Operationalizing Equity, Inclusion, and Access in Research Practice at a Large Academic Institution.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare advances are hindered by underrepresentation in prospective research; sociodemographic, data, and measurement infidelity in retrospective research; and a paucity of guidelines surrounding equitable research practices. OBJECTIVE: The Joint Research Practices Working Group was created in 2021 to develop and disseminate guidelines for the conduct of inclusive and equitable research. METHODS: Volunteer faculty and staff from two research centers at the University of Pennsylvania initiated a multi-pronged approach to guideline development, including literature searches, center-level feedback, and mutual learning with local experts. RESULTS: We developed guidelines for (1) participant payment and incentives; (2) language interpretation and translation; (3) plain language in research communications; (4) readability of study materials; and (5) inclusive language for scientific communications. Key recommendations include (1) offer cash payments and multiple payment options to participants when required actions are completed; (2) identify top languages of your target population, map points of contact, and determine available interpretation and translation resources; (3) assess reading levels of materials and simplify language, targeting 6th- to 8th-grade reading levels; (4) improve readability through text formatting and style, symbols, and visuals; and (5) use specific, humanizing terms as adjectives rather than nouns. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity, inclusion, and access are critical values for research conduct that promotes justice and equity. These values can be operationalized through organizational commitment that combines bottom-up and top-down approaches and through partnerships across organizations that promote mutual learning and synergy. While our guidelines represent best practices at one time, we recognize that practices evolve and need to be evaluated continuously for accuracy and relevance. Our intention is to bring awareness to these critical topics and form a foundation for important conversations surrounding equitable and inclusive research practices.

Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative.

The reproducibility crisis triggered worldwide initiatives to improve rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in biomedical research. There are many examples of scientists, journals, and funding agencies adopting responsible research practices. The QUEST (Quality-Ethics-Open Science-Translation) Center offers a unique opportunity to examine the role of institutions. The Berlin Institute of Health founded QUEST to increase the likelihood that research conducted at this large academic medical center would be trustworthy, useful for scientists and society, and ethical. QUEST researchers perform "science of science" studies to understand problems with standard practices and develop targeted solutions. The staff work with institutional leadership and local scientists to incentivize and support responsible practices in research, funding, and hiring. Some activities described in this paper focus on the institution, whereas others may benefit the national and international scientific community. Our experience, approaches, and recommendations will be informative for faculty leadership, administrators, and researchers interested in improving scientific practice.

Addressing anti-black racism in an academic preterm birth initiative: perspectives from a mixed methods case study.

BACKGROUND: Growing recognition of racism perpetuated within academic institutions has given rise to anti-racism efforts in these settings. In June 2020, the university-based California Preterm Birth Initiative (PTBi) committed to an Anti-Racism Action Plan outlining an approach to address anti-Blackness. This case study assessed perspectives on PTBi's anti-racism efforts to support continued growth toward racial equity within the initiative. METHODS: This mixed methods case study included an online survey with multiple choice and open-ended survey items (n = 27) and key informant interviews (n = 8) of leadership, faculty, staff, and trainees working within the initiative. Survey and interview questions focused on perspectives about individual and organizational anti-racism competencies, perceived areas of initiative success, and opportunities for improvement. Qualitative interview and survey data were coded and organized into common themes within assessment domains. RESULTS: Most survey respondents reported they felt competent in all the assessed anti-racism skills, including foundational knowledge and responding to workplace racism. They also felt confident in PTBi's commitment to address anti-Blackness. Fewer respondents were clear on strategic plans, resources allocated, and how the anti-racism agenda was being implemented. Suggestions from both data sources included further operationalizing and communicating commitments, integrating an anti-racism lens across all activities, ensuring accountability including staffing and funding consistent with anti-racist approaches, persistence in hiring Black faculty, providing professional development and support for Black staff, and addressing unintentional interpersonal harms to Black individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This case study contributes key lessons which move beyond individual-level and theoretical approaches towards transparency and accountability in academic institutions aiming to address anti-Black racism. Even with PTBi's strong commitment and efforts towards racial equity, these case study findings illustrate that actions must have sustained support by the broader institution and include leadership commitment, capacity-building via ongoing coaching and training, broad incorporation of anti-racism practices and procedures, continuous learning, and ongoing accountability for both short- and longer-term sustainable impact.

Association of facility type with overall survival in patients with nonsurgically managed pancreatic cancer.

Aim: To investigate the association between receiving treatment at academic centers and overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients who do not receive definitive surgery of the pancreatic tumor. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2004 to 2016 were identified. Results: Of 262,209 patients, 101,003 (38.5%) received treatment at academic centers. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, patients who received treatment at a nonacademic facility had significantly worse overall survival compared with patients who were treated at an academic center (hazard ratio: 1.279; 95% CI: 1.268-1.290; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Compared with treatment at academic centers, treatment at nonacademic centers was associated with significantly worse overall survival in patients with nonsurgically managed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

The aim of this study is to examine the association between receiving treatment at academic hospitals and overall survival in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer who do not receive definitive surgery of the pancreatic tumor. The authors used the National Cancer Database to identify patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2004 and 2016. The authors' study included 262,209 patients. The authors found that patients who received treatment at nonacademic hospitals were on average 28% more likely to die of any cause compared with patients who were treated at academic centers (hazard ratio: 1.279; 95% CI: 1.268­1.290; p < 0.001). Patients who received treatment at nonacademic hospitals were more likely to die of any cause compared with patients who received treatment at academic hospitals.

Outcomes of the Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology in community- vs. institution-performed cytology.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the important role of the community in the assessment and risk stratification of patients with thyroid nodules, evidence-based data on the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (BSRTC) performance in community clinics is lacking. We aim to evaluate BSRTC performance of aspirations taken in community clinics compared with primary referral center. METHODS: Patients who underwent thyroid surgery between 2013 and 2018 at our institution were divided according to the fine needle aspirations (FNA) settings: community FNA (cFNA) vs. institutional FNA (iFNA). Demographics, BSRTC results and final pathology were collected. Diagnostic values were calculated for BSRTC categories (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]), and were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 268 nodules were included in the study; 77% (207) cFNA and 23% (61) iFNA. Patients in the community were younger (51.7 ± 15.1 vs. 56.6 years±14.8, p = 0.03) and with less epidemiology risk factors for thyroid cancer (1.9% vs 13.1%, p < 0.001). cFNA malignancy rate for BSRTC I-VI was 0%, 6.4%, 11.8%, 32.1%, 91.6% and 93.8% respectively. Best sensitivity was found for BSRTC III-VI in both groups (88% and 83%, cFNAs and iFNAs, respectively). Overall best performance was obtained for BSRTC V-VI for both groups (cfNA: 85%, 97%, 93%, 94% and 93%; iFNAs: 81%, 100%, 100%, 87% and 91%, for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Community-performed FNAs demonstrate acceptable BSRTC distribution and malignancy rates, comparable with a primary referral academic hospital. This supports the universality of the BSRTC 2017 and its recommendations also in the community.

Optimizing the operation of an electrodiagnostic laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic: A 6-month single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: The initial surge of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in early 2020 led to widespread cancellation of elective medical procedures in the United States, including nonurgent outpatient and inpatient electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies. As certain regions later showed a downtrend in daily new cases, EDx laboratories have reopened under the guidance of the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM). In our reopening experience guided by the AANEM, we measured relevant outcomes to determine further workflow adaptations. We aimed to detail our experience and share the lessons learned. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical volumes, billing data, diagnosis distributions, and rates of COVID-19 exposure and transmission among patients and staff in our EDx laboratory during the first 6 months of reopening, starting on June 1, 2020. For context, we detailed the recent AANEM guidelines we adopted at our laboratory, supplemented by other consensus statements. RESULTS: We completed 816 outpatient studies from June 1 to December 1, 2020, reaching 97% of the total volume and 97% of total billing compared with the same time period in 2019. The average relative value units per study were similar. There were no major shifts in diagnosis distributions. We completed 10 of 12 requested inpatient studies during this period. There were no known COVID-19 transmissions between patients and staff. DISCUSSION: Our experience suggests that it is possible to safely operate an EDx laboratory under the guidance of the AANEM and other experts, with clinical volume and billing rates comparable to pre-pandemic baselines.

Emerging practice patterns in vascular surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Ever since the first positive test was identified on January 21, 2020, Washington State has been on the frontlines of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Using information obtained from Italian surgeons in Milan and given the concerns regarding the increasing case numbers in Washington State, we implemented new vascular surgery guidelines, which canceled all nonemergent surgical procedures and involved significant changes to our inpatient and outpatient workflow. The consequences of these decisions are not yet understood. METHODS: The vascular surgery division at Harborview Medical Center immediately instituted new vascular surgery COVID-19 practice guidelines on March 17, 2020. Subsequent clinic, operative, and consultation volume data were collected for the next 4 weeks and compared with the historical averages. The Washington State case and death numbers and University of Washington Medical Center (UW Medicine) hospital case volumes were collected from publicly available sources. RESULTS: Since March 10, 2020, the number of confirmed positive COVID-19 cases within the UW Medicine system has increased 1867%, with floor and intensive care unit bed usage increasing by 120% and 215%, respectively. After instituting our new COVID-19 guidelines, our average weekly clinical volume decreased by 96.5% (from 43.1 patients to 1.5 patients per week), our average weekly surgical volume decreased by 71.7% (from 15 cases to 4.25 cases per week), and our inpatient consultation volume decreased to 1.81 consultations daily; 60% of the consultations were completed as telemedicine "e-consults" in which the patient was never evaluated in-person. The trainee surgical volume has also decreased by 86.4% for the vascular surgery fellow and 84.8% for the integrated resident. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed every aspect of "normal" vascular surgical practice in a large academic institution. New practice guidelines effectively reduced operating room usage and decreased staff and trainee exposure to potential infection, with the changes to clinic volume not resulting in an immediate increase in emergency department or inpatient consultations or acute surgical emergencies. These changes, although preserving resources, have also reduced trainee exposure and operative volume significantly, which requires new modes of education delivery. The lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, if analyzed, will help us prepare for the next crisis.

Quality Improvement at an Academic Cancer Center: Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

Patients with multiple myeloma are at elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer, but physician adherence to VTE prevention guidelines is low. Several organizations partnered in designing and implementing a 2-year quality improvement (QI) program in a tertiary care/academic cancer center, to increase awareness of VTE prophylaxis for patients with multiple myeloma and thus improve adherence to prophylaxis guidelines and protocols. The QI arm included 2 chart audits, conducted 2 years apart, of unmatched cohorts of 100 patients with multiple myeloma. An Education arm included 2 grand rounds presentations, 3 web-based case discussions, and a patient education module. Twenty providers took part in the continuous QI arm. More than 1100 learners participated in the online cases; the patient education curriculum reached 112 multiple myeloma patients. The initiative proved helpful in defining barriers to guideline adherence and identifying data-driven practice improvement strategies for VTE prophylaxis. It also increased learner awareness of VTE guidelines, patient risk stratification, and optimal thromboprophylaxis strategies. There was a reduction in VTE events (primary clinical outcome) from 10% at baseline to 4% in the follow-up cohort, although this was not statistically significant. Higher rates of guideline-based prophylaxis were observed in low-risk patients, and a lower incidence of VTE was observed in multiple myeloma patients with a prior history of VTE. Additional research is needed to refine prophylaxis guidelines. With appropriate institutional support, this type of QI program can be readily adopted by other organizations to address practice improvement needs.

Thyroid Ultrasound Reports: Will the Thyroid Imaging, Reporting, and Data System Improve Natural Language Processing Capture of Critical Thyroid Nodule Features?

BACKGROUND: Critical thyroid nodule features are contained in unstructured ultrasound (US) reports. The Thyroid Imaging, Reporting, and Data System (TI-RADS) uses five key features to risk stratify nodules and recommend appropriate intervention. This study aims to analyze the quality of US reporting and the potential benefit of Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems in efficiently capturing TI-RADS features from text reports. MATERIALS AND METHOD: This retrospective study used free-text thyroid US reports from an academic center (A) and community hospital (B). Physicians created "gold standard" annotations by manually extracting TI-RADS features and clinical recommendations from reports to determine how often they were included. Similar annotations were created using an automated NLP system and compared with the gold standard. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-two reports contained 409 nodules at least 1-cm in maximum diameter. The gold standard identified three nodules (0.7%) which contained enough information to calculate a complete TI-RADS score. Shape was described most often (92.7% of nodules), whereas margins were described least often (11%). A median number of two TI-RADS features are reported per nodule. The NLP system was significantly less accurate than the gold standard in capturing echogenicity (27.5%) and margins (58.9%). One hundred eight nodule reports (26.4%) included clinical management recommendations, which were included more often at site A than B (33.9 versus 17%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a gap between current US reporting styles and those needed to implement TI-RADS and achieve NLP accuracy. Synoptic reporting should prompt more complete thyroid US reporting, improved recommendations for intervention, and better NLP performance.

Reducing Opioid Use in Endocrine Surgery Through Patient Education and Provider Prescribing Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative opioid use can lead to dependence, contributing to the opioid epidemic in the United States. New persistent opioid use after minor surgeries occurs in 5.9% of patients. With increased documentation of persistent opioid use postoperatively, surgeons must pursue interventions to reduce opioid use perioperatively. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study to assess the feasibility of a preoperative intervention via patient education or counseling and changes in provider prescribing patterns to reduce postoperative opioid use. We included adult patients undergoing thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy from January 22, 2019 to February 28, 2019 at a tertiary referral, academic endocrine surgery practice. Surveys were administered to assess pain and patient satisfaction postoperatively. Prescription, demographic, and comorbidity data were collected from the electronic health record. RESULTS: Sixty six patients (74.2% women, mean age 58.6 [SD 14.9] y) underwent thyroidectomy (n = 35), parathyroidectomy (n = 24), and other cervical endocrine operations (n = 7). All patients received a preoperative educational intervention in the form of a paper handout. 90.9% of patients were discharged with prescriptions for nonopioid pain medications, and 7.6% were given an opioid prescription on discharge. Among those who received an opioid prescription, the median quantity of opioids prescribed was 135 (IQR 120-150) oral morphine equivalents. On survey, four patients (6.1%) reported any postoperative opioid use, and 94.6% of patients expressed satisfaction with their preoperative education and postoperative pain management. CONCLUSIONS: Clear and standardized education regarding postoperative pain management is feasible and associated with high patient satisfaction. Initiation of such education may support efforts to minimize unnecessary opioid prescriptions in the population undergoing endocrine surgery.

Implementation of Opioid-Free Thyroid and Parathyroid Procedures: A Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Initial opioid exposure for most individuals with substance use disorder comes from the healthcare system, and overprescription of opioids in ambulatory operations is common. This report describes an academic medical center's experience implementing opioid-free thyroid and parathyroid operations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing a thyroid or parathyroid operation before and after implementation of an opioid-free analgesia protocol. The primary endpoint was new postoperative opioid prescription. Secondary endpoints included prescription characteristics and predictors of new opioid prescription. RESULTS: A total of 515 patients were enrolled in the study: 240 in the control or "pre-intervention" cohort (May through October 2017) and 275 in the intervention or "post" cohort (May through October 2018). Patients in the intervention cohort were significantly less likely to receive an opioid prescription (12.0% versus 59.6%, P < 0.001). When opioids were prescribed, they were used for shorter durations and at lower doses in the intervention cohort. Among the patients prescribed opioids in the intervention cohort (N = 33), the only significant predictor of postoperative opioid use was preoperative opioid use (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Opioids may not be required after thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy, especially for opioid-naïve patients. Future research should examine patient satisfaction with opioid-sparing analgesia.

Drivers, Beliefs, and Barriers Surrounding Surgical Opioid Prescribing: A Qualitative Study of Surgeons' Opioid Prescribing Habits.

BACKGROUND: Recent data demonstrate that surgeons overprescribe opioids and vary considerably in the amount of opioids prescribed for common procedures. Limited data exist about why and how surgeons develop certain opioid prescribing habits. We sought to identify surgeons' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about opioid prescribing and elicit barriers to guideline-based prescribing. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews accompanied by demographic surveys at an academic medical center. Surgical residents and faculty members were selected by maximum variation purposive sampling. We used thematic analysis to identify themes associated with opioid prescribing. RESULTS: Twenty surgical residents and twenty-one surgical faculty members were interviewed. Characteristics of individual surgeons, patients, health care teams, practice environments, and the complex interplay between these domains drove prescribing habits. Attending-resident communication about opioid prescribing was extremely limited. Surgeons received little training and feedback about opioid prescribing and were rarely aware of negative long-term consequences, limiting motivation to change prescribing habits. Although surgeons frequently interacted with pain management physicians to comanage patients postoperatively, few involved pain management physicians in preoperative planning. Perceived barriers to guideline-based prescribing included the following: limitations to electronic prescribing, cross-coverage problems, inadequate time for patient education, and impediments to use of nonopioid alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve compliance with opioid prescribing guidelines should include surgeon education and personal feedback. Future interventions should aim to improve attending-resident communication about opioid prescribing, reduce hurdles to electronic prescribing, provide clear pain management plans for cross-covering physicians, assess alternative methods for efficient patient education, and maximize use of nonnarcotic pain medications.

Reporting and Abstracting Variability in Technical Standards for Breast Cancer Operations.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has incorporated documentation of critical elements outlined in Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery into revised standards for cancer center accreditation. This study assessed the current documentation of critical elements in partial mastectomy (PM) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) operative reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Operative reports for PM + SLNB at a single academic institution from 2013 to 2018 were reviewed for compliance and surveyor interobserver reliability with the Oncologic Elements of Operative Record defined in Operative Standards and compared with a nonredundant American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery of Breast Surgery (MBS) quality measure for specimen orientation. RESULTS: Ten reviewers each evaluated 66 PM + SLNB operative reports for 13 Oncologic Elements and one MBS measure. No operative records reported all critical elements for PM + SLNB or PM alone. Residents completed 36.4% of operative reports: Element documentation was similar for PM but varied significantly for SLNB between resident and attending authorship. Combined reporting performance and interrater reliability varied across all elements and was highest for the use of SLNB tracer (97.1% and κ = 0.95, respectively) and lowest for intraoperative assessment of SLNB (30.6%, κ = 0.43). MBS specimen orientation had both high proportion reported (87.0%) and interrater reliability (κ = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to reporting critical elements for PM and SLNB varied. Whether differential compliance was tied to discrepancies in documentation or reviewer abstraction, clarification of synoptic choices may improve reporting consistency. Evolving techniques or technologies will require continuous appraisal of mandated reporting for breast surgery.

Industry-Wide Survey of Academic Anesthesiology Departments Provides Up-to-Date Benchmarking Data on Surgical Anesthesia Productivity.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking group surgical anesthesia productivity continues to be an important but challenging goal for anesthesiology groups. Benchmarking is important because it provides objective data to evaluate staffing needs and costs, identify potential operating room management decisions that could reduce costs or improve efficiency, and support ongoing negotiations and discussions with health system leadership. Unfortunately, good and meaningful benchmarking data are not readily available. Therefore, a survey of academic anesthesiology departments was done to provide current benchmarking data. METHODS: A survey of members of the Society of Academic Associations of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine (SAAAPM) was performed. The survey collected data by facility and included type of facility, number and type of staff and anesthetizing sites each weekday, and the billed American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) units and number of cases over 12 months. The facility types included academic medical center (AMC), community hospital (Community), children's hospital (Children), and ambulatory surgical center (ASC). All anesthesia care billed using ASA units were included, except for obstetric anesthesia. Any care not billed or billed using relative value units (RVUs) were excluded. Percentage of nonoperating room anesthetizing sites, staffing ratio, and surgical anesthesia productivity measurements "per case" and "per site" were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 135 society members, 63 submitted complete surveys for 140 facilities (69 AMC, 26 Community, 7 Children, and 38 ASC). In the survey, overall median productivity for AMC and Children was similar (12,592 and 12,364 total ASA units per anesthetizing site), while the ASC had the lowest median overall productivity (8911 total ASA units per anesthetizing site). By size of facility, in the survey, the smaller facilities (<10 sites, ASC or non-ASC) had lower median overall productivity as compared to larger facilities. For AMC and Children, >20% of anesthetizing sites were nonoperating room anesthetizing sites. Anesthesiology residents worked primarily in AMC and Children. In ASC and Community, residents worked only in 18% and 35% of facilities, respectively. More than half the AMCs reported at least 1 break certified nurse anesthetist (CRNA) each day. CONCLUSIONS: To make data-driven decisions on clinical productivity, anesthesiology leaders need to be able to make meaningful comparisons at the facility level. For a group that provides care in multiple facilities, one can make internal comparisons among facilities and follow measurements over time. It is valuable for leaders to also be compare their facilities with industry-wide measurements, in other words, benchmark their facilities. These results provide benchmarking data for academic anesthesiology departments.

Obtaining and Modeling Variability in Travel Times From Off-Site Satellite Clinics to Hospitals and Surgery Centers for Surgeons and Proceduralists Seeing Office Patients in the Morning and Performing a To-Follow List of Cases in the Afternoon.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals achieve growth in surgical caseload primarily from the additive contribution of many surgeons with low caseloads. Such surgeons often see clinic patients in the morning then travel to a facility to do 1 or 2 scheduled afternoon cases. Uncertainty in travel time is a factor that might need to be considered when scheduling the cases of to-follow surgeons. However, this has not been studied. We evaluated variability in travel times within a city with high traffic density. METHODS: We used the Google Distance Matrix application programming interface to prospectively determine driving times incorporating current traffic conditions at 5-minute intervals between 9:00 AM and 4:55 PM during the first 4 months of 2018 between 4 pairs of clinics and hospitals in the University of Miami health system. Travel time distributions were modeled using lognormal and Burr distributions and compared using the absolute and signed differences for the median and the 0.9 quantile. Differences were evaluated using 2-sided, 1-group t tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. We considered 5-minute signed differences between the distributions as managerially relevant. RESULTS: For the 80 studied combinations of origin-to-destination pairs (N = 4), day of week (N = 5), and the hour of departure between 10:00 AM and 1:55 PM (N = 4), the maximum difference between the median and 0.9 quantile travel time was 8.1 minutes. This contrasts with the previously published corresponding difference between the median and the 0.9 quantile of 74 minutes for case duration. Travel times were well fit by Burr and lognormal distributions (all 160 differences of medians and of 0.9 quantiles <5 minutes; P < .001). For each of the 4 origin-destination pairs, travel times at 12:00 PM were a reasonable approximation to travel times between the hours of 10:00 AM and 1:55 PM during all weekdays. CONCLUSIONS: During mid-day, when surgeons likely would travel between a clinic and an operating room facility, travel time variability is small compared to case duration prediction variability. Thus, afternoon operating room scheduling should not be restricted because of concern related to unpredictable travel times by surgeons. Providing operating room managers and surgeons with estimated travel times sufficient to allow for a timely arrival on 90% of days may facilitate the scheduling of additional afternoon cases especially at ambulatory facilities with substantial underutilized time.

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Telemedicine Preoperative Evaluation Initiative at a Major Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: With health care practice consolidation, the increasing geographic scope of health care systems, and the advancement of mobile telecommunications, there is increasing interest in telemedicine-based health care consultations. Anesthesiology has had experience with telemedicine consultation for preoperative evaluation since 2004, but the majority of studies have been conducted in rural settings. There is a paucity of literature of use in metropolitan areas. In this article, we describe the implementation of a telemedicine-based anesthesia preoperative evaluation and report the program's patient satisfaction, clinical case cancellation rate outcomes, and cost savings in a large metropolitan area (Los Angeles, CA). METHODS: This is a descriptive study of a telemedicine-based preoperative anesthesia evaluation process in an academic medical center within a large metropolitan area. In a 2-year period, we evaluated 419 patients scheduled for surgery by telemedicine and 1785 patients who were evaluated in-person. RESULTS: Day-of-surgery case cancellations were 2.95% and 3.23% in the telemedicine and the in-person cohort, respectively. Telemedicine patients avoided a median round trip driving distance of 63 miles (Q1 24; Q3 119) and a median time saved of 137 (Q1 95; Q3 195) and 130 (Q1 91; Q3 237) minutes during morning and afternoon traffic conditions, respectively. Patients experienced time-based savings, particularly from traveling across a metropolitan area, which amounted to $67 of direct and opportunity cost savings. From patient satisfaction surveys, 98% (129 patients out of 131 completed surveys) of patients who were consulted via telemedicine were satisfied with their experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the implementation of a telemedicine-based preoperative anesthesia evaluation from an academic medical center in a metropolitan area with high patient satisfaction, cost savings, and without increase in day-of-procedure case cancellations.

Anesthesiologists' and Intensive Care Providers' Exposure to COVID-19 Infection in a New York City Academic Center: A Prospective Cohort Study Assessing Symptoms and COVID-19 Antibody Testing.

BACKGROUND: Protecting first-line health care providers against work-related coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection at the onset of the pandemic has been a crucial challenge in the United States. Anesthesiologists in particular are considered at risk, since aerosol-generating procedures, such as intubation and extubation, have been shown to significantly increase the odds for respiratory infections during severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreaks. This study assessed the incidence of COVID-19-like symptoms and the presence of COVID-19 antibodies after work-related COVID-19 exposures, among physicians working in a large academic hospital in New York City (NYC). METHODS: An e-mail survey was addressed to anesthesiologists and affiliated intensive care providers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center on April 15, 2020. The survey assessed 4 domains: (1) demographics and medical history, (2) community exposure to COVID-19 (eg, use of NYC subway), (3) work-related exposure to COVID-19, and (4) development of COVID-19-like symptoms after work exposure. The first 100 survey responders were invited to undergo a blood test to assess antibody status (presence of immunoglobulin M [IgM]/immunoglobulin G [IgG] specific to COVID-19). Work-related exposure was defined as any episode where the provider was not wearing adequate personal protective equipment (airborne or droplet/contact protection depending on the exposure type). Based on the clinical scenario, work exposure was categorized as high risk (eg, exposure during intubation) or low risk (eg, exposure during doffing). RESULTS: Two hundred and five health care providers were contacted and 105 completed the survey (51%); 91 completed the serological test. Sixty-one of the respondents (58%) reported at least 1 work-related exposure and 54% of the exposures were high risk. Among respondents reporting a work-related exposure, 16 (26.2%) reported postexposure COVID-19-like symptoms. The most frequent symptoms were myalgia (9 cases), diarrhea (8 cases), fever (7 cases), and sore throat (7 cases). COVID-19 antibodies were detected in 11 of the 91 tested respondents (12.1%), with no difference between respondents with (11.8%) or without (12.5%) a work-related exposure, including high-risk exposure. Compared with antibody-negative respondents, antibody-positive respondents were more likely to use NYC subway to commute to work and report COVID-19-like symptoms in the past 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: In the epicenter of the United States' pandemic and within 6-8 weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak, a small proportion of anesthesiologists and affiliated intensive care providers reported COVID-19-like symptoms after a work-related exposure and even fewer had detectable COVID-19 antibodies. The presence of COVID-19 antibodies appeared to be associated with community/environmental transmission rather than secondary to work-related exposures involving high-risk procedures.

Low persistence to rivaroxaban or warfarin among patients with new venous thromboembolism at a safety net academic medical center.

Recent guidelines recommend direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) over vitamin-k antagonist (VKA) for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Non-adherence to anticoagulation has been associated with increased frequency of VTE or stroke. This study evaluated 90 day persistence among patients prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin for the treatment of acute VTE at an academic safety net hospital. We conducted a single center, retrospective cohort study of 314 consecutive patients newly prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin for acute VTE between January 2016 and July 2017. Primary outcome was 90 day persistence, and secondary outcomes included 90 day readmission and/or ED visit, time to 90 m day readmission and/or ED visits, and attendance of direct oral anticoagulant education class. Of 314 patients, 78 were prescribed warfarin and 236 rivaroxaban. Patients had a mean age of 52 years, 62% were men, and 96% were diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Persistence at 90 days was 52.6% among patients prescribed warfarin compared to 45.3% for patients prescribed rivaroxaban (p = 0.2678). Persistencewas associated with decreased 90 day hospital or ED readmission. Among patients prescribed rivaroxaban, attending a pharmacist led educational class was associated with a 2.5 fold increase in persistence (p < 0.0001). Among patients with new onset venous thromboembolism, 90 day persistence with anticoagulation was similarly low with either rivaroxaban or warfarin therapy. Participation in a pharmacist led DOAC class was associated with a 2.5-fold increase in persistence on rivaroxaban.