Search

Telemedicine consults, including video consults, telephone consults, electronic consults, and virtual conferences, may be particularly valuable in the management of chronic pulmonary diseases, but there is limited guidance on best practices for pulmonary telemedicine consults.This scoping review aims to identify, characterize, and analyze gaps in the published literature on telemedicine consults health providers use to manage patients with chronic pulmonary diseases.We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from database origin through July 10, 2021. We included manuscripts describing applications of telemedicine consults for patients with chronic pulmonary diseases (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, pulmonary hypertension, and interstitial lung disease). We restricted our review to full-length articles published in English about provider-led (as opposed to nurse-led) telemedicine consults.Our search yielded 3,118 unique articles; 27 articles met inclusion criteria. All telemedicine consult modalities and chronic pulmonary conditions were well represented in the review except for pulmonary hypertension and interstitial lung disease, which were represented by one and no articles, respectively. Most articles described a small, single-center, observational study that focused on the acceptability, feasibility, utility, and/or clinical effectiveness of the telemedicine consult. Few studies had objectively measured clinical outcomes or included a comparator group, and none compared telemedicine consult modalities against one another.Our scoping review identified limited literature describing pulmonary telemedicine consults and highlighted several gaps in the literature that warrant increased attention. Providers treating chronic pulmonary diseases are left with limited guidance on best practices for telemedicine consults.

Medicare requires tobacco dependence counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement. We hypothesized that initiating SDM during inpatient tobacco treatment visits would increase LCS among patients with barriers to proactively seeking outpatient preventive care.We collected baseline assessments and performed two pilot randomized trials at our safety-net hospital. Pilot 1 tested feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a nurse practitioner initiating SDM for LCS during hospitalization (Inpatient SDM). We collected qualitative data on barriers encountered during Pilot 1. Pilot 2 added a community health worker (CHW) to address barriers to LCS completion (Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation). For both studies, preliminary efficacy was an intention-to-treat analysis of LCS completion at 3 months between intervention and comparator (furnishing of LCS decision aid only) groups.Baseline assessments showed that patients preferred in-person LCS discussions versus self-reviewing materials; overall 20% had difficulty understanding written information. In Pilot 1, 4% (2/52) in Inpatient SDM versus 2% (1/48, comparator) completed LCS (p = 0.6), despite 89% (89/100) desiring LCS. Primary care providers noted that competing priorities and patient factors (e.g., social barriers to keeping appointments) prevented the intervention from working as intended. In Pilot 2, 50% (5/10) in Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation versus 9% (1/11, comparator) completed LCS (p 0.05). Many patients were ineligible due to recent diagnostic chest CT (Pilot 1: 255/659; Pilot 2: 239/527).Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation shows promise to improve LCS rates among underserved patients who smoke, but feasibility is limited by recent diagnostic chest CT among inpatients. Implementing CHW-navigation in other clinical settings may facilitate LCS for underserved patients.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03276806 (8 September 2017); NCT03793894 (4 January 2019).

Little is known about rates of invasive procedures and associated complications after lung cancer screening (LCS) in nontrial settings.What are the frequency of invasive procedures, complication rates, and factors associated with complications in a national sample of veterans screened for lung cancer?We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of veterans who underwent LCS in any Veterans Health Administration (VA) facility between 2013 and 2019 and identified veterans who underwent invasive procedures within 10 months of initial LCS. The primary outcome was presence of a complication within 10 days after an invasive procedure. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine patient- and facility-level factors associated with complications resulting from an invasive procedure.Our cohort of 82,641 veterans who underwent LCS was older, more racially diverse, and had more comorbidities than National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants. Overall, 1,741 veterans (2.1%) underwent an invasive procedure after initial screening, including 856 (42.3%) bronchoscopies, 490 (24.2%) transthoracic needle biopsies, and 423 (20.9%) thoracic surgeries. Among veterans who underwent procedures, 151 (8.7%) experienced a major complication (eg, respiratory failure, prolonged hospitalization) and an additional 203 (11.7%) experienced an intermediate complication (eg, pneumothorax, pleural effusion). Veterans who underwent thoracic surgery (OR, 7.70; 95% CI, 5.48-10.81), underwent multiple nonsurgical procedures (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.92), or carried a dementia diagnosis (OR, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.79-8.52) were more likely to experience complications. Invasive procedures were performed less often than in the NLST (2.1% vs 4.2%), but veterans were more likely to experience complications after each type of procedure.These findings may reflect a higher threshold to perform procedures in veteran populations with multiple comorbidities and higher risks of complications. Future work should focus on optimizing the identification of patients whose chance of benefit likely outweighs the complication risks.

Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Menthol cigarettes have had a profound adverse effect on public health. On 1 June 2020, Massachusetts became the first state to ban the sale of menthol cigarettes. We explored how perceptions of the ban and smoking behaviors changed over time among a group of 27 individuals who smoked menthol cigarettes at our safety-net hospital. In a convergent mixed methods study, we administered questionnaires and interviews simultaneously at two timepoints: 1 month pre-ban and 6 months post-ban. Pre-ban, we assessed perceptions of the ban and anticipated smoking behaviors after the ban. Post-ban, we assessed participants’ actual smoking behaviors and elicited suggestions to avoid unintended consequences that might undermine intended policy effects. Several respondents perceived the Massachusetts ban as positive because it could promote smoking cessation, prevent youth initiation, and mitigate unfair targeting of socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Others perceived the ban as an overreach of government policy, financially motivated, and unfairly targeting the Black community. Many continued to smoke menthol cigarettes obtained outside Massachusetts. Individuals suggested promoting tobacco treatment for people affected by the ban and a national ban to circumvent out-of-state purchasing of menthol cigarettes. Our findings suggest that in order to be most effective, healthcare systems must promote tobacco treatment and ensure that treatment is accessible to all individuals affected by the ban.

Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended by multiple organizations, reflecting a larger movement toward patient-centered care. Yet SDM for LCS does not routinely occur owing to barriers at multiple levels. Moreover, how best to implement SDM into routine clinical practice remains unknown. There is a need for a novel approach to overcome multilevel barriers and ensure high-quality SDM for LCS is integrated into routine practice. We present the protocol for our U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-funded study. Our protocol is designed to implement and evaluate a multilevel, tailored approach to SDM for LCS in routine clinical practice within the VA New England Health Care Network, comprising eight medical centers. In this prospective, pragmatic hybrid implementation-effectiveness study, we will first conduct a formative evaluation of barriers to SDM for LCS at each level of the socioecological model, which will inform our tailored implementation plan. We will then sequentially introduce components of our tailored, multilevel approach to implementing SDM for LCS across VA New England. Finally, using mixed methods, we will evaluate the implementation and its impact on effectiveness (primary outcome, defined as patient-centeredness of SDM), as well as implementation outcomes informed by the RE-AIM implementation science framework (i.e., reach to patients, adoption by providers, implementation fidelity). Tailored implementation will address identified challenges to achieving policy recommendations for SDM for LCS in VA New England, inform nationwide implementation of SDM for LCS, and address stakeholder interests in promoting more patient-centered interactions across the VA.

There are growing calls to broaden palliative care access to more populations, diseases, and care settings and to earlier in the disease process; yet, supply of specialty palliative care is not likely to keep pace with demand. This article discusses possible solutions by which to bridge the gap between limited palliative care supply and demand. The proposed solutions include: (1) specialist workforce development; (2) alternate models of care; (3) triaging systems; and (4) telemedicine. Education/training, research, and policy mechanisms could operationalize these solutions. With the solutions in hand, the field may be able to increase the reach, sustainability, and equity of palliative care, thereby improving access and enabling a multitude of positive patient, family, and health care system outcomes.

Diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH) in systemic sclerosis (SSc) requires an invasive right heart catheterization (RHC), often based on an elevated estimated pulmonary artery systolic pressure on screening echocardiography. However, due to the poor specificity of echocardiography, a greater number of patients undergo RHC than necessary, exposing patients to potentially avoidable complication risks. The development of improved prediction models for PH in SSc may inform decision-making for RHC in these patients.We conducted a retrospective study of 130 patients with SSc; 66 (50.8%) were diagnosed with PH by RHC. We used data from pulmonary function testing, electrocardiography, echocardiography, and computed tomography to identify and compare the performance characteristics of three models predicting the presence of PH: 1) Random forest; 2) Classification and regression tree; and, 3) Logistic regression. For each model, we generated receiver operating curves and calculated sensitivity and specificity. We internally validated models using a train-test split of the data.The random forest model performed best with an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.00), sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.75, 1.00), and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.94). The two most important variables in our random forest model were pulmonary artery diameter on chest computed tomography and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide on pulmonary function testing.In patients with SSc, a random forest model can aid in the detection of PH with high sensitivity and specificity, and may allow for better patient selection for RHC, thereby minimizing patient risk. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Although classified as group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), patients with systemic sclerosis-related pulmonary hypertension (SSc-PH) experience poorer clinical response to PAH therapy and increased mortality compared to those with idiopathic PAH. Due to heterogeneity in phenotypes, identifying patients likely to respond to therapy is challenging. The goal of this study was to determine clinical factors associated with hemodynamic response, defined by a 20% reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance on repeat right heart catheterization.We applied a time-to-event model using a retrospective cohort of 39 patients with precapillary SSc-PH, defined by a mean pulmonary artery pressure of ≥ 25 mmHg and pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (PAWP) ≤ 15 mmHg on right heart catheterization.Patients with PAWP ≤ 8 mmHg were nearly fourfold more likely to achieve a hemodynamic response compared to those with PAWP 8 mmHg (HR 3.88; 95% CI: 1.20, 12.57); each 1 mmHg increase in PAWP was associated with a decreased hazard for hemodynamic response (HR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70, 1.00).In patients with precapillary SSc-PH, PAWP was associated with time to hemodynamic response, suggesting the importance of subclinical cardiac disease in determining hemodynamic response to oral vasodilator therapy.

To examine how select Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites organized care for patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), with a focus on describing existing practices and identifying unmet needs within the sites.Semi-structured interviews across seven diverse VA sites.Qualitative multiple-site study.We interviewed 54 key informants including pulmonologists, cardiologists, primary care providers, advanced care practitioners, pharmacists, and clinical leaders to assess the structures and processes of PH care delivery. We analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis and constructed site profiles for each site, comparing profiles to existing guidelines for PH expert centers.Sites varied considerably in how they organized PH care, with wide variation in the availability of structures and processes recommended for expert centers, including availability of PH expertise and PH-specific resources, multidisciplinary approach to care, establishment of clear referral pathways, and presence of PH education. Further, participants identified three areas of unmet need not directly addressed within current guidelines, including better integration of pharmacists into multidisciplinary teams, early and routine involvement of palliative care, and improved care coordination efforts.The rising prevalence of PH and evolution of treatments for common PH subgroups underscore the need to standardize PH care delivery in non-expert care settings to improve care quality and patient outcomes. The insight gained from this study may inform the development of guidance appropriate for care settings outside of expert centers.

Background Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not. Methods Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached. Results The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements. Conclusions Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Background. Menthol cigarettes have had a profound adverse effect on public health. On June 1 2020, Massachusetts became the first state to restrict the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes. In this longitudinal study, we sought to understand how individuals in our hospital system who smoke menthol cigarettes perceived the Massachusetts menthol ban and if their perceptions and smoking behavior changed over time. Methods. We undertook a longitudinal survey and qualitative study (n=27), starting 1-month pre-ban (4/15-5/31/2020) and continuing 6-months post-ban. Pre-ban questionnaires assessed participants’ perceptions of the ban and probed their anticipated smoking behaviors after the ban. The post-ban assessments (1- and 6- months) probed how perceptions and smoking behaviors changed post-ban. We also elicited suggestions to mitigate unintended consequences of the ban that might undermine intended policy effects. Results. Participants were 37% female, 56% Black, and 96% Medicaid-insured. Perceptions of how individuals viewed the ban were dynamic. Many discussed how they smoked less because of the ban, although their smoking behavior was largely influenced by their ability to still obtain menthol cigarettes. Individuals suggested promoting tobacco treatment interventions to help people affected by the ban and a national ban to circumvent out-of-state travel. Conclusions. Banning the sale of menthol cigarettes improves smoking-related health disparities. To be most effective, healthcare workers must capitalize on this moment to promote tobacco treatment and states must ensure that tobacco treatment programs are readily accessible to individuals affected by the ban.

Background Studies show uneven access to Medicare-approved lung cancer screening (LCS) programs across the United States. The Veterans Health Administration (VA), the largest national US integrated health system, is potentially well positioned to coordinate LCS services across regional units to ensure that access matches distribution of need nationally. Research Question To what extent does LCS access (considering both VA and partner sites) and use match the distribution of eligible Veterans at state and regional levels? Methods In this retrospective analysis, we identified LCS examinations in VA facilities between 2013 and 2019 from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and plotted VA facilities with LCS geographically. We compared estimated LCS rates (unique Veterans screened per LCS-eligible population) across states and VA regional units. Finally, we assessed whether the VA’s new partnership with the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer (which includes more than 750 LCS centers) closes geographic gaps in LCS access. Results We identified 71,898 LCS examinations in 96 of 139 (69.1%) VA facilities in 44 states between 2013 and 2019, with substantial variation across states (0-8 VA LCS facilities per state). Screening rates among eligible Veterans in the population varied more than 30-fold across regional networks (rate ratio, 33.6; 95% CI, 30.8-36.7 for VA New England vs Veterans Integrated Service Network 4), with weak correlation between eligible populations and LCS rates (coefficient, –0.30). Partnering with the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer expands capacity and access (eg, all states now have ≥ 1 VA or partner LCS site), but 9 of the 12 states with the highest proportions of rural Veterans still have ≤ 3 total LCS facilities. Interpretation Disparities in LCS access exist based on where Veterans live, particularly for rural Veterans, even after partnering with the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer. The nationally integrated VA system has an opportunity to leverage regional resources to distribute and coordinate LCS services better to ensure equitable access.

Randomized trials of pulmonary vasodilators in pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease (Group 2) and lung disease (Group 3) have demonstrated potential for harm. Yet these therapies are commonly used in practice. Little is known of the effects of treatment outside of clinical trials. We aimed to establish outcomes of vasodilator treatment for Groups 2/3 pulmonary hypertension in real-world practice. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 132,552 Medicare-eligible Veterans with incident Groups 2/3 pulmonary hypertension between 2006 and 2016, and a secondary nested case–control study. Our primary outcome was a composite of death by any cause or selected acute organ failures. In our cohort analysis, we calculated adjusted risks of time to our outcome using Cox proportional hazards models with facility-specific random effects. In our case–control analysis, we used logistic mixed-effects models to estimate the effect of any past, recent, and cumulative exposure on our outcome. From our cohort study, 3249 (2.5%) Veterans were exposed to pulmonary vasodilators. Exposure to vasodilators was associated with increased risk of our primary outcome, in both Group 3 (HR: 1.58 (95% CI: 1.37–1.82)) and Group 2 (HR: 1.26 (95% CI: 1.12–1.41)) pulmonary hypertension patients. The case–control study determined odds of our outcome increased by 11% per year of exposure (OR: 1.11 (95% CI: 1.07–1.16)). Treating Groups 2/3 pulmonary hypertension with vasodilators in clinical practice is associated with increased risk of harm. This extension of trial findings to a real-world setting offers further evidence to limit use of vasodilators in Groups 2/3 pulmonary hypertension outside of clinical trials.

Rationale: Hypoxemia associated with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often resolves with time. Current guidelines recommend that patients recently discharged with supplemental home oxygen after hospitalization should not have renewal of the prescription without assessment for hypoxemia. Understanding patterns of home oxygen reassessment is an opportunity to improve quality and value in home oxygen prescribing and may provide future targets for deimplementation. Objectives: We sought to measure the frequency of home oxygen reassessment within 90 days of hospitalization for COPD and determine the potential population eligible for deimplementation. Methods: We performed a cohort study of patients ≥40 years hospitalized for COPD at five Veterans Affairs facilities who were prescribed home oxygen at discharge. Our primary outcome was the frequency of reassessment within 90 days by oxygen saturation (Sp(O(2))) measurement. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients potentially eligible for discontinuation (Sp(O(2)) > 88%) and patients in whom oxygen was discontinued. Our primary exposures were treatment with long-acting bronchodilators, prior history of COPD exacerbation, smoking status, and pulmonary hypertension. We used a mixed-effects Poisson model to measure the association between patient-level variables and our outcome, clustered by site. We also performed a positive deviant analysis using chart review to uncover system processes associated with high-quality oxygen prescribing. Results: A total of 287 of 659 (43.6%; range 24.8–78.5% by site) patients had complete reassessment within 90 days. None of our patient-level exposures were associated with oxygen reassessment. Nearly half of those with complete reassessment were eligible for discontinuation on the basis of Medicare guidelines (43.2%; n = 124/287). When using the newest evidence available by the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial, most of the cohort did not have resting hypoxemia (84.3%; 393/466) and would be eligible for discontinuation. The highest-performing Veterans Affairs facility had four care processes to support oxygen reassessment and discontinuation, versus zero to one at all other sites. Conclusions: Fewer than half of patients prescribed home oxygen after a COPD exacerbation are reassessed within 90 days. New system processes supporting timely reassessment and discontinuation of unnecessary home oxygen therapy could improve the quality and value of care.

Sleep disturbances, including chronic insomnia and sleep apnea, are major concerns for US veterans, with rising rates and detrimental effects on physical, mental, and social well-being. Sleep disturbances in veterans are also underdiagnosed and undertreated for reasons that include limited sleep clinician availability, long wait times, and the time commitment for treatment. Greater use of sleep health information technologies could improve access to assessment and treatment of sleep disturbances. However, the assessment of acceptance of these technologies among veterans is still ongoing. This mixed-method study combines data from two separate but similar randomized controlled trials to assess acceptance of sleep health information technologies for veterans with chronic insomnia. Sleep health information technologies included in these trials were the following: (1) a WatchPAT sleep monitor for home-based sleep assessment, including detection of sleep apnea, and (2) the VA mobile app Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-i Coach), which supports self-management of insomnia. The combined sample of 37 veterans receiving care within one New England VA medical center completed a six-week trial using both health information technology tools. Participants completed a survey and interview at the end of the 6 weeks. Overall, participants found the tools acceptable, easy to use, and useful and reported they would use them in the future. Thus, these sleep health information technologies appear to provide an acceptable remote option for assessing and managing sleep issues for veterans. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02392000; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02392000 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03305354; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03305354.

Background In the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening. Research Question How do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress? Study Design and Methods We conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis. Results Clinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress. Interpretation Tension exists between clinicians’ interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients’ need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation—even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.

Background Burnout is a maladaptive response to work-related stress that is associated with negative consequences for patients, clinicians, and the health care system. Critical care nurses are at especially high risk for burnout. Previous studies of burnout have used survey methods that simultaneously measure risk factors and outcomes of burnout, potentially introducing common method bias. Objectives To evaluate the frequency of burnout and individual and organizational characteristics associated with burnout among critical care nurses across a national integrated health care system using data from an annual survey and methods that avoid common method bias. Methods A 2017 survey of 2352 critical care nurses from 94 sites. Site-level workplace climate was assessed using 2016 survey data from 2191 critical care nurses. Results Overall, one-third of nurses reported burnout, which varied significantly across sites. In multilevel analysis, workplace climate was the strongest predictor of burnout (odds ratio [OR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.50-3.22). Other significant variables were overall hospital quality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.05-1.99), urban location (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.09-3.42), and nurse tenure (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.44-3.10). In secondary multivariable analyses, workplace climate subthemes of perceptions of workload and staffing, supervisors and senior leadership, culture of teamwork, and patient experience were each significantly associated with burnout. Conclusions Drivers of burnout are varied, yet interventions frequently target only the individual. Results of this study suggest that in efforts to reduce burnout, emphasis should be placed on improving local workplace climate.

Background Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose CT imaging is recommended for people at high risk of dying of lung cancer. Communication strategies for clinicians have been recommended, but their influence on patient-centered outcomes is unclear. Research Question How do patients experience communication and decision-making with clinicians when offered LCS? Study Design and Methods We performed semistructured interviews with 51 patients from three institutions with established LCS programs. We focused on communication domains such as information exchange, patient as person, and shared decision-making. Using conventional content analysis, we report on patients’ assessment of information, reasons for (dis)satisfaction, distress, and role in the decision-making process. Results Participants recalled few specific harms or benefits of screening, but uniformly reported satisfaction with the amount of information provided. All participants reported that clinicians did not explicitly ask about their values and preferences and about one-half reported some distress in anticipation of screening results. Almost all participants were satisfied with their role in the decision-making process. Despite participants’ reporting that they did not experience all aspect of shared decision-making as defined, they reported high levels of trust in clinicians, which may relate to their largely positive reactions to the LCS decision interaction through the patient as person domain of communication. Interpretation Although decision-making for lung cancer screening as currently practiced may not meet all criteria of high-quality communication, patients in our sample are satisfied with the process, and report high trust in clinicians. Patients may place greater importance on interpersonal aspects of communication rather than information exchange.

Background The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario. Results Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non–small-cell lung cancer. Conclusions There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.

Background Individuals with low socioeconomic status experience higher prevalence and worse outcomes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We undertook a quality improvement initiative at our safety net hospital in which a nurse practitioner (NP)/community health worker (CHW) team followed patients with COPD, frequent admissions, and unmet SDOH needs from hospitalization through one month post-discharge. We report our mixed methods approach to inform development and preliminary evaluation of this intervention. Methods We first assessed characteristics of patients admitted with COPD in 2018 (n = 1811), performing multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with ≥ 2 admissions per year. We then tested a standardized tool to screen for unmet SDOH needs in a convenience sample of 51 frequently hospitalized patients with COPD. From January–July 2019, we pilot tested the NP/CHW intervention with 57 patients, reviewed NP/CHW logs, and conducted qualitative interviews with 16 patient participants to explore impressions of the intervention. Results Patients with Medicaid insurance, mental health disorders, cardiac disease, and substance use disorder had increased odds of having ≥ 2 admissions. COPD severity, comorbidities, and unmet SDOH needs made COPD self-management challenging. Seventy-four percent of frequently admitted patients with COPD completing SDOH screening had unmet SDOH needs. Patients perceived that the NP/CHW intervention addressed these barriers by connecting them to resources and providing emotional support. Conclusions Many patients with COPD admitted at our safety-net hospital experience unmet SDOH needs that impede COPD self-management. A longitudinal NP/CHW intervention to address unmet SDOH needs following discharge appears feasible and acceptable.

Background: Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, there was uncertainty regarding critical illness prognosis and challenges to traditional face-to-face family meetings. Ethnic minority populations have suffered disproportionately worse outcomes during the pandemic, which may in part relate to differences in end-of-life decision-making. Aim: Characterize patterns of and factors associated with decisions to forgo resuscitative efforts, as measured by do-not-resuscitate orders, during critical illness with Covid-19. Design: Retrospective cohort with medical record abstraction. Setting/participants: Adult patients diagnosed with SARS-Cov-2 virus via polymerase chain reaction and admitted to the intensive care unit at an academic hospital, which cares for the city’s underserved communities, between March 1 and June 7, 2020 who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. Results: In this cohort ( n = 155), 45% were black people, and 51% spoke English as their primary language. Median time to first goals-of-care conversation was 3.9 days (IQR 1.9–7.6) after intensive care unit admission. Overall 61/155 patients (39%) transitioned to do-not-resuscitate status, and 50/62 (82%) patients who died had do-not-resuscitate orders. Multivariate analysis shows age and palliative care involvement as the strongest predictors of decision to instate do-not-resuscitate order. There was no association between race, ethnicity, or language and decisions to forego resuscitation. Conclusions: During this time of crisis and uncertainty with limited resources and strained communication, time to first goals of care conversation was shorter than in pre-pandemic studies, but rates of foregoing resuscitation remained similar, with no differences observed by race, ethnicity, or language. This study suggests that early palliative care involvement and non-traditional communications, including videoconferencing, to facilitate goals of care conversations could have mitigated potential disparities in end-of-life decision making patterns during the pandemic.

Background Lung cancer risk and life expectancy vary substantially across patients eligible for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening (LCS), which has important consequences for optimizing LCS decisions for different patients. To account for this heterogeneity during decision-making, web-based decision support tools are needed to enable quick calculations and streamline the process of obtaining individualized information that more accurately informs patient-clinician LCS discussions. We created DecisionPrecision, a clinician-facing web-based decision support tool, to help tailor the LCS discussion to a patient’s individualized lung cancer risk and estimated net benefit. Objective The objective of our study is to test two strategies for implementing DecisionPrecision in primary care at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers: a quality improvement (QI) training approach and academic detailing (AD). Methods Phase 1 comprised a multisite, cluster randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of standard implementation (adding a link to DecisionPrecision in the electronic health record vs standard implementation plus the Learn, Engage, Act, and Process [LEAP] QI training program). The primary outcome measure was the use of DecisionPrecision at each site before versus after LEAP QI training. The second phase of the study examined the potential effectiveness of AD as an implementation strategy for DecisionPrecision at all 8 medical centers. Outcomes were assessed by comparing absolute tool use before and after AD visits and conducting semistructured interviews with a subset of primary care physicians (PCPs) following the AD visits. Results Phase 1 findings showed that sites that participated in the LEAP QI training program used DecisionPrecision significantly more often than the standard implementation sites (tool used 190.3, SD 174.8 times on average over 6 months at LEAP sites vs 3.5 SD 3.7 at standard sites; P Conclusions The phase 1 findings did not provide conclusive evidence of the benefit of a QI training approach for implementing a decision support tool for LCS among PCPs. In addition, phase 2 findings showed that our light-touch, single-visit AD strategy did not increase tool use. To enable tool use by PCPs, prediction-based tools must be fully automated and integrated into electronic health records, thereby helping providers personalize LCS discussions among their many competing demands. PCPs also need more time to engage in shared decision-making discussions with their patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02765412; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02765412

Key Points Question What factors are associated with adherence to recommended testing after initial lung cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration? Findings In this retrospective cohort study of 28 294 veterans, more than one-quarter of veterans received delayed or no follow-up testing. Veterans with higher risk findings and those in high-volume or academic centers were more likely to receive timely follow-up, while Black veterans, veterans with mental health disorders, and veterans with lower income were more likely to have delayed or absent follow-up. Meaning These findings suggest that even in an integrated health care system, inequities in adherence to lung cancer screening persisted., This cohort study examines adherence to follow-up testing recommendations after lung cancer screening among US veterans., Importance Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality with close follow-up and adherence to management recommendations. Little is known about factors associated with adherence to LCS in real-world practice, with data limited to case series from selected LCS programs. Objective To analyze adherence to follow-up based on standardized follow-up recommendations in a national cohort and to identify factors associated with delayed or absent follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the US. Veterans were screened for lung cancer between 2015 to 2019 with sufficient follow-up time to receive recommended evaluation. Patient- and facility-level logistic regression analyses were performed. Data were analyzed from November 26, 2019, to December 16, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Receipt of the recommended next step after initial LCS according to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) category, as captured in VHA or Medicare claims. Results Of 28 294 veterans (26 835 [94.8%] men; 21 969 individuals [77.6%] were White; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [5.5] years) who had an initial LCS examination, 17 863 veterans (63.1%) underwent recommended follow-up within the expected timeframe, whereas 3696 veterans (13.1%) underwent late evaluation, and 4439 veterans (15.7%) had no apparent evaluation. Facility-level differences were associated with 9.2% of the observed variation in rates of late or absent evaluation. In multivariable-adjusted models, Black veterans (odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.10-1.29]), veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.03-1.23]), veterans with substance use disorders (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.01-1.22]), veterans with lower income (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.98]), and those living at a greater distance from a VHA facility (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.10]) were more likely to experience delayed or no follow-up; veterans with higher risk findings (Lung-RADS category 4 vs Lung-RADS category 1: OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.43]) and those screened in high LCS volume facilities (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.67]) or academic facilities (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80-0.92]) were less likely to experience delayed or no follow-up. In sensitivity analyses, varying how stringently adherence was defined, expected evaluation ranged from 14 486 veterans (49.7%) under stringent definitions to 20 578 veterans (78.8%) under liberal definitions. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study that captured follow-up care from the integrated VHA health care system and Medicare, less than two-thirds of patients received timely recommended follow-up after initial LCS, with higher risk of delayed or absent follow-up among marginalized populations, such as Black individuals, individuals with mental health disorders, and individuals with low income, that have long experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes. Future work should focus on identifying facilities that promote high adherence and disseminating successful strategies to promote equity in LCS among marginalized populations.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not. METHODS: Approved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached. RESULTS: The systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.