Search

OBJECTIVE: : Interhospital transfer of critically ill patients is a common part of their care. This article sought to review the data on the current patterns of use of interhospital transfer and identify systematic barriers to optimal integration of transfer as a mechanism for improving patient outcomes and value of care. DATA SOURCE: : Narrative review of medical and organizational literature. SUMMARY: : Interhospital transfer of patients is common, but not optimized to improve patient outcomes. Although there is a wide variability in quality among hospitals of nominally the same capability, patients are not consistently transferred to the highest quality nearby hospital. Instead, transfer destinations are selected by organizational routines or non-patient-centered organizational priorities. Accomplishing a transfer is often quite difficult for sending hospitals. But once a transfer destination is successfully found, the mechanics of interhospital transfer now appear quite safe. CONCLUSION: : Important technological advances now make it possible to identify nearby hospitals best able to help critically ill patients, and to successfully transfer patients to those hospitals. However, organizational structures have not yet developed to insure that patients are optimally routed, resulting in potentially significant excess mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Intensive care unit beds are limited, yet few guidelines exist for triage of patients to the intensive care unit, especially patients at low risk for mortality. The frequency with which low-risk patients are admitted to intensive care units in different hospitals is unknown. Our objective was to assess variation in the use of intensive care for patients with diabetic ketoacidosis, a common condition with a low risk of mortality.Design: Observational study using the New York State In-patient Database (2005-2007).Setting: One hundred fifty-nine New York State acute care hospitals.Patients: Fifteen thousand nine hundred ninety-four adult (≥ 18) hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification 250.1x).Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: We calculated reliability- and risk-adjusted intensive care unit utilization, hospital length of stay, and mortality. We identified hospital-level factors associated with increased likelihood of intensive care unit admission after controlling patient characteristics using multilevel, mixed-effects logistic regression analyses; we assessed the amount of residual variation in intensive care unit utilization using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Use of intensive care for diabetic ketoacidosis patients varied widely across hospitals (adjusted range: 2.1% to 87.7%), but was not associated with hospital length of stay or mortality. After multilevel adjustment, hospitals with a high volume of diabetic ketoacidosis admissions admitted diabetic ketoacidosis patients to the intensive care unit less often (odds ratio 0.40, p = .002, highest quintile compared to lowest), whereas hospitals with higher rates of intensive care unit utilization for all nondiabetic ketoacidosis in-patients admitted diabetic ketoacidosis patients to the intensive care unit more frequently (odds ratio 1.31, p = .001, for each additional 10% increase). In the multilevel model, more than half (58%) of the variation in the intensive care unit admission practice attributable to hospitals remained unexplained.Conclusions: We observed variations across hospitals in the use of intensive care for diabetic ketoacidosis patients that was not associated with differences in-hospital length of stay or mortality. Institutional practice patterns appear to impact admission decisions and represent a potential target for reduction of resource utilization in higher use institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Survivors of critical illness suffer significant limitations and disabilities.Objectives: Ascertain whether severe sepsis is associated with increased risk of so-called geriatric conditions (injurious falls, low body mass index [BMI], incontinence, vision loss, hearing loss, and chronic pain) and whether this association is measured consistently across three different study designs.Methods: Patients with severe sepsis were identified in the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative cohort interviewed every 2 years, 1998 to 2006, and in linked Medicare claims. Three comparators were used to assess an association of severe sepsis with geriatric conditions in survivors: the prevalence in the United States population aged 65 years and older, survivors' own pre-sepsis levels assessed before hospitalization, or survivors' own pre-sepsis trajectory.Measurements and Main Results: Six hundred twenty-three severe sepsis hospitalizations were followed a median of 0.92 years. When compared with the 65 years and older population, surviving severe sepsis was associated with increased rates of low BMI, injurious falls, incontinence, and vision loss. Results were similar when comparing survivors to their own pre-sepsis levels. The association of low BMI and severe sepsis persisted when controlling for patients' pre-sepsis trajectories, but there was no association of severe sepsis with injurious falls, incontinence, vision loss, hearing loss, and chronic pain after such controls.Conclusions: Geriatric conditions are common after severe sepsis. However, severe sepsis is associated with increased rates of only a subset of geriatric conditions, not all. In studying outcomes after acute illness, failing to measure and control for both preillness levels and trajectories may result in erroneous conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether insurance coverage and race are associated with long-term acute care hospital utilization in critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Nonfederal Pennsylvania hospital discharges from 2004 to 2006. PATIENTS: Eligible patients were aged 18 yrs or older, of white or black race, and underwent mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit during their hospital stay. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used multivariable logistic regression with hospital-level random effects to determine the independent association between discharge to long-term acute care hospital, insurance status, and race after appropriate controls, including a chart-based measure of severity of illness. The primary outcome measure was discharge to long-term acute care hospital. Of 66,233 eligible patients, 84.7% were white and 15.3% were black. More white patients than black patients had commercial insurance (23.4% vs. 14.9%) compared to Medicaid (10.6% vs. 29.7%) or no insurance (1.3% vs. 2.2%). Long-term acute care hospital transfer occurred in 5.0% of patients. On multivariable analysis in patients aged younger than 65 yrs, black patients were significantly less likely to undergo long-term acute care hospital transfer (odds ratio, 0.71; p = .003), as were patients with Medicaid vs. commercial insurance (odds ratio, 0.17; p < .001). Analyzing race and insurance together and accounting for hospital-level effects, patients with Medicaid were still less likely to undergo long-term acute care hospital transfer (odds ratio, 0.18; p < .001), but race effects were no longer present (odds ratio, 1.06; p = .615). No significant race effects were seen in the Medicare-eligible population aged 65 yrs or older (odds ratio for transfer to long-term acute care hospital, 0.93; p = .359). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in long-term acute care hospital utilization after critical illness appear driven by insurance status and hospital-level effects. Racial variation in long-term acute care hospital use is not seen after controlling for insurance status and is not seen in a group with uniform insurance coverage. Differential access to postacute care may be minimized by expanding commercial or Medicare insurance availability and standardizing long-term acute care admission criteria across hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Lack of health insurance maybe an independent risk factor for mortality and differential treatment in critical illness.Objectives: To determine whether uninsured critically ill patients had differences in 30-day mortality and critical care service use compared with those with private insurance and to determine if outcome variability could be attributed to patient-level or hospital-level effects.Methods: Retrospective cohort study using Pennsylvania hospital discharge data with detailed clinical risk adjustment, from fiscal years 2005 and 2006, consisting of 167 general acute care hospitals, with 138,720 critically ill adult patients 64 years of age or younger.Measurements and Main Results: Measurements were 30-day mortality and receipt of five critical care procedures. Uninsured patients had an absolute 30-day mortality of 5.7%, compared with 4.6% for those with private insurance and 6.4% for those with Medicaid. Increased 30-day mortality among uninsured patients persisted after adjustment for patient characteristics (odds ratio [OR], 1.25 for uninsured vs. insured; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.50) and hospital-level effects (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05–1.51). Compared with insured patients, uninsured patients had decreased risk-adjusted odds of receiving a central venous catheter (OR, 0.84; 95% CI,0.72–0.97), acute hemodialysis (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39–0.91), and tracheostomy (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29–0.64).Conclusions: Lack of health insurance is associated with increased 30-day mortality and decreased use of common procedures for the critically ill in Pennsylvania. Differences were not attributable to hospital-level effects, suggesting that the uninsured have a higher mortality and receive fewer procedures when compared with privately insured patients treated at the same hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

RATIONALE: General intensive care units (ICUs) provide care across a wide range of diagnoses, whereas specialty ICUs provide diagnosis-specific care. Risk-adjusted outcome differences across such units are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between specialty ICU care and the outcome of critical illness. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study design analyzing patients admitted to 124 ICUs participating in the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV from January 2002 to December 2005. We examined 84,182 patients admitted to specialty and general ICUs with an admitting diagnosis or procedure of acute coronary syndrome, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, pneumonia, abdominal surgery, or coronary-artery bypass graft surgery. ICU type was determined by a local data coordinator at each site. Patients were classified by admission to a general ICU, a diagnosis-appropriate ('ideal') specialty ICU, or a diagnosis-inappropriate ('non-ideal') specialty ICU. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and ICU length of stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After adjusting for important confounders, there were no significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality between general versus ideal specialty ICUs for all conditions other than pneumonia. Risk-adjusted mortality was significantly greater for patients admitted to non-ideal specialty ICUs. There was no consistent effect of specialization on length of stay for all patients or for ICU survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Ideal specialty ICU care appears to offer no survival benefit over general ICU care for select common diagnoses. Non-ideal specialty ICU care (i.e., 'boarding') is associated with increased risk-adjusted mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: We examined differences in hospice use rates among blacks and whites and investigated trends in racial differences in hospice patients during the period 1992 through 2000. We tested differences in length of hospice survival from hospice enrollment to death between black and white patients during this period.METHODS: We analyzed data from the 1991-2000 Underlying and Multiple Cause-of-Death Files and the 1992-2000 National Home and Hospice Care Surveys using z tests, chi tests, and Cox regression models.RESULTS: Compared with 1992, the hospice use rate doubled for white patients (P < 0.0001) and increased almost 4-fold for black patients (P < 0.0001) in 2000. Hospice use rates among black patients were significantly lower than those among white patients from 1992 to 1994 but not from 1996 to 2000. Black hospice patients discharged throughout the 1990s were more likely to be younger, have Medicaid-only as their payment source, and have HIV/AIDS than their white counterparts. Black hospice patients were more likely to be referred by hospitals than white hospice patients during 1996 to 2000. Throughout the 1990s, length of hospice survival did not significantly differ between black and white hospice patients after adjusting for covariates.CONCLUSIONS: Hospice use rates significantly increased for both whites and black patients. Black patients had lower hospice use rates than white patients from 1992 to 1994, but not from 1996 to 2000, which may reflect the diffusion of hospice care to black patients with the rapid growth in hospice programs. Despite differences in patient characteristics, the length of hospice survival was similar among both groups. Future research is needed to assess whether racial disparities exist in quality of hospice care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite its expense and importance, it is unknown how common critical care use is. We describe longitudinal patterns of critical care use among a nationally representative cohort of elderly patients monitored from the onset of common serious illnesses. A retrospective population-based cohort study of elderly patients in fee-for-service Medicare is used, with 1,108,060 Medicare beneficiaries at least 68 years of age and newly diagnosed with serious illnesses: 1 of 9 malignancies, stroke, congestive heart failure, hip fracture, or myocardial infarction. Medicare inpatient hospital claims from diagnosis until death (65.1%) or fixed-right censoring (more than 4 years) were reviewed. Distinct hospitalizations involving critical care use (intensive care unit or critical care unit) were counted and associated reimbursements were assessed; repeated use was defined as five or more such hospitalizations. Of the cohort, 54.9% used critical care at some time after diagnosis. Older patients were much less likely to ever use critical care (odds ratio, 0.31; comparing patients more than 90 years old with those 68-70 years old), even after adjustment. A total of 31,348 patients (2.8%) were repeated users of critical care; they accounted for 3.6 billion dollars in hospital charges and 1.4 billion dollars in Medicare reimbursement. We conclude that critical care use is common in serious chronic illness and is not associated solely with preterminal hospitalizations. Use is uneven, and a minority of patients who repeatedly use critical care account for disproportionate costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite suggestive evidence, there has been no adequately powered systematic study of the ways in which marital status influences health care consumption. Using a novel data set of 609016 newly diagnosed, seriously ill elderly individuals in the USA, and employing hierarchical linear models, we look at differences in the experience of hospitalization as a function of marital status. We find that the married consistently use higher quality hospitals and have shorter lengths of stay. On the other hand, the married and the widowed appear to receive similar quality care once they are in the hospital. Marital status thus has a substantial impact on the health care obtained by the elderly. We suggest that these patterns are most consistent with spouses exerting their benefits by functioning as higher-order decision-makers than as home health assistants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alternative ways of caring for seriously ill patients might have implications not only for patients' own outcomes, but also, indirectly, for the health outcomes of their family members. Clinical observation suggests that patients who die 'good deaths' may impose less stress on their spouses. Consequently, we sought to assess whether hospice use by a decedent is associated with decreased risk of death in surviving, bereaved spouses. We conducted a matched retrospective cohort study involving a population-based sample of 195,553 elderly couples in the USA. A total of 30,838 couples where the decedent used hospice care were matched using the propensity score method to 30,838 couples where the decedent did not use hospice care. Our principal outcome of interest was the duration of survival of bereaved widow/ers. After adjustment for other measured variables, 5.4% of bereaved wives died by 18 months after the death of their husband when their deceased husband did not use hospice and 4.9% died when their deceased husband did use hospice, yielding an odds ratio (OR) of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.84-0.99) in favor of hospice use. Similarly, whereas 13.7% of bereaved husbands died by 18 months when their deceased wife did not use hospice, 13.2% died when their deceased wife did use hospice, yielding an OR of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.84-1.06) in favor of hospice use. Our findings suggest a possible beneficial impact of hospice--as a particularly supportive type of end-of-life care--on the spouses of patients who succumb to their disease. Hospice care might attenuate the ordinarily increased mortality associated with becoming widowed. This effect is present in both men and women, but it is statistically significant and possibly larger in bereaved wives. The size of this effect is comparable to the reductions in the risk of death seen in a variety of other modifiable risk factors in women. Health care may have positive, group-level health 'externalities': it may affect the health not only of patients but also of patients' family members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monovalent COVID-19 vaccines targeting the XBB.1.5 Omicron variant were introduced in September 2023. In the absence of randomized controlled trials demonstrating their efficacy, information on real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) is needed., Objective: To determine XBB.1.5 COVID-19 VE and the extent to which it declines over time., Design: Target trial emulation., Setting: U.S. Veterans Health Administration., Participants: Eligible XBB.1.5 vaccine recipients were matched 1:1 to unvaccinated persons in 7 sequential biweekly trials with enrollment from 2 October 2023 through 3 January 2024., Intervention: XBB.1.5 COVID-19 vaccination versus no XBB.1.5 vaccination., Measurements: Outcomes were ascertained through 10 May 2024 and included any positive result on a SARS-CoV-2 test from day 10 after the matched index date, subsequent hospitalization within 1 day before or 10 days after the positive result, or death within 30 days after the positive result. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100 × (1 - risk ratio)., Results: Participants (91.3% male; mean age, 69.9 years) included 587 137 pairs of vaccinated and matched unvaccinated persons. Over a mean follow-up of 176 days (range, 118 to 211 days), VE was -3.26% (95% CI, -6.78% to -0.22%) against documented SARS-CoV-2 infection, 16.64% (CI, 6.47% to 25.77%) against SARS-CoV-2-associated hospitalization, and 26.61% (CI, 5.53% to 42.32%) against SARS-CoV-2-associated death. When estimated at 60, 90, and 120 days, respectively, VE against documented infection (14.21%, 7.29%, and 3.15%), hospitalization (37.57%, 30.84%, and 25.25%), or death (54.24%, 44.33%, and 30.25%) showed substantial waning., Limitation: Potential for residual confounding and incomplete capture of COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2-related outcomes., Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines targeting the XBB.1.5 variant of Omicron were not effective in preventing infection and had relatively low VE against hospitalization and death, which declined rapidly over time., Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

Rationale: Early identification of intensive care unit (ICU) patients likely to benefit from specialist palliative care could reduce the time such patients spend in the ICU receiving care inconsistent with their goals. Objectives: To evaluate the real-world effects of early screening for palliative care criteria in a medical ICU. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study in adults admitted to the ICU using a causal inference approach with instrumental variable analysis. The intervention consisted of screening ICU admissions for palliative care trigger conditions and, if present, offering specialist palliative care consultation, which could be accepted or declined by the ICU. We evaluated specialist palliative care use in pre and postimplementation cohorts from the year before and after screening implementation began (October 2022). In the postimplementation cohort, we compared use of specialist palliative care in those who received early screening versus not. We then estimated the effect of early screening on the primary outcome of days to do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status or ICU discharge, with death without a DNR order placed at the 99th percentile of the days to DNR or ICU discharge distribution. Secondary outcomes included: DNR order, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, hospice discharge, and mortality metrics. To address unmeasured confounding, we used two-stage least-squares instrumental variables analysis. The instrument, which predicts early screening, comprised weekend versus weekday admission and number of patients meeting palliative care criteria on a patient's ICU Days 1 and 2. Results: Among 1,282 postimplementation admissions, 626 (45%) received early screening, and 398 (28%) received specialty palliative consultation. Early receipt of specialist palliative care was higher in patients who received early screening versus not (17% vs. 1%; P  < 0.001), and overall use of specialty palliative care was higher after versus before screening implementation (28% vs. 15%; P  < 0.001). In the postimplementation cohort, there were no statistically significant effects of early screening on the primary outcome of days to DNR or ICU discharge (15% relative increase; 95% confidence interval, -11% to +48%) or other secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Despite significantly increased specialty palliative care consultation, there was no evidence that early screening for palliative care criteria affected time to DNR/ICU discharge or other secondary outcomes.

Background: The Treatment of Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM) trial reported a higher occurrence of adverse events with greater mobilisation. However, their timing and nature remained unexplored. We conducted an in-depth exploration of such events., Objective: The purpose of this paper is to thoroughly examine the timing and characteristics of adverse events reported within the TEAM trial., Methods: Adverse event data were collected daily in real time. Categorical data were compared using the Fisher's exact test. The relationship between adverse events and patient survival was analysed using a Cox-regression frailty model., Results: Overall, 37 out of 371 patients (10.0%) in the early mobilisation group and 16 out of 370 patients (4.3%) in the usual care group experienced adverse events, with 71 events in the early mobilisation group compared to 24 events in the usual care group. The most common adverse events were altered blood pressure in 21 out of 53 patients (39.6%), arrhythmia in 17 out of 53 patients (32.1%), and oxygen desaturation in nine of 53 patients (17.0%). Patients with an adverse event were more likely to have congestive heart failure (absolute percentage difference: 16.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.1 to 26.1), peripheral vascular disease (absolute percentage difference: 6.4, 95% CI: 1.3 to 11.5), heart attack (absolute percentage difference: 13.5, 95% CI: 5.9 to 21.1), or stroke (absolute percentage difference: 9.3, 95% CI: 3.5 to 15.1). Adverse events occurred at a median of 4 days with early mobilisation and 7 days with usual care. There was no significant difference in survival for patients who experienced an adverse event compared to those without an adverse event., Conclusion: Adverse events were more common in patients randomised to early active mobilisation, were cardiovascular and respiratory in nature, tended to occur earlier with active mobilisation, and cardiovascular comorbidities were more common in such patients. This information can help guide future studies in this field., Trial Registration: TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133377, registered 28 April 2017., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Hispanic individuals comprise one-fifth of the U.S. population and Hispanic patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) experience higher odds of death compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Representation of Hispanic patients in clinical trials for respiratory failure is critical to address this inequity. We conducted a systematic review to examine the inclusion of Hispanic patients in randomized controlled trials for AHRF and assessed language as a potential barrier to enrollment., Data Sources: National Library of Medicine PubMed, Elsevier Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases through January 2024., Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials assessing AHRF interventions enrolling U.S. patients receiving mechanical ventilation, noninvasive mechanical ventilation, or high-flow nasal cannula were included. The systematic review was registered prospectively through PROSPERO (CRD42023437828)., Data Extraction: Two authors independently screened studies and extracted data for each included study., Data Synthesis: Ninety-four trials published from 1975 to 2023 were included; 33.0% (n = 31) of studies reported ethnicity, and 11.2% of participants in studies reporting race or ethnicity (1,320/11,780) were identified as Hispanic. The proportion of Hispanic-identified participants was significantly lower than the U.S. Hispanic population from 1996 to 2019 (p < 0.01). Starting in 2020, the proportion of Hispanic-identified participants was significantly higher than the U.S. population (27.8% vs. 19.1%; p < 0.01). Two studies (4.9%) reporting race or ethnicity excluded non-English speaking participants; the remainder did not specify language requirements for enrollment., Conclusions: Hispanic-identified individuals were underrepresented in trials for AHRF until 2020 when Hispanic patient representation increased during COVID-19. Exclusion of participants who do not speak English may represent a barrier to trial enrollment., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Background: Continuing data on racial bias in pulse oximeters and artificial intelligence have sparked calls for health systems to drive innovation against racial bias in health care device and artificial intelligence markets by incorporating equity concerns explicitly into purchasing decisions., Research Question: How do health care purchasing professionals integrate equity concerns into purchasing decision-making?, Study Design and Methods: Between August 2023 and March 2024, we conducted semistructured interviews via videoconferencing with health care purchasing professionals about purchasing processes for pulse oximeters and other devices-and whether and where equity concerns arise in decision-making. An abductive approach was used to analyze perspectives on how equity and disparity concerns currently are integrated into health care purchasing decision-making. Health care purchasing professionals (N = 30) worked in varied supply chain roles for various health systems and supply chain support and consulting companies across the United States., Results: Health care purchasing professionals described limited considerations of equity in current purchasing processes. They described some receptivity to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, largely focused on diversifying suppliers rather than ensuring that devices and products functioned equitably. Respondents reported that they depended on clinician partners to raise and delineate requirements for equitable performance. Respondents also depicted current sources of evidence used in making purchasing decisions as providing limited information about equitable performance and that large contracts, including with group purchasing organizations, may limit purchasing options., Interpretation: Health system purchasing professionals suggested interest and some nascent successes in diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations in health system purchasing processes, including diverse supplier initiatives, but also expressed a need for strong clinical partnership to ensure equitable performance. Explicit approaches for incorporating equitable performance into health care purchasing likely are needed., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: K. F. is a member of the institutional review board for the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program and serves on the Digital Ethics Advisory Panel for Merck KGaA. None declared (K. E. H., T. B., D. C. C., E. F. D., J. W. J., T. S. V., J. L., T. J. I.)., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Rapid vital sign assessment, including temperature measurement, is critical among pediatric patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). While error rates in temporal thermometry are well documented, the potential for differential error rates by demographics is not well established. Our objective was to evaluate error rates of temporal thermometers by demographic variables, specifically race and age, among pediatric patients in the ED., Methods: Pediatric patients (≤18 years old) identified as either Black or White in the medical record presenting to the ED between January 2020 and December 2022 who received at least one paired temperature measurement (temporal and oral/rectal temperature within 30 minutes) were included. Rates of discordance by demographic characteristics were then evaluated. Secondarily, we explored the characteristics of patients who received temporal thermometry only., Results: The final population included 1526 paired temperatures (1412 patients). Among all paired measurements, 26% had discordant measurements (25% in Black patients vs 26% in White patients). In the final adjusted model, children aged ≤12 years old were found to have 2-3 times higher odds of discordance than children >12 years old. Black patients were statistically significantly more likely to receive a temporal thermometer measurement only (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22, 1.33), even when controlling for fever-related chief complaints., Conclusions: Age ≤12 years old was associated with increased odds of missed fever by temporal thermometry. In our secondary analysis, Black patients were found to be more likely to receive temporal thermometry only. These findings highlight the need for consistent, accurate measurement protocols among pediatric patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2025 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Federal research grants provide support for the indirect costs (IDCs) of research infrastructure that are not specific to particular research projects but are nonetheless essential to enable research. Institutions independently negotiate IDC rates. The authors sought to identify whether inequities exist in negotiated IDC rates between historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other universities (non-HBCUs)., Method: In 2023, the authors analyzed mean negotiated IDC rates between the top 20 HBCUs (in fiscal year [FY] 2021 research expenditures) and 3 non-HBCU comparison groups: the top 40 non-HBCUs in FY 2021 research expenditures, metropolitan statistical area (MSA)-matched non-HBCUs (among the top 200 institutions by FY 2021 research expenditures), and FY 2021 research expenditure-matched non-HBCUs., Results: The authors found that the top 20 HBCUs' mean IDC rates (50.0%) were, after adjustment, 8.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7-11.2) lower than those of the top 40 non-HBCUs (58.5%). The mean IDC rates of top HBCUs (n = 14, 48.4%) were, after adjustment, 6.3 percentage points (95% CI, 3.1-9.4) lower than those of MSA-matched non-HBCUs (n = 23, 55.3%). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean IDC rates between the top 20 HBCUs (50.0%) and expenditure-matched non-HBCUs (n = 31; 48.2%)., Conclusions: Inequities in negotiated IDC rates between top HBCUs and non-HBCUs likely both reflect and may contribute to the persistence of institution-level inequities in federally funded research. Proactive investments in HBCUs' research infrastructures are likely needed to ameliorate these funding inequities and support the role of HBCUs in providing opportunity for underrepresented groups in biomedical sciences., (Copyright © 2024 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST Critical Care the following: A. C. L. and N. A. B. are editors for CHEST Critical Care. None declared (A. F., T. J. I.).

Background: Peer support is a promising intervention to mitigate post-ICU disability, however there is a paucity of rigorously designed studies., Objectives: The objective of this study was to establish feasibility of an in-person, co-designed, peer-support model., Methods: Prospective, randomised, adaptive, single-centre pilot trial with blinded outcome assessment, conducted at a university-affiliated hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Intensive care unit survivors (and their nominated caregiver, where survivor and caregiver are referred to as a dyad), >18 years of age, able to speak and understand English and participate in phone surveys, were eligible. Participants were randomised to the peer-support model (six sessions, fortnightly) or usual care (no follow-up or targeted information). Two sequential models were piloted: 1. Early (2-3 weeks post hospital discharge) 2. Later (4-6 weeks post hospital discharge). Primary outcome was feasibility of implementation measured by recruitment, intervention attendance, and outcome completion. Secondary outcomes included post-traumatic stress and social support., Results: Of the 231 eligible patients, 80 participants were recruited. In the early model we recruited 38 participants (28 patients, 10 carers; 18 singles, 10 dyads), with an average (standard deviation) age of 60 (18) years; 55 % were female. Twenty-two participants (58 %) were randomised to intervention. Participants in the early intervention model attended a median (interquartile range) of 0 (0-1) sessions (total 24 sessions), with 53% (n = 20) completing the main secondary outcome of interest (Impact of Event Scale) at the baseline and 37 % (n = 14) at the follow-up. For the later model we recruited 42 participants (32 patients, 10 carers; 22 singles, 10 dyads), with an average (standard deviation) age of 60.4 (15.4) years; 50 % were female. Twenty-one participants (50 %) were randomised to intervention. The later intervention model attended a median (interquartile range) of 1 (0-5) sessions (total: 44 sessions), with the main secondary outcome impact of events scale (IES-R) completed by 41 (98 %) participants at baseline and 29 (69 %) at follow-up., Conclusions: In this pilot trial, a peer-support model that required in-person attendance delivered in a later posthospital phase of recovery appeared more feasible than an early model. Further research should investigate alternative modes of intervention delivery to improve feasibility (ACTRN12621000737831)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest K Haines received a SCCM Thrive Award from SCCM to undertake this study. No conflicts of interest were declared by other authors., (Copyright © 2024 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Prone positioning for ⩾16 hours in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) improves survival. However, the optimal duration of proning is unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning duration on patients with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ARDS. Methods: Data were extracted from a five-hospital electronic medical record registry. Patients who were proned within 72 hours of mechanical ventilation were categorized as receiving extended (⩾24 h) versus standard (16-24 h) proning based on the first proning session length. We used a target trial emulation design to estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality and secondary outcomes of ventilator liberation and intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. Analytically, we used inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox or Fine-Gray regression models. Results: A total of 314 patients were included; 234 received extended proning, and 80 received standard-duration proning. Patients who received extended proning were older, had greater comorbidity, were more often at an academic hospital, and had shorter time from admission to mechanical ventilation. After IPTW, characteristics were well balanced. Unadjusted 90-day mortality in the extended versus standard proning groups was 39% versus 58%. In doubly robust IPTW analyses, we found no significant effects of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.95 [0.51-1.77]), ventilator liberation (subdistribution hazard, 1.60 [0.97-2.64], or ICU discharge (subdistribution hazard, 1.31 [0.82-2.10]). Conclusions: Using target trial emulation, we found no significant effect of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality, ventilator liberation, or ICU discharge. However, given the imprecision of estimates, further study is justified.