Association of virtual end-of-life care with healthcare outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study.

The use of virtual care for people at the end-of-life significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its association with acute healthcare use and location of death is unknown. The objective of this study was to measure the association between the use of virtual end-of-life care with acute healthcare use and an out-of-hospital death before vs. after the introduction of specialized fee codes that enabled broader delivery of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a population-based cohort study of 323,995 adults in their last 90 days of life between January 25, 2018 and December 31, 2021 using health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Primary outcomes were acute healthcare use (emergency department, hospitalization) and location of death (in or out-of-hospital). Prior to March 14, 2020, 13,974 (8%) people received at least 1 virtual end-of-life care visit, which was associated with a 16% higher rate of emergency department use (adjusted Rate Ratio [aRR] 1.16, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.20), a 17% higher rate of hospitalization (aRR 1.17, 95%CI 1.15 to 1.20), and a 34% higher risk of an out-of-hospital death (aRR 1.34, 95%CI 1.31 to 1.37) compared to people who did not receive virtual end-of-life care. After March 14, 2020, 104,165 (71%) people received at least 1 virtual end-of-life care visit, which was associated with a 58% higher rate of an emergency department visit (aRR 1.58, 95%CI 1.54 to 1.62), a 45% higher rate of hospitalization (aRR 1.45, 95%CI 1.42 to 1.47), and a 65% higher risk of an out-of-hospital death (aRR 1.65, 95%CI 1.61 to 1.69) compared to people who did not receive virtual end-of-life care. The use of virtual end-of-life care was associated with higher acute healthcare use in the last 90 days of life and a higher likelihood of dying out-of-hospital, and these rates increased during the pandemic.

Attending physicians' annual service volume and use of virtual end-of-life care: A population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

IMPORTANCE: Physicians and their practice behaviors influence access to healthcare and may represent potentially modifiable targets for practice-changing interventions. Use of virtual care at the end-of-life significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its association with physician practice behaviors, (e.g., annual service volume) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Measure the association of physicians' annual service volume with their use of virtual end-of-life care (EOLC) and the magnitude of physician-attributable variation in its use, before and during the pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based cohort study using administrative data of all physicians in Ontario, Canada who cared for adults in the last 90 days of life between 01/25/2018-12/31/2021. Multivariable modified Poisson regression models measured the association between attending physicians' use of virtual EOLC and their annual service volume. We calculated the variance partition coefficients for each regression and stratified by time period before and during the pandemic. EXPOSURE: Annual service volume of a person's attending physician in the preceding year. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Delivery of ≥1 virtual EOLC visit by a person's attending physician and the proportion of variation in its use attributable to physicians. RESULTS: Among the 35,825 unique attending physicians caring for 315,494 adults, use of virtual EOLC was associated with receiving care from a high compared to low service volume attending physician; the magnitude of this association diminished during the pandemic (adjusted RR 1.25 [95% CI 1.14, 1.37] pre-pandemic;1.10 (95% CI 1.08, 1.12) during the pandemic). Physicians accounted for 36% of the variation in virtual EOLC use pre-pandemic and 12% of this variation during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Physicians' annual service volume was associated with use of virtual EOLC and physicians accounted for a substantial proportion of the variation in its use. Physicians may be appropriate and potentially modifiable targets for interventions to modulate use of EOLC delivery.

Association of patient sex with use of palliative care in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether there are sex-based differences in use of palliative care near the end of life. The objective of this study was to measure the association between sex and palliative care use. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients aged 18 years or older in the last year of life who died in Ontario, Canada, between 2010 and 2018. The primary exposure was patient biologic sex (male or female). The primary outcome was receipt of physician-delivered palliative care; secondary outcomes were approach to in-hospital palliative care and sex concordance of the patient and referring physician. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression to measure the association between patient sex and palliative care receipt, as well as patient-physician sex concordance. RESULTS: There were 706 722 patients (354 657 females [50.2%], median age 80 yr [interquartile range 69-87 yr]) in the study cohort, 377 498 (53.4%) of whom received physician-delivered palliative care. After adjustment for age and selected comorbidities, female sex was associated with a 9% relative increase (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10) in receipt of physician-delivered palliative care. Female patients were 16% more likely than male patients (adjusted RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.14-1.18) to have had their first hospital admission in their final year of life categorized as having a likely palliative intent. Female patients were 18% more likely than male patients (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.17-1.19) to have had a female referring physician, and male patients were 20% more likely than female patients (adjusted RR 1.20, CI 1.19-1.21) to have had a male referring physician. INTERPRETATION: After adjustment for age and comorbidities, male patients were slightly less likely than female patients to have received physician-delivered palliative care, and female patients were more likely than male patients to have had their first hospital admission in their final year of life categorized as having a likely palliative care intent. These results may reflect a between-sex difference in overall end-of-life care preferences or sex differences in decision-making influenced by patient-specific factors; further studies exploring how these factors affect end-of-life decision-making are required.

Comparison of Medical and Mental Health Sequelae Following Hospitalization for COVID-19, Influenza, and Sepsis.

Importance: People who survive hospitalization for COVID-19 are at risk for developing new cardiovascular, neurological, mental health, and inflammatory autoimmune conditions. It is unclear how posthospitalization risks for COVID-19 compare with those for other serious infectious illnesses. Objective: To compare risks of incident cardiovascular, neurological, and mental health conditions and rheumatoid arthritis in 1 year following COVID-19 hospitalization against 3 comparator groups: prepandemic hospitalization for influenza and hospitalization for sepsis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included all adults hospitalized for COVID-19 between April 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021, historical comparator groups of people hospitalized for influenza or sepsis, and a contemporary comparator group of people hospitalized for sepsis in Ontario, Canada. Exposure: Hospitalization for COVID-19, influenza, or sepsis. Main Outcome and Measures: New occurrence of 13 prespecified conditions, including cardiovascular, neurological, and mental health conditions and rheumatoid arthritis, within 1 year of hospitalization. Results: Of 379 366 included adults (median [IQR] age, 75 [63-85] years; 54% female), there were 26 499 people who survived hospitalization for COVID-19, 299 989 historical controls (17 516 for influenza and 282 473 for sepsis), and 52 878 contemporary controls hospitalized for sepsis. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was associated with an increased 1-year risk of venous thromboembolic disease compared with influenza (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.36-2.31) but with no increased risks of developing selected ischemic and nonischemic cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disorders, neurological disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, or mental health conditions compared with influenza or sepsis cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, apart from an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism within 1 year, the burden of postacute medical and mental health conditions among those who survived hospitalization for COVID-19 was comparable with other acute infectious illnesses. This suggests that many of the postacute consequences of COVID-19 may be related to the severity of infectious illness necessitating hospitalization rather than being direct consequences of infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Sustaining Improvement Initiatives: Challenges and Potential Tools.

Like many implemented organizational changes, quality improvement (QI) projects demonstrate frequent decline after implementation. Factors associated with successfully sustained change are leadership, change characteristics, system capacity for changes and the resources required, and processes to maintain, evaluate, and communicate results. This review uses lessons from change theory and behavioral sciences to discuss change and sustainment of improvement efforts, to list models to support maintenance, and to provide evidence-based practical suggestions to enable the sustainability of QI interventions.

The price of neonatal intensive care outcomes - in-hospital costs of morbidities related to preterm birth.

Background: Neonatal care for preterm babies is prolonged and expensive. Our aim was to analyze and report costs associated with common preterm diagnoses during NICU stay. Methods: We analyzed data from the Ontario healthcare data service. Diagnoses were collated by discharge ICD codes, and categorized by gestational age. We calculated typical non parametric statistics, and for each diagnosis we calculated median shifts and generalized linear mode. Results: We included data on 12,660 infants between 23 and 30 weeks gestation in 2005-2017. Calculated cost increment with diagnosis were: Intestinal obstruction: $94,738.08 (95%CI: $70,093.3, $117,294.2), Ventriculoperitoneal shunt: $86,456.60 (95%CI: $60,773.7, $111,552.2), Chronic Lung Disease $77,497.70 (95%CI: $74,937.2, $80,012.8), Intestinal perforation $57,997.15 (95%CI:$45,324.7, $70,652.6), Retinopathy of Prematurity: $55,761.80 (95%CI: $53,916.2, $57,620.1), Patent Ductus Arteriosus $53,453.70 (95%CI: $51,206.9, $55692.7, Post-haemorrhagic ventriculomegaly $41,822.50 (95%CI: $34,590.4, $48,872.4), Necrotizing Enterocolitis $39,785 (95%CI: $35,728.9, $43,879), Meningitis $38,871.85 (95%CI: $25,272.7, $52,224.4), Late onset sepsis $32,954.20 (95%CI: $30,403.7, 35.515), Feeding difficulties $24,820.90 (95%CI: $22,553.3, $27,064.7), Pneumonia $23,781.70 (95%CI: $18,623.8, $28,881.6), Grade >2 Intraventricular Haemorrhage $14,777.38 (95%CI: $9,821.7, $20,085.2). Adjusted generalized linear model of diagnoses as coefficients for cost confirmed significance and robustness of the model. Conclusion: Cost of care for preterm infant is expensive, and significantly increases with prematurity complication. Interventions to reduce those complications may enable resource allocation and better understanding of the needs of the neonatal health services.

New and Persistent Sedative Prescriptions Among Older Adults Following a Critical Illness: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: ICU survivors often have complex care needs and can experience insufficient medication reconciliation and polypharmacy. It is unknown which ICU survivors are at risk of new sedative use posthospitalization. RESEARCH QUESTION: For sedative-naive, older adult ICU survivors, how common is receipt of new and persistent sedative prescriptions, and what factors are associated with receipt? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This population-based cohort study included ICU survivors aged ≥ 66 years who had not filled sedative prescriptions within ≤ 6 months before hospitalization (sedative-naive) in Ontario, Canada (2003-2019). Using multilevel logistic regression, demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics and their association with new sedative prescription within ≤ 7 days of discharge are described. Variation between hospitals was quantified by using the adjusted median OR. Factors associated with persistent prescriptions (≤ 6 months) were examined with a multivariable proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 250,428 patients were included (mean age, 76 years; 61% male). A total of 15,277 (6.1%) filled a new sedative prescription, with variation noted across hospitals (2% [95% CI, 1-3] to 44% [95% CI, 3-57]); 8,458 (3.4%) filled persistent sedative prescriptions. Adjusted factors associated with a new sedative included: discharge to long-term care facility (adjusted OR [aOR], 4.00; 95% CI, 3.72-4.31), receipt of inpatient geriatric (aOR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.80-2.10) or psychiatry (aOR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.62-2.91) consultation, invasive ventilation (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.53-1.66), and ICU length of stay ≥ 7 days (aOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.42-1.58). The residual heterogeneity between hospitals (adjusted median OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.49) had a stronger association with new sedative prescriptions than the Charlson Comorbidity Index score or sepsis. Factors associated with persistent sedative use were similar with the addition of female subjects (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13) and pre-existing polypharmacy (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93). INTERPRETATION: One in 15 sedative-naive, older adult ICU survivors filled a new sedative within ≤ 7 days of discharge; more than one-half of these survivors filled persistent prescriptions. New prescriptions at discharge varied widely across hospitals and represent the potential value of modifying prescription practices, including medication review and reconciliation.

"I Had Bills to Pay": a Mixed-Methods Study on the Role of Income on Care Transitions in a Public-Payer Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Income disparities may affect patients' care transition home. Evidence among patients who have access to publicly funded healthcare coverage remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between low income and post-discharge health outcomes and explore patient and caregiver perspectives on the role of income disparities. DESIGN: Mixed-methods secondary analysis conducted among participants in a double-blind randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participants from a multicenter study in Ontario, Canada, were classified as low income if annual self-reported salary was below $29,000 CAD, or between $30,000 and $50,000 CAD and supported ≥ 3 individuals. MAIN MEASURES: The associations between low income and the following self-reported outcomes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression: patient experience, adherence to medications, diet, activity and follow-up, and the aggregate of emergency department (ED) visits, readmission, or death up to 3 months post-discharge. A deductive direct content analysis of patient and caregivers on the role of income-related disparities during care transitions was conducted. KEY RESULTS: Individuals had similar odds of reporting high patient experience and adherence to instructions regardless of reported income. Compared to higher income individuals, low-income individuals also had similar odds of ED visits, readmissions, and death within 3 months post-discharge. Low-income individuals were more likely than high-income individuals to report understanding their medications completely (OR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.0-3.4) in fully adjusted regression models. Two themes emerged from 25 interviews which (1) highlight constraints of publicly funded services and costs incurred to patients or their caregivers along with (2) the various ways patients adapt through caregiver support, private services, or prioritizing finances over health. CONCLUSIONS: There were few quantitative differences in patient experience, adherence, ED visits, readmissions, and death post-discharge between individuals reporting low versus higher income. Several hidden costs for transportation, medications, and home care were reported however and warrant further research.

Association of an Acute Kidney Injury Follow-up Clinic With Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: A Cohort Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: To determine whether attendance at an acute kidney injury (AKI) follow-up clinic is associated with reduced major adverse kidney events. STUDY DESIGN: Propensity-matched cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalized with AKI in Ontario, Canada, from February 1, 2013, through September 30, 2017, at a single clinical center, who were not receiving dialysis when discharged. EXPOSURE: Standardized assessment by a nephrologist. OUTCOMES: Time to a major adverse kidney event, defined as death, initiation of maintenance dialysis, or incident/progressive chronic kidney disease. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Propensity scores were used to match each patient who attended an AKI follow-up clinic to 4 patients who received standard care. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to assess the association between the care within an AKI follow-up clinic and outcomes. To avoid immortal time bias, we randomly assigned index dates to the comparator group. RESULTS: We matched 164 patients from the AKI follow-up clinic to 656 patients who received standard care. During a mean follow-up of 2.2±1.3 (SD) years, care in the AKI follow-up clinic was not associated with a reduction in major adverse kidney events relative to standard care (22.1 vs 24.7 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.75-1.11]). The AKI follow-up clinic was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.55-0.91]). Patients aged at least 66 years who attended the AKI follow-up clinic were more likely to receive ß-blockers (HR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.02-1.77]) and statins (HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.05-1.74]), but not angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.94-1.56]). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study and residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Specialized postdischarge follow-up for AKI survivors was not associated with a lower risk of major adverse kidney events but was associated with a lower risk of death and increased prescriptions for some cardioprotective medications.

Complications Following Elective Major Noncardiac Surgery Among Patients With Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: There is an urgent need for evidence to inform preoperative risk assessment for the millions of people who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection and are awaiting elective surgery, which is critical to surgical care planning and informed consent. Objective: To assess the association of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection with death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and rehospitalization after elective major noncardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included adults who had received a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 months prior to elective major noncardiac surgery in Ontario, Canada, between April 2020 and October 2021, with 30 days follow-up. Exposures: Positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the composite of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause rehospitalization within 30 days after surgery. Results: Of 71 144 patients who underwent elective major noncardiac surgery (median age, 66 years [IQR, 57-73 years]; 59.8% female), 960 had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (1.3%) and 70 184 had negative test results (98.7%). Prior infection was not associated with the composite risk of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and rehospitalization within 30 days of elective major noncardiac surgery (5.3% absolute event rate [n = 3770]; 960 patients with a positive test result; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21). There was also no association between prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 and postoperative outcomes when the time between infection and surgery was less than 4 weeks (aRR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.64-2.09) or less than 7 weeks (aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61) and among those who were previously vaccinated (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.52-1.26). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was not associated with death, major adverse cardiovascular events, or rehospitalization following elective major noncardiac surgery, although low event rates and wide 95% CIs do not preclude a potentially meaningful increase in overall risk.

Surgeons disciplined by regulatory bodies in Canada between 2000 and 2017.

Identifying characteristics of disciplined surgeons is important for public safety. A database of all physicians disciplined by a Canadian provincial medical regulatory authority (College of Physicians and Surgeons) between 2000 and 2017 was constructed, and comparisons between surgeons and other physicians were undertaken. Of 1100 disciplined physicians, 174 (15.8 %) were surgeons. Obstetrics and gynecology was the specialty with the most disciplined surgeons (57 of 174 [32.8%]), followed by general surgery (48 of 174 [27.6%]). The overall disciplinary rate for surgeons was higher than for other physicians (12.59, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 10.69-14.83 v. 9.85, 95 % CI 8.88-10.94 cases per 10 000 physician-years, p = 0.013). Even after adjusting for surgeon age, sex, international medical graduation and years in practice, surgeons remained more likely than other physicians to be disciplined for standard of care issues (55.6%, 95% CI 46.6-64.2 v. 38.7%, 95% CI 32.6-45.2, p < 0.001).

Knowledge, perspectives and health outcome expectations of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a top threat to global health. However, the public has an incomplete understanding of AMR and its consequences. Aim: The aim of this study was to explore patients' understanding, perspective and health outcome expectations for antibiotic therapy within an inpatient internal medicine population. Methods: A mixed methods study, combining a cross-sectional survey with qualitative methods. Fourteen questions (10 paper survey and four open ended interview questions) were used, and were completed by the participant in one sitting. Participants were recruited from General Internal Medicine units at two academic hospitals in Canada (convenience sample). Findings: Thirty participants were included. Out of a scale of 1-100%, participants indicated moderate concern (mean of 40%) about getting an infection that could not be cured by antibiotics. The majority agreed that they trusted their healthcare team to decide on appropriate antibiotic therapy (mean of 81%). The participants strongly agreed (mean of 90%) that it was important to understand the rationale for their antibiotic therapy. Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: 1) varying levels of knowledge; 2) viewing antibiotics as beneficial while emphasizing effectiveness; and 3) trusting the healthcare team with expectations for inclusion in decision making. Conclusion: The study results showed varying levels of patients' antibiotic knowledge and large gaps in awareness related to AMR. Exploring the role and workflow of interdisciplinary healthcare professionals may be a potential strategy to minimize patients' knowledge gap related to antimicrobial therapy and AMR.

No Time to Waste: An Appraisal of Value at the End of Life.

OBJECTIVES: The use of economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions may be limited by an incomplete appreciation of how patients and society perceive value at end of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate how patients, caregivers, and society value gains in quantity of life and quality of life (QOL) at the end of life. The validity of the assumptions underlying the use of the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) as a measure of preferences at end of life was also examined. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched from inception to February 22, 2021. Original research studies reporting empirical data on healthcare priority setting at end of life were included. There was no restriction on the use of either quantitative or qualitative methods. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data from studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all included studies. The primary outcomes were the value of gains in quantity of life and the value of gains in QOL at end of life. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies involving 53 981 participants reported that gains in QOL were generally preferred over quantity of life at the end of life across stakeholder groups. Several violations of the underlying assumptions of the QALY to measure preferences at the end of life were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients, caregivers, and members of the general public prioritize gains in QOL over marginal gains in life prolongation at the end of life. These findings suggest that policy evaluations of end-of-life interventions should favor those that improve QOL. QALYs may be an inadequate measure of preferences for end-of-life care thereby limiting their use in formal economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions.

Bedspacing and clinical outcomes in general internal medicine: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Admitting hospitalized patients to off-service wards ("bedspacing") is common and may affect quality of care and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission to general internal medicine (GIM), and hospital length-of-stay among GIM patients admitted to GIM wards or bedspaced to off-service wards. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASURES: Retrospective cohort study including all emergency department admissions to GIM between 2015 and 2017 at six hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared patients admitted to GIM wards with those who were bedspaced, using multivariable regression models and propensity score matching to control for patient and situational factors. KEY RESULTS: Among 40,440 GIM admissions, 10,745 (26.6%) were bedspaced to non-GIM wards and 29,695 (73.4%) were assigned to GIM wards. After multivariable adjustment, bedspacing was associated with no significant difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.05, p = .304), slightly shorter median hospital length-of-stay (-0.10 days, 95% CI:-0.20 to -0.001, p = .047) and lower 30-day readmission to GIM (adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83-0.95, p = .001). Results were consistent when examining each hospital individually and outcomes did not significantly differ between medical or surgical off-service wards. Sensitivity analyses focused on the highest risk patients did not exclude the possibility of harm associated with bedspacing, although adverse outcomes were not significantly greater. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, bedspacing was associated with no significant difference in mortality, slightly shorter hospital length-of-stay, and fewer 30-day readmissions to GIM, although potential harms in high-risk patients remain uncertain. Given that hospital capacity issues are likely to persist, future research should aim to understand how bedspacing can be achieved safely at all hospitals, perhaps by strengthening the selection of low-risk patients.

Behavioral Nudges to Improve Audit and Feedback Report Opening Among Antibiotic Prescribers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Peer comparison audit and feedback has demonstrated effectiveness in improving antibiotic prescribing practices, but only a minority of prescribers view their reports. We rigorously tested 3 behavioral nudging techniques delivered by email to improve report opening. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial among Ontario long-term care prescribers enrolled in an ongoing peer comparison audit and feedback program which includes data on their antibiotic prescribing patterns. Physicians were randomized to 1 of 8 possible sequences of intervention/control allocation to 3 different behavioral email nudges: a social peer comparison nudge (January 2020), a maintenance of professional certification incentive nudge (October 2020), and a prior participation nudge (January 2021). The primary outcome was feedback report opening; the primary analysis pooled the effects of all 3 nudging interventions. Results: The trial included 421 physicians caring for >28 000 residents at 450 facilities. In the pooled analysis, physicians opened only 29.6% of intervention and 23.9% of control reports (odds ratio [OR], 1.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.10-2.07], P = .011); this difference remained significant after accounting for physician characteristics and clustering (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.74 [95% CI, 1.24-2.45], P = .0014). Of individual nudging techniques, the prior participation nudge was associated with a significant increase in report opening (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.06-2.47], P = .026; aOR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.33-3.50], P = .0018). In the pooled analysis, nudges were also associated with accessing more report pages (aOR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14-1.43], P < .001). Conclusions: Enhanced nudging strategies modestly improved report opening, but more work is needed to optimize physician engagement with audit and feedback. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04187742.

Specialist wait time reporting using family physicians' electronic medical record data: a mixed method study of feasibility and clinical utility.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of Canadian adult patients wait longer than four weeks to see a specialist after referral from primary care. Access to accurate wait time information may help primary care physicians choose the timeliest specialist to address a patient's specific needs. We conducted a mixed-methods study to assess if primary to specialist care wait times can be extracted from electronic medical records (EMR), analyzed the wait time information, and used focus groups and interviews to assess the potential clinical utility of the wait time information. METHODS: Two family practices were recruited to examine primary care physician to specialist wait times between January 2016 and December 2017, using EMR data. The primary outcome was the median wait time from physician referral to specialist appointment for each specialty service. Secondary outcomes included the physician and patient characteristics associated with wait times as well as qualitative analyses of physician interviews about the resulting wait time reports. RESULTS: Wait time data can be extracted from the primary care EMR and converted to a report format for family physicians and specialists to review. After data cleaning, there were 7141 referrals included from 4967 unique patients. The 5 most common specialties referred to were Dermatology, Gastroenterology, Ear Nose and Throat, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology. Half of the patients were seen by a specialist within 42 days, 75% seen within 80 days and all patients within 760 days. There were significant differences in wait times by specialty, for younger patients, and those with urgently labelled medical situations. Overall, wait time reports were perceived by clinicians to be important since they could help family physicians decide how to triage referrals and might lead to system improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Wait time information from primary to specialist care can aid in decision-making around specialist referrals, identify bottlenecks, and help with system planning. This mixed method study is a starting point to review the importance of providing wait time data for both family physicians, specialists and local health systems. Future work can be directed towards developing wait time reporting functionality and evaluating if wait time information will help increase system efficiency and/or improve provider and patient satisfaction.

Personal, professional, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital workers: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the personal, professional, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital workers and their perceptions about mitigating strategies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional web-based survey consisting of (1) a survey of the personal and professional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and potential mitigation strategies, and (2) two validated psychological instruments (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale [K10] and Impact of Events Scale Revised [IES-R]). Regression analyses were conducted to identify the predictors of workplace stress, psychological distress, and post-traumatic stress. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Hospital workers employed at 4 teaching and 8 non-teaching hospitals in Ontario, Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Among 1875 respondents (84% female, 49% frontline workers), 72% feared falling ill, 64% felt their job placed them at great risk of COVID-19 exposure, and 48% felt little control over the risk of infection. Respondents perceived that others avoided them (61%), reported increased workplace stress (80%), workload (66%) and responsibilities (59%), and 44% considered leaving their job. The psychological questionnaires revealed that 25% had at least some psychological distress on the K10, 50% had IES-R scores suggesting clinical concern for post-traumatic stress, and 38% fulfilled criteria for at least one psychological diagnosis. Female gender and feeling at increased risk due to PPE predicted all adverse psychological outcomes. Respondents favoured clear hospital communication (59%), knowing their voice is heard (55%), expressions of appreciation from leadership (55%), having COVID-19 protocols (52%), and food and beverages provided by the hospital (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital work during the COVID-19 pandemic has had important personal, professional, and psychological impacts. Respondents identified opportunities to better address information, training, and support needs.

Patterns of Antimicrobial Use in an Outpatient Hemodialysis Unit.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) are at high risk of infections, including those caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Given that antimicrobial exposure is a major risk factor for the emergence of these resistant organisms, minimizing inappropriate use is imperative. To optimize use, it is important to understand patterns of antimicrobial prescribing in this setting. OBJECTIVES: To measure antimicrobial use and to describe prescribing patterns among patients receiving outpatient HD. METHODS: A retrospective observational case series study was performed in an outpatient HD unit from February to April 2017. Adults for whom at least 1 antimicrobial was prescribed were included. The primary outcome was total antimicrobial days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient-days. Secondary outcomes were the characteristics of the antimicrobial prescriptions, in terms of antimicrobial class, indication, purpose, route, and prescriber group. RESULTS: Antimicrobials were prescribed for 53 (16%) of the 330 patients treated in the HD unit during the study period; the total number of prescriptions was 75. Antimicrobial use was 27.5 DOTs/1000 patient-days. Fluoroquinolones were the most frequently prescribed type of antimicrobial (n = 17, 23%), whereas the second most frequently prescribed were first-generation cephalosporins (n = 16, 21%). The most common indication was skin or soft-tissue infection (n = 14, 19%), followed by bloodstream infection (n = 13, 17%). Of the 75 antimicrobials, 48 (64%) were prescribed for empiric therapy, 19 (25%) for targeted therapy, and 8 (11%) for prophylaxis. Two-thirds of the antimicrobials prescribed (n = 50, 67%) were oral medications, and most (n = 72, 96%) were ordered by hospital prescribers. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial use was common in this study setting, with 1 in 6 HD patients receiving this type of medication. The findings of this study create opportunities to standardize antimicrobial prescribing at the local level for common infections that occur in patients receiving outpatient HD.

CONTEXTE: Les patients sous hémodialyse (HD) présentent un risque élevé d'infections, y compris celles provoquées par des organismes multirésistants. Étant donné que l'exposition aux antimicrobiens est un facteur de risque majeur pour l'émergence de ces organismes résistants, il est impératif de minimiser l'utilisation inappropriée. Pour optimiser l'utilisation, il importe de comprendre les tendances de prescription d'antimicrobiens dans ce contexte. OBJECTIFS: Mesurer l'utilisation des antimicrobiens et décrire les schémas de prescription chez les patients recevant une HD ambulatoire. MÉTHODES: Une étude rétrospective de séries de cas a été réalisée dans une unité d'hémodialyse pour patients externes de février à avril 2017. Les adultes à qui au moins 1 antimicrobien avait été prescrit ont été inclus dans l'étude. Le paramètre d'évaluation principal était le nombre total de jours de traitement antimicrobien (JTA) pour 1000 jours-patients. Les paramètres secondaires étaient les caractéristiques des prescriptions d'antimicrobiens, en termes de classe d'antimicrobiens, d'indication, d'objectif, de voie d'administration et de groupe de prescripteurs. RÉSULTATS: Des antimicrobiens ont été prescrits à 53 (16 %) des 330 patients traités dans l'unité d'HD au cours de la période d'étude, pour un nombre total de prescriptions de 75. L'utilisation d'antimicrobiens était de 27,5 JTA/1000 jours-patients. Les fluoroquinolones étaient le type d'antimicrobien le plus fréquemment prescrit (n = 17, 23 %) et les céphalosporines de première génération (n = 16, 21 %) étaient le deuxième type. Une infection de la peau ou des tissus mous (n = 14, 19 %) était l'indication la plus courante, suivie d'une infection du sang (n = 13, 17 %). Sur les 75 antimicrobiens, 48 (64 %) ont été prescrits pour un traitement empirique, 19 (25 %) pour un traitement ciblé et 8 (11 %) pour une prophylaxie. Les deux tiers des antimicrobiens prescrits (n = 50, 67 %) étaient des médicaments oraux, et la plupart (n = 72, 96 %) ont été prescrits par des prescripteurs hospitaliers. CONCLUSIONS: L'utilisation d'antimicrobiens était courante dans le cadre de cette étude, où 1 patient sous HD sur 6 recevait ce type de médicament. Les résultats de cette étude créent des opportunités de normaliser la prescription d'antimicrobiens au niveau local pour les infections courantes qui surviennent chez les patients recevant une HD ambulatoire.