing whether online, dietitian-assisted, home-delivered, DASH-patterned groceries lowers BP among Black adults with elevated BP. This individual-level, parallel-arm trial will enroll up to 176 Black adults with SBP (systolic blood pressure) between 120 and <150 mm Hg residing in Boston-area communities with reduced grocery store access. Following randomization, half of the participants will be assigned to weekly sessions with a dietitian who will assist participants in ordering DASH-patterned groceries online for home delivery; the remainder will receive a $500 monthly stipend. Both interventions will last 3 months, followed by a 9-month maintenance phase. Results The primary outcome is the difference in SBP after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include a change in 24-hour ambulatory BP, body mass index, 24-hour urine sodium and potassium, hemoglobin A1C, lipids, fruit and vegetable intake, and saturated fat intake. Qualitative interviews with 45 participants 6 months after baseline assessments will determine barriers and facilitators to long-term maintenance of DASH-patterned grocery shopping. Discussion Findings from this study will inform ongoing work on scalable interventions to prevent hypertension among Black adults with implications for public and healthcare-based food supplementation programs. Trial registration NCT05121337. Registered on 16 November 2021, at ClinicalTrials.gov: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05121337 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Little is known about how well hospitalized patients can identify errors or injuries in their care. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to elicit incident reports from hospital inpatients in order to identify and characterize adverse events and near-miss errors.Subjects: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 228 adult inpatients on a medicine unit of a Boston teaching hospital.Methods: Investigators reviewed medical records and interviewed patients during the hospitalization and by telephone 10 days after discharge about "problems,""mistakes," and "injuries" that occurred. Physician investigators classified patients' reports. We calculated event rates and used multivariable Poisson regression models to examine the factors associated with patient-reported events.Results: Of 264 eligible patients, 228 (86%) agreed to participate and completed 528 interviews. Seventeen patients (8%) experienced 20 adverse events; 1 was serious. Eight patients (4%) experienced 13 near misses; 5 were serious or life threatening. Eleven (55%) of 20 adverse events and 4 (31%) of 13 near misses were documented in the medical record, but none were found in the hospital incident reporting system. Patients with 3 or more drug allergies were more likely to report errors compared with patients without drug allergies (incidence rate ratio 4.7, 95% CI 1.7, 13.4).Conclusion: Inpatients can identify adverse events affecting their care. Many patient-identified events are not captured by the hospital incident reporting system or recorded in the medical record. Engaging hospitalized patients as partners in identifying medical errors and injuries is a potentially promising approach for enhancing patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We surveyed 241 board-certified internists affiliated with a large teaching hospital (Boston, Mass) before implementing a hospitalist service to determine attitudes towards providing inpatient care and the hospitalist model. Of physicians surveyed, 66% responded. Most disagreed that inpatient care is "an inefficient use of my time," only 10% felt a hospitalist service would improve patient satisfaction, and 54% felt it would hurt patient-doctor relationships. Multivariable analyses suggest that physicians physically furthest from their inpatient site were had more favorable attitudes toward the hospitalist model; more experienced and busier physicians were more negative. Future investigations should determine strategies for implementing the hospitalist model which address physicians' concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigates the effect of lack in patient-physician communication in the quality of discharge planning in Beth Israel Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Specific inclusion criteria for patients; Patient and physician interviews; Discussion of post-discharge plans; Overestimation of patients' understanding of post-discharge plans.

Abstract: Purpose: Resident physicians learn to perform inpatient bedside procedures in a manner that is neither standardized nor rigorous. As a result, residents may be unskilled and uncomfortable performing procedures. This study characterizes residents’ comfort performing medical procedures and identifies factors associated with lack of comfort. Subjects: Study subjects were internal medicine resident physicians who performed one of four medical procedures (central line, lumbar puncture, paracentesis, or thoracentesis) on adult medical inpatients between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted at a 556-bed Boston teaching hospital. Resident physicians evaluated their comfort with 9 aspects of 4 medical procedures, recording this information in an electronic log. We also abstracted operator characteristics and patient demographic data. We analyzed residents’ comfort with each aspect of the procedure and defined “overall comfort” as comfort with each of the 9 aspects. Results: A majority of resident physicians reported lack of comfort with at least one aspect of the procedure. Residents reported lack of comfort with 37% of unsupervised procedures. They also reported lack of comfort with the prospect of managing complications in 35% of procedures. In the multivariable analysis, overall comfort was associated with the use of a dedicated medical procedure service (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.4) and inversely associated with postgraduate year 1 status (OR 0.3, CI 0.1-0.5), first time performing the procedure (OR 0.4, CI 0.2-0.8), thoracenteses (OR 0.4, CI 0.2-0.8), and emergent procedures (OR 0.6, CI 0.3-1.0). Conclusions: Many resident physicians are uncomfortable performing common bedside procedures. Experience and supervision mitigate some, but not all, discomfort. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]