Global well-being, anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support among hospitalists during COVID-19 and Mpox outbreaks.

OBJECTIVE: The Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a decline in hospitalist wellness. The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, and new outbreaks (i.e. Mpox) have challenged healthcare systems. The objective of the study was to assess changes in hospitalist wellness and guide interventions. METHODS: We surveyed hospitalists (physicians and advanced practice providers [APPs]), in May 2021 and September 2022, at a healthcare system's 16 hospitals in four US states using PROMIS® measures for global well-being, anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support. We compared wellness score between survey periods; in the September 2022 survey, we compared wellness scores between APPs and physicians and evaluated the associations of demographic and hospital characteristics with wellness using logistic (global well-being) and linear (anxiety, social isolation, emotional support) regression models. RESULTS: In May 2021 vs. September 2022, respondents showed no statistical difference in top global well-being for mental health (68.4% vs. 57.4%) and social activities and relationships (43.8% vs. 44.3%), anxiety (mean difference: +0.8), social isolation (mean difference: +0.5), and emotional support (mean difference: -1.0) (all, p ≥ 0.05). In September 2022, in logistic regression models, APPs, compared with physicians, had lower odds for top (excellent or very good) global well-being mental health (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.31 [0.13-0.76]; p < 0.05). In linear regression models, age <40 vs. ≥40 years was associated with higher anxiety (estimate ± standard error, 2.43 ± 1.05; p < 0.05), and concern about contracting COVID-19 at work was associated with higher anxiety (3.74 ± 1.10; p < 0.01) and social isolation (3.82 ± 1.21; p < 0.01). None of the characteristics showed association with change in emotional support. In September 2022, there was low concern for contracting Mpox in the community (4.6%) or at work (10.0%). CONCLUSION: In hospitalists, concern about contracting COVID-19 at work was associated with higher anxiety and social isolation. The unchanged wellness scores between survey periods identified opportunities for intervention. Mpox had apparently minor impact on wellness.

Ruxolitinib Versus Best Available Therapy for Polycythemia Vera Intolerant or Resistant to Hydroxycarbamide in a Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by JAK/STAT activation, thrombotic/hemorrhagic events, systemic symptoms, and disease transformation. In high-risk PV, ruxolitinib controls blood counts and improves symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MAJIC-PV is a randomized phase II trial of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy (BAT) in patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC-INT/RES). Primary outcome was complete response (CR) within 1 year. Secondary outcomes included duration of response, event-free survival (EFS), symptom, and molecular response. RESULTS: One hundred eighty patients were randomly assigned. CR was achieved in 40 (43%) patients on ruxolitinib versus 23 (26%) on BAT (odds ratio, 2.12; 90% CI, 1.25 to 3.60; P = .02). Duration of CR was superior for ruxolitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.61; P < .001). Symptom responses were better with ruxolitinib and durable. EFS (major thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation, and death) was superior for patients attaining CR within 1 year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.78; P = .01); and those on ruxolitinib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94; P = .03). Serial analysis of JAK2V617F variant allele fraction revealed molecular response was more frequent with ruxolitinib and was associated with improved outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] P = .001, EFS P = .001, overall survival P = .01) and clearance of JAK2V617F stem/progenitor cells. ASXL1 mutations predicted for adverse EFS (HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.47 to 6.17; P = .003). The safety profile of ruxolitinib was as previously reported. CONCLUSION: The MAJIC-PV study demonstrates ruxolitinib treatment benefits HC-INT/RES PV patients with superior CR, and EFS as well as molecular response; importantly also demonstrating for the first time, to our knowledge, that molecular response is linked to EFS, PFS, and OS.

Durability analysis of the highly effective BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccines are effective, but breakthrough infections have been increasingly reported. We conducted a test-negative case-control study to assess the durability of protection after full vaccination with BNT162b2 against polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, in a national medical practice from January 2021 through January 2022. We fit conditional logistic regression (CLR) models stratified on residential county and calendar time of testing to assess the association between time elapsed since vaccination and the odds of symptomatic infection or non-COVID-19 hospitalization (negative control), adjusted for several covariates. There were 5,985 symptomatic individuals with a positive test after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (cases) and 32,728 negative tests contributed by 27,753 symptomatic individuals after full vaccination (controls). The adjusted odds of symptomatic infection were higher 250 days after full vaccination versus at the date of full vaccination (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.62, 95% CI: 2.52 to 5.20). The odds of infection were still lower 285 days after the first BNT162b2 dose as compared to 4 days after the first dose (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.67), when immune protection approximates the unvaccinated status. Low rates of COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death in this cohort precluded analyses of these severe outcomes. The odds of non-COVID-19 associated hospitalization (negative control) decreased with time since vaccination, suggesting a possible underestimation of waning protection by this approach due to confounding factors. In summary, BNT162b2 strongly protected against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 8 months after full vaccination, but the degree of protection waned significantly over this period.

Wellness of hospitalists and hospital medicine advanced practice providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020-2021.

BACKGROUND: The early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had a negative impact on the wellness of hospitalists and hospital medicine advanced practice providers (APPs). However, the burden of the pandemic has evolved and the change in hospitalist and hospital medicine APP wellness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the longitudinal trend in wellness of hospitalists and hospital medicine APPs during the COVID-19 pandemic and guide wellness interventions. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Between May 4, 2020, and June 6, 2021, we administered three surveys to Internal Medicine hospitalists (physicians) and hospital medicine APPs (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) at 16 Mayo Clinic hospitals in four U.S. states. MEASUREMENTS: We evaluated the association of hospitalist and hospital medicine APP characteristics with PROMIS® measures of global wellbeing-mental health, global wellbeing-social activities and relationships, anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support, using logistic and linear regression models. RESULTS: The response rates were 52.2% (n=154/295; May 2020), 37.1% (n=111/299; October 2020) and 35.5% (n=114/321; May 2021). In mixed models that included hospitalist and hospital medicine APP characteristics and survey period, APPs, compared with physicians, had lower odds of top global wellbeing-social activities and relationships (adjusted odds ratio 0.42 [0.22-0.82]; p = .01), whereas survey period showed no association. The survey period showed an independent association with higher anxiety (May 2020 vs. others) and higher social isolation (October 2020 vs. others), whereas profession showed no association. Concern about contracting COVID-19 at work was significantly associated with lower odds of top global wellbeing-mental health and global wellbeing-social activities and relationships, and with higher anxiety and social isolation. Hospitalist and hospital medicine APP characteristics showed no association with levels of emotional support. CONCLUSIONS: In this longitudinal assessment of hospitalists and hospital medicine APPs, concern about contracting COVID-19 at work remained a determinant of wellness. The trend for global wellbeing, anxiety, and social isolation may guide wellness interventions.

Psychologic wellness of PA, NP, and physician hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitalists, comprising PAs, NPs, and physicians, manage patients hospitalized with COVID-19. To guide the development of support programs, this study compared the psychologic wellness of hospitalist PAs, NPs, and physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We surveyed hospitalists in 16 hospitals at Mayo Clinic, from May 4 to 25, 2020. We used PROMIS surveys for self-reported global well-being (two single-item measures), anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support, before and during the pandemic. Linear and logistic regression models were adjusted for personal and professional factors. RESULTS: The response rate was 52.2% (N = 154/295). In adjusted linear regression models, the change in scores (before minus during pandemic) for anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support was similar for PAs and NPs compared with physicians. In adjusted logistic regression models, physicians, compared with PAs and NPs, had a higher odds of top global well-being for mental health (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.82 [1.12, 7.13]; P = .03) and top global well-being for social activities and relationships (adjusted odds ratio 4.08 [1.38, 12.08]; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, global well-being was lower for PAs and NPs compared with physician hospitalists. These results can guide support programs for hospitalists.

Surveillance of Safety of 3 Doses of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Using Electronic Health Records.

Importance: Recent reports on waning of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity have led to the approval and rollout of additional doses and booster vaccinations. Individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are receiving additional vaccine doses in addition to the regimen that was tested in clinical trials. Risks and adverse event profiles associated with additional vaccine doses are currently not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the safety of third-dose vaccination with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record (EHR) data from December 2020 to October 2021 from the multistate Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Participants included all 47 999 individuals receiving 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines within the study setting who met study inclusion criteria. Participants were divided into 2 cohorts by vaccine brand administered and served as their own control groups, with no comparison made between cohorts. Data were analyzed from September through November 2021. Exposures: Three doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccine-associated adverse events were assessed via EHR report. Adverse event risk was quantified using the percentage of study participants who reported the adverse event within 14 days after each vaccine dose and during a 14-day control period, immediately preceding the first vaccine dose. Results: Among 47 999 individuals who received 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 38 094 individuals (21 835 [57.3%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.4 [52.5-76.5] years) received BNT162b2 (79.4%) and 9905 individuals (5099 [51.5%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.7 [59.5-73.9] years) received mRNA-1273 (20.6%). Reporting of severe adverse events remained low after the third vaccine dose, with rates of pericarditis (0.01%; 95% CI, 0%-0.02%), anaphylaxis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), myocarditis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (no individuals) consistent with results from earlier studies. Significantly more individuals reported low-severity adverse events after the third dose compared with after the second dose, including fatigue (2360 individuals [4.92%] vs 1665 individuals [3.47%]; P < .001), lymphadenopathy (1387 individuals [2.89%] vs 995 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), nausea (1259 individuals [2.62%] vs 979 individuals [2.04%]; P < .001), headache (1185 individuals [2.47%] vs 992 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), arthralgia (1019 individuals [2.12%] vs 816 individuals [1.70%]; P < .001), myalgia (956 individuals [1.99%] vs 784 individuals [1.63%]; P < .001), diarrhea (817 individuals [1.70%] vs 595 individuals [1.24%]; P < .001), fever (533 individuals [1.11%] vs 391 individuals [0.81%]; P < .001), vomiting (528 individuals [1.10%] vs 385 individuals [0.80%]; P < .001), and chills (224 individuals [0.47%] vs 175 individuals [0.36%]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that although third-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased reporting of low-severity adverse events, risk of severe adverse events remained comparable with risk associated with the standard 2-dose regime. These findings suggest the safety of third vaccination doses in individuals who were eligible for booster vaccination at the time of this study.

Comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are safe and effective, but increasing reports of breakthrough infections highlight the need to vigilantly monitor and compare the effectiveness of these vaccines. METHODS: We retrospectively compared protection against symptomatic infection conferred by mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 at Mayo Clinic sites from December 2020 to September 2021. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) and to compare the odds of symptomatic infection after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2, while adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geography, comorbidities, and calendar time of vaccination and testing. FINDINGS: Both vaccines were highly effective over the study duration (VEmRNA-1273: 84.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.6%-86.2%; VEBNT162b2: 75.6%, 95% CI: 72.2%-78.7%), but their effectiveness was reduced during July-September (VEmRNA-1273: 75.6%, 95% CI: 70.1%-80%; VEBNT162b2: 63.5%, 95% CI: 55.8%-69.9%) as compared to December-May (VEmRNA-1273: 93.7%, 95% CI: 90.4%-95.9%; VEBNT162b2: 85.7%, 95% CI: 81.4%-88.9%). Adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, time of vaccination, and time of testing, the odds of experiencing a symptomatic breakthrough infection were lower after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2 (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.55-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 strongly protect against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It is imperative to continue monitoring and comparing available vaccines over time and with respect to emerging variants to inform public and global health decisions. FUNDING: This study was funded by nference.

Durability analysis of the highly effective mRNA-1273 vaccine against COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccines are effective, but breakthrough infections have been increasingly reported. We conducted a test-negative case-control study to assess the durability of protection against symptomatic infection after vaccination with mRNA-1273. We fit conditional logistic regression (CLR) models stratified on residential county and calendar date of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing to assess the association between the time elapsed since vaccination and the odds of symptomatic infection, adjusted for several covariates. There were 2,364 symptomatic individuals who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 ("cases") and 12,949 symptomatic individuals who contributed 15,087 negative tests after full vaccination ("controls"). The odds of symptomatic infection were significantly higher 250 days after full vaccination compared to the date of full vaccination (Odds Ratio [OR]: 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-5.13). The odds of non-COVID-19 associated hospitalization and non-COVID-19 pneumonia (negative control outcomes) remained relatively stable over the same time interval (Day 250 ORNon-COVID Hospitalization: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-1.0; Day 250 ORNon-COVID Pneumonia: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.24-5.2). The odds of symptomatic infection remained significantly lower almost 300 days after the first mRNA-1273 dose as compared to 4 days after the first dose, when immune protection approximates the unvaccinated state (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.17-0.39). Low rates of COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death in this cohort precluded analyses of these severe outcomes. In summary, mRNA-1273 robustly protected against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection at least 8 months after full vaccination, but the degree of protection waned over this time period.

Tobacco use in the Myeloproliferative neoplasms: symptom burden, patient opinions, and care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Philadelphia-negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms (MPN) suffer from numerous symptoms and decreased quality of life. Smoking is associated with an increased symptom burden in several malignancies. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between smoking and MPN-related symptom burden and explore MPN patients' opinions on smoking. METHODS: A total of 435 patients with MPN participated in a cross-sectional internet-based survey developed by the Mayo Clinic and the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Quality of Life Group. Patients reported their demographics, disease characteristics, tobacco use, and opinions on tobacco use. In addition, MPN-related symptoms were reported via the validated 10-item version of the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form. RESULTS: Current/former smokers reported worse fatigue (mean severity 5.6 vs. 5.0, p = 0.02) and inactivity (mean severity 4.0 vs. 3.4, p = 0.03) than never smokers. Moreover, current/former smokers more frequently experienced early satiety (68.5% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.03), inactivity (79.9% vs. 71.1%, p = 0.04), and concentration difficulties (82.1% vs. 73.1%, p = 0.04). Although not significant, a higher total symptom burden was observed for current/former smokers (mean 30.4 vs. 27.0, p = 0.07). Accordingly, overall quality of life was significantly better among never smokers than current/former smokers (mean 3.5 vs. 3.9, p = 0.03). Only 43.2% of the current/former smokers reported having discussed tobacco use with their physician, and 17.5% did not believe smoking increased the risk of thrombosis. CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that smoking may be associated with increased prevalence and severity of MPN symptoms and underscores the need to enhance patient education and address tobacco use in the care of MPN patients.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Multistate Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in health care personnel. METHODS: The Mayo Clinic Serology Screening Program was created to provide a voluntary, two-stage testing program for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to health care personnel. The first stage used a dried blood spot screening test initiated on June 15, 2020. Those participants identified as reactive were advised to have confirmatory testing via a venipuncture. Venipuncture results through August 8, 2020, were considered. Consent and authorization for testing was required to participate in the screening program. This report, which was conducted under an institutional review board-approved protocol, only includes employees who have further authorized their records for use in research. RESULTS: A total of 81,113 health care personnel were eligible for the program, and of these 29,606 participated in the screening program. A total of 4284 (14.5%) of the dried blood spot test results were "reactive" and warranted confirmatory testing. Confirmatory testing was completed on 4094 (95.6%) of the screen reactive with an overall seroprevalence rate of 0.60% (95% CI, 0.52% to 0.69%). Significant variation in seroprevalence was observed by region of the country and age group. CONCLUSION: The seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies through August 8, 2020, was found to be lower than previously reported in other health care organizations. There was an observation that seroprevalence may be associated with community disease burden.

Why we still prescribe so many opioids: A qualitative study on -barriers and facilitators to prescribing guideline implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid prescribing occurs within almost every healthcare setting. Implementation of safe, effective opioid stewardship programs represents a critical but daunting challenge for medical leaders. This study sought to understand the barriers and aids to the routine use of clinical guidelines for opioid prescribing among healthcare professionals and to identify areas in need of additional education for prescribing providers, pharmacists, and nurses. METHODS: Data collection and analysis in 2018-2019 employed a team of two trained facilitators who conducted 20 focus groups using a structured facilitation guide to explore operational, interpersonal, and patient care-related barriers to best practice adherence. Each professional group was interviewed separately, with similar care settings assigned together. Invitation to participate was based on a sampling methodology representing emergency, medical specialty, primary care, and surgical practice settings. RESULTS: Key concerns among all groups reflected the inadequacy of available tools for staff to appropriately assess and treat patients' pain. Tools and technology to support safe opioid prescribing were also cited as a barrier by all three professional groups. All groups noted that prescribers tend to rely upon default settings within the electronic medical record when issuing prescriptions. Both pharmacists and prescribers cited time and scheduling as a barrier to adherence. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of significant regulatory and public policy efforts to address the opioid crisis, healthcare organizations face significant challenges to improve adherence to best practice prescribing guidelines. These findings highlight several facilitators for change which could boost opioid stewardship initiatives to focus on critical systems' factors for improvement.

Hospitalist perspectives on barriers to recommend and potential benefit of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Background: Hospitalists, comprised of nurse practitioners and physician assistants (collectively, advanced practice providers [APPs]) and physicians, have opportunities to counsel patients and reduce SARS-CoV-2 related coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy. However, hospitalist perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine and potential differences between APPs and physicians are unknown. Understanding hospitalist perspectives could help to address vaccine hesitancy among patients.Methods: We conducted an online survey of hospitalists at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin from 14 December 2020 through 4 January 2021. We collected demographic information and assessed perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine and, for comparison, on the influenza vaccine. Descriptive statistics were used to compare responses between APPs and physicians.Results: The overall response rate was 42.7% (n = 128/300) and comprised of 53.9% women (n = 69/128) and 41.4% APPs (n = 53/128). Most hospitalists reported receiving or planning to receive vaccination against COVID-19 (93.7%; n = 119/128) and influenza (97.7%; n = 125/128). Most hospitalists reported they would advise 100% of patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (66% for APPs; 74.7% for physicians) and influenza vaccine (83% for APPs; 80% for physicians). Barriers to recommending the COVID-19 vaccine included patient health status and vaccine safety profile. Hospitalists reported that patients and coworkers receiving the COVID-19 vaccine would reduce their anxiety (~80% of hospitalists), social isolation (~64% of hospitalists), and improve their emotional support (~40% of hospitalists). APP and physician responses were similar. The possible reduction in social isolation was associated with higher odds of hospitalists advising all patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (adjusted odds ratio 2.95 [95% confidence interval, 1.32-6.59]; P< .008), whereas hospitalist age, gender, and profession showed no association.Conclusion: Most hospitalists would reportedly advise patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Barriers to this recommendation included patient health status and vaccine safety. Hospitalists are an important resource to provide patient education and reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Psychological wellness of internal medicine hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 infection requiring in-hospital care are frequently managed by Internal Medicine hospitalists, comprised of physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. There is sparse information on the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Internal Medicine hospitalists. METHODS: We surveyed Internal Medicine hospitalists at Mayo Clinic sites in four states (Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). We collected demographic information, and used Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) measures to assess global well-being, anxiety, social isolation, and emotional support. Descriptive statistics were used to compare responses between two periods: prior to the pandemic (before March 15th, 2020), and during the pandemic (March 15 through 30 April 2020). The survey was conducted from May 4-25, 2020. RESULTS: Of 295 Internal Medicine hospitalists, 154 (52%) responded. Fifty-six percent were women (n = 85/154) and 54% were physicians (n = 84/154). Most hospitalists (75%; n = 115/154) reported concerns about contracting COVID-19 infection at work, and 5% (n = 8/154) reported changing where they lived during the pandemic. Most hospitalists (73%; n = 112/154) reported relying primarily on institutional resources for COVID-19 information. During the pandemic, the percentage of participants with excellent or very good global well-being decreased (90% prior to pandemic vs. 53% during pandemic), with increases in mean anxiety (-4.88 [95% confidence interval, - 5.61 to - 4.16]; P<.001) and social isolation (-3.91[95% confidence interval, - 4.68 to - 3.13]; P<.001). During the same period, there was a small decrease in mean emotional support (1.46 [95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 2.09]; P<.001). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Internal Medicine hospitalists reported lower global well-being, higher anxiety and social isolation, and a small decrease in emotional support. These results provide a framework to develop programs to support hospitalists and potentially mitigate long-term psychological sequelae including burnout.

Perspectives on and barriers to research among advanced practice provider and physician hospitalists.

Advanced practice providers and physicians at an academic healthcare system comprising more than 15 hospitals across four US states were surveyed to identify barriers to participation in research. Overall, barriers reported by advanced practice providers and physicians were more similar than different, highlighting system-level opportunities to build research skills and accelerate academic productivity.

Perception of barriers to research among internal medicine physician hospitalists by career stage.

BACKGROUND: Physician hospitalists may participate in research and generate knowledge for evidence-based hospital practice. Despite this, physician hospitalists are primarily involved in patient care, and there is sparse information on barriers for their participation in research and if these barriers differ by career stage. METHODS: We conducted a survey of physician hospitalists at Mayo Clinic sites based in four states (Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). We surveyed physician hospitalists on demographics, academic rank, current research skills, barriers for participation in research, and research skills they aspire to acquire. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics and categorized by early-career (<10 years), mid-career (10-20 years), and later-career (≥20 years) stages at Mayo Clinic. The survey was conducted from March to April 2019. RESULTS: Of 188 physician hospitalists, there was a 52% response rate with 71% in early career, 21% mid-career, and 7% late career, with 39% female. Physician hospitalists at early-career (90%), mid-career (76%), and later-career (71%) stages were interested in participating in research. Among physician hospitalists with ≤3 peer-reviewed publications, barriers for participation in research included lack of mentorship, time, research skills, and funding. Among physician hospitalists with ≥4 peer-reviewed publications, factors for research success included mentorship (89% early-career, 38% mid-career, 75% later-career; p = 0.002) and membership in a research team. Compared to mid- and later-career physician hospitalists, a higher proportion of early-career hospitalists was interested in acquiring skills to both critically review the literature (70% early-career, 43% mid-career, 0% later-career; p = 0.006) and write manuscripts (86% early-career, 57% mid-career, 50% later-career; p = 0.02); there was generally similar interest across career stages to acquire skills to conduct literature searches and write grants. CONCLUSION: The generally similar responses from physician hospitalists across career stages highlight system-level opportunities to increase research mentorship, promote the acquisition of research skills, and reduce barriers for participation in research.

How I treat pain in hematologic malignancies safely with opioid therapy.

The field of malignant hematology has experienced extraordinary advancements with survival rates doubling for many disorders. As a result, many life-threatening conditions have since evolved into chronic medical ailments. Paralleling these advancements have been increasing rates of complex hematologic pain syndromes, present in up to 60% of patients with malignancy who are receiving active treatment and up to 33% of patients during survivorship. Opioids remain the practice cornerstone to managing malignancy-associated pain. Prevention and management of opioid-related complications have received significant national attention over the past decade, and emerging data suggest that patients with cancer are at equal if not higher risk of opioid-related complications when compared with patients without malignancy. Numerous tools and procedural practice guides are available to help facilitate safe prescribing. The recent development of cancer-specific resources directing algorithmic use of validated pain screening tools, prescription drug monitoring programs, urine drug screens, opioid use disorder risk screening instruments, and controlled substance agreements have further strengthened the framework for safe prescribing. This article, which integrates federal and organizational guidelines with known risk factors for cancer patients, offers a case-based discussion for reviewing safe opioid prescribing practices in the hematology setting.

Increased Inpatient Length of Stay After Early Unplanned Transfer to Higher Levels of Care.

Patients admitted to a medical-surgical unit infrequently require early transfer to higher level care, although how their inpatient length of stay compares to untransferred patients, or those directly admitted to intermediate care, is unknown. We sought to compare the inpatient length of stay of these groups. DESIGN: Single-site retrospective analysis. SETTING: An academic hospital specializing in complex care. PATIENTS: We evaluated 23,694 patients admitted to the Hospital Internal Medicine service over a 4-year period (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using 6- and 24-hour definitions of early transfer, we categorized patients as admitted to medical-surgical unit without early transfer (medical-surgical unit), transferred (TX) early to higher level care, or initially admitted to an intermediate care unit. We report patient characteristics and inpatient length of stay adjusted for patient demographics (age and sex) and initial acuity (measured by Emergency Severity Index). There were significant increases in both unadjusted inpatient length of stay (6 hr: medical-surgical unit = 73.4 hr, TX = 137.9 hr, intermediate care unit = 101.1 hr; 24 hr: medical-surgical unit = 72.4 hr, TX = 141.9 hr, intermediate care unit = 98.2 hr; p < 0.01 for all groups) and adjusted inpatient length of stay (6-hr definition: medical-surgical unit = 50.9 hr [95% CI, 50.3-51.6 hr], TX = 100.4 hr [90.4-112.0 hr], intermediate care unit = 72.3 hr [70.6-74.0 hr]; 24-hr definition: medical-surgical unit = 50.3 hr [49.7-50.9 hr], TX = 108.3 hr [101.5-116.0 hr], intermediate care unit = 70.7 hr [69.0-72.3 hr]; p < 0.0001 for comparison of TX to medical-surgical unit and intermediate care unit in both groups). The increases in inpatient length of stay for the TX groups were not explained by differences in demographics or acuity. CONCLUSIONS: In a single facility study, patients admitted to a medical/surgical unit who require early transfer to intermediate care unit have a significant and unexplained increase in inpatient length of stay. This unexplained increased inpatient length of stay suggests that triage to the appropriate inpatient unit significantly affects inpatient length of stay.

An Institutional Approach to Managing the Opioid Crisis.

The opioid crisis is a major concern of most health care institutions, including our large academic center. In this article, an organized approach to managing the epidemic institutionally is discussed. An Opioid Stewardship Program was instituted at our tertiary-care center with multiple sites and states of practice, which included diverse membership and expertise. Charges of the program included reviewing current practice, workflows, and external and internal guidelines and evaluating and standardizing prescribing practices. The development of an Opioid Stewardship Program resulted in: (1) an understanding of our diverse prescribing practices and the formation of patient- and procedure-specific guidelines to manage them, (2) education tools for our patients and providers, and (3) workflows and practice advisories within the electronic health record to support appropriate prescribing and monitoring of patients. This ongoing work continues to evolve in response to the needs of our patients, changing regulatory environments, and our improved understanding of our practices.

Relationship between symptom burden and disability leave among patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs): findings from the Living with MPN patient survey.

Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) experience burdensome symptoms that negatively affect their quality of life. How MPN symptoms relate with medical disability leave (MDL) among patients with the disease has not been previously examined. Using data collected from the Living with MPNs patient survey, symptom burden and functional status were compared in patients who reported taking MDL due to their MPN versus patients who reported no changes in employment status. Among 592 patients who were employed full- or part-time at diagnosis, 24.8% reported taking ≥ 1 MDL and 49.4% reported no change in employment status as a result of their MPN. Of the patients who took MDL, 29.9% took ≥ 2 MDLs, and most patients (62.6%) did not return to work. All 10 symptoms comprising the MPN Symptom Assessment Form were significantly more frequent and severe in patients who took MDL compared with those who had no employment change. Furthermore, functional impairments were also significantly more frequent among patients who went on MDL versus those with no employment change. Effective management of MPN-related symptoms may reduce disability leave among patients with high symptom burden.