How health literacy is taught and evaluated in dentistry, medicine, nursing, law, pharmacy, public health, and social work: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: This narrative review examined the published peer-reviewed literature on how health literacy is taught and evaluated in seven health professional and adjacent disciplines: dentistry, medicine, nursing, law, pharmacy, public health, and social work. The study objectives were to assess how students are educated about health literacy and how their health literacy education and skills are evaluated. METHODS: Study selection followed guidelines outlined in PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). We searched PubMed, CINAHL, SocINDEX (EBSCOhost), Lexis Advance and Public Health (ProQuest) for English-language publications of health literacy education studies across seven disciplines at U.S.-based institutions. Inclusion criteria included: 1) methods describing a primary health literacy educational intervention, 2) professional education in one or more of the seven disciplines, 3) educational institutions in the United States, and 4) articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2020. RESULTS: The searches yielded 44 articles. Health literacy education is evident in six of the seven studied disciplines, and varies widely in the quality, quantity, timing and mode of education and evaluation. Despite the presence of health literacy accreditation requirements, none of the seven disciplines has developed and implemented a standard, rigorous health literacy education program for students. CONCLUSIONS: Graduating institutions and professional accreditation organizations that set the standards for education must lead the way by implementing upstream changes in health literacy professional education. Teaching health literacy to students in health professions is one strategy to help close gaps in patient/client professional communication for graduates and those they serve.

Arterial Monitoring in Hypertensive Emergencies: Significance for the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit.

INTRODUCTION: Blood pressure measurement is important for treating patients. It is known that there is a discrepancy between cuff blood pressure vs arterial blood pressure measurement. However few studies have explored the clinical significance of discrepancies between cuff (CPB) vs arterial blood pressure (ABP). Our study investigated whether differences in CBP and ABP led to change in management for patients with hypertensive emergencies and factors associated with this change. METHODS: This prospective observational study included adult patients admitted between January 2019-May 2021 to a resuscitation unit with hypertensive emergencies. We defined clinical significance of discrepancies as a discrepancy between CBP and ABP that resulted in change of clinical management. We used stepwise multivariable logistic regression to measure associations between clinical factors and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 212 patients we analyzed, 88 (42%) had change in management. Mean difference between CBP and ABP was 17 milligrams of mercury (SD 14). Increasing the existing rate of antihypertensive infusion occurred in 38 (44%) patients. Higher body mass index (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence Interval [CI] 1.0001-1.08, P-value <0.05) and history of peripheral arterial disease (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.97, P-value <0.05) were factors associated with clinical significance of discrepancies. CONCLUSION: Approximately 40% of hypertensive emergencies had a clinical significance of discrepancy warranting management change when arterial blood pressure was initiated. Further studies are necessary to confirm our observations and to investigate the benefit-risk ratio of ABP monitoring.

Most patients with non-hypertensive diseases at a critical care resuscitation unit require arterial pressure monitoring: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) monitoring is essential for patient care. Invasive arterial BP (IABP) is more accurate than non-invasive BP (NIBP), although the clinical significance of this difference is unknown. We hypothesized that IABP would result in a change of management (COM) among patients with non-hypertensive diseases in the acute phase of resuscitation. METHODS: This prospective study included adults admitted to the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit (CCRU) with non-hypertensive disease from February 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. Management plans to maintain a mean arterial pressure >65 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) were recorded in real time for both NIBP and IABP measurements. A COM was defined as a discrepancy between IABP and NIBP that resulted in an increase/decrease or addition/discontinuation of a medication/infusion. Classification and regression tree analysis identified significant variables associated with a COM and assigned relative variable importance (RVI) values. RESULTS: Among the 206 patients analyzed, a COM occurred in 94 (45.6% [94/206]) patients. The most common COM was an increase in current infusion dosages (40 patients, 19.4%). Patients receiving norepinephrine at arterial cannulation were more likely to have a COM compared with those without (45 [47.9%] vs. 32 [28.6%], P=0.004). Receiving norepinephrine (relative variable importance [RVI] 100%) was the most significant factor associated with a COM. No complications were identified with IABP use. CONCLUSION: A COM occurred in 94 (45.6%) non-hypertensive patients in the CCRU. Receiving vasopressors was the greatest factor associated with COM. Clinicians should consider IABP monitoring more often in non-hypertensive patients requiring norepinephrine in the acute resuscitation phase. Further studies are necessary to confirm the risk-to-benefit ratios of IABP among these high-risk patients.

Outcomes and Factors Associated with Occult Septic Shock in Emergency Department Patients with Soft Tissue Infection.

Introduction: Patients who develop occult septic shock (OSS) are associated with worse outcomes than those with early septic shock (ESS). Patients with skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) may have underlying organ dysfunction due to OSS, yet the prevalence and the outcomes of patients with SSTI and early versus occult shock have not been described. This study compared the clinical characteristics of SSTI patients and the prevalence of having no septic shock (NSS), ESS, or OSS. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed charts of adult patients who were transferred from any emergency department to our academic center between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016. Outcomes of interest were the development of OSS and acute kidney injury (AKI). We performed logistic regressions to measure the association between clinical factors with the outcomes and created probability plots to show the relationship between key clinical variables and outcomes of OSS or AKI. Results: Among 269 patients, 218 (81%) patients had NSS, 16 (6%) patients had ESS, and 35 (13%) patients had OSS. Patients with OSS had higher mean serum lactate concentrations than patients with NSS (3.5 vs. 2.1 mmol/L, P < 0.01). Higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score was associated with higher likelihood of developing OSS (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.62, P < 0.001). NSS was associated with very low odds of developing AKI (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.33, P < 0.001). Conclusions: 13% of the patients with SSTI developed OSS. Patients with OSS had elevated serum lactate concentration and higher SOFA score than those with NSS. Increased SOFA score is a predictor for the development of OSS.

Invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring may aid in the medical management of hypertensive patients with acute aortic disease.

INTRODUCTION: Blood pressure (BP) monitoring and management is essential in the treatment of acute aortic disease (AoD). Previous studies had shown differences between invasive arterial BP monitoring (ABPM) and non-invasive cuff BP monitoring (CBPM), but not whether ABPM would result in patients' change of clinical management. We hypothesized that ABPM would change BP management in AoD patients. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of adult patients with AoD admitted to the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit from January 2019 to February 2021. Patients with AoD and both ABPM and CBPM measurements were included. Clinician's BP management goals were assessed in real time before and after arterial catheter placement according to current guidelines. We defined change of management as change of current antihypertensive infusion rate or adding a new agent. We used multivariable logistic and ordinal regressions to determine relevant predictors. RESULTS: We analyzed 117 patients, and 56 (47%) had type A dissection. ABPM was frequently ≥10 mmHg higher than CBPM values. Among 40 (34%) patients with changes in management, 58% (23/40) had [ABPM-CBPM] differences ≥20 mmHg. ABPM prompted increasing current antihypertensive infusion in 68% (27/40) of patients. Peripheral artery disease (OR 13, 95% CI 1.18-50+) was associated with changes in clinical management, and ordinal regression showed hypertension and serum lactate to be associated with differences between ABPM and CBPM. CONCLUSIONS: ABPM was frequently higher than CBPM, resulting in 34% of changes of management, most commonly increasing anti-hypertensive infusion rates.

Discrepancy Between Invasive and Noninvasive Blood Pressure Measurements in Patients with Sepsis by Vasopressor Status.

INTRODUCTION: Blood pressure (BP) monitoring is an essential component of sepsis management. The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines recommend invasive arterial BP (IABP) monitoring, although the benefits over non-invasive BP (NIBP) monitoring are unclear. This study investigated discrepancies between IABP and NIBP measurement and their clinical significance. We hypothesized that IABP monitoring would be associated with changes in management among patients with sepsis requiring vasopressors. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of adult patients admitted to the critical care resuscitation unit at a quaternary medical center between January 1-December 31, 2017. We included patients with sepsis conditions AND IABP monitoring. We defined a clinically significant BP discrepancy (BPD) between NIBP and IABP measurement as a difference of > 10 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) AND change of BP management to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg. RESULTS: We analyzed 127 patients. Among 57 (45%) requiring vasopressors, 9 (16%) patients had a clinically significant BPD vs 2 patients (3% odds ratio [OR] 6.4; 95% CI: 1.2-30; P = 0.01) without vasopressors. In multivariable logistic regression, higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR 1.33; 95% CI: 1.02-1.73; P = 0.03) and serum lactate (OR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.003-1.60, P = 0.04) were associated with increased likelihood of clinically significant BPD. There were no complications (95% CI: 0-0.02) from arterial catheter insertions. CONCLUSION: Among our population of septic patients, the use of vasopressors was associated with increased odds of a clinically significant blood pressure discrepancy between IABP and NIBP measurement. Additionally, higher SOFA score and serum lactate were associated with higher likelihood of clinically significant blood pressure discrepancy. Further studies are needed to confirm our observations and investigate the benefits vs the risk of harm of IABP monitoring in patients with sepsis.

Preoperative Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Common Hand Surgeries.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to determine the baseline patient characteristics associated with preoperative opioid use and to establish whether preoperative opioid use is associated with baseline patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing common hand surgeries. METHODS: Patients undergoing common hand surgeries from 2015 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective orthopedic registry at a single academic institution. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether patients were opioid users versus nonusers. On enrollment in the registry, patients completed 6 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Fatigue, Social Satisfaction, Anxiety, and Depression), the Brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire (BMHQ), a surgical expectations questionnaire, and Numeric Pain Scale (NPS). Statistical analysis included multivariable regression to determine whether preoperative opioid use was associated with patient characteristics and preoperative scores on patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: After controlling for covariates, an analysis of 353 patients (opioid users, n = 122; nonusers, n = 231) showed that preoperative opioid use was associated with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (odds ratio [OR], 2.88), current smoking (OR, 1.91), and lower body mass index (OR, 0.95). Preoperative opioid use was also associated with significantly worse baseline PROMIS scores across 6 domains, lower BMHQ scores, and NPS hand scores. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative opioid use is common in hand surgery patients with a rate of 35%. Preoperative opioid use is associated with multiple baseline patient characteristics and is predictive of worse baseline scores on patient-reported outcome measures. Future studies should determine whether such associations persist in the postoperative setting between opioid users and nonusers.

Inner ear decompression sickness in a hyperbaric chamber inside tender: a case report.

Inner ear decompression sickness (IEDCS) is a rare diving complication that presents with vestibular dysfunction, cochlear dysfunction, or a combination of both. While scuba diving is a known cause, no cases have been reported in the occupational hyperbaric setting. We present the case of a 55-year-old man who developed IEDCS after working as a hyperbaric multiplace chamber inside tender. The patient was treated with seven sessions of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, resulting in resolution of the majority of his symptoms. This case illustrates a potential occupational hazard of working in a hyperbaric chamber and demonstrates successful treatment with hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

Arterial or cuff pressure: Clinical predictors among patients in shock in a critical care resuscitation unit.

OBJECTIVES: Blood pressure (BP) measurement is essential for managing patients with hypotension. There are differences between invasive arterial blood pressure (IABP) and noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements. However, the clinical applicability of these differences in patients with shock [need for vasopressor or serum lactate ≥ 4 millimole per liter (mmol/L)] has not been reported. This study investigated differences in IABP and NIBP as well as changes in clinical management in critically ill patients with shock. METHODS: This was a retrospective study involving adult patients admitted to the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit (CCRU). Adult patients who received IABP upon admission between 01/01/2017-12/31/2017 with non-hypertensive diseases were eligible. The primary outcome, clinically relevant difference (CRD), was defined as difference of 10 mm of mercury (mmHg) between IABP and NIBP and change of blood pressure management according to goal mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 65 mmHg. We performed forward stepwise multivariable logistic regression to measure associations. RESULTS: Sample size calculation recommended 200 patients, and we analyzed 263. 121 (46%) patients had shock, 23 (9%) patients had CRD. Each mmol/L increase in serum lactate was associated with 11% higher likelihood of having CRD (OR 1.11, 95%CI 1.002-1.2). Peripheral artery disease and any kidney disease was significantly associated with higher likelihood of MAP difference ≥ 10 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Approximately 9% of patients with shock had clinically-relevant MAP difference. Higher serum lactate was associated with higher likelihood of CRD. Until further studies are available, clinicians should consider using IABP in patients with shock.