Nucleated Red Blood Cells Are Predictive of In-Hospital Mortality for Pediatric Patients.

PURPOSE: We sought to establish whether nucleated red blood cells (NRBCs) are predictive of disposition, morbidity, and mortality for pediatric patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study examining all ED encounters from patients aged younger than 19 years between January 2016 and March 2020, during which a complete blood count was obtained. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to test the presence of NRBCs as an independent predictor of patient-related outcomes. RESULTS: The prevalence of NRBCs was 8.9% (4195/46,991 patient encounters). Patient with NRBCs were younger (median age 4.58 vs 8.23 years; P < 0.001). Those with NRBCs had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (30/2465 [1.22%] vs 65/21,741 [0.30%]; P < 0.001), sepsis (19% vs 12%; P < 0.001), shock (7% vs 4%; P < 0.001), and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (0.62% vs 0.09%; P < 0.001). They were more likely to be admitted (59% vs 51%; P < 0.001), have longer median hospital length of stay {1.3 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.22-4.14) vs 0.8 days (IQR, 0.23-2.64); P < 0.001}, and median intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (3.9 [IQR, 1.87-8.72] vs 2.6 days [IQR, 1.27-5.83]; P < 0.001). Multivariable regression revealed presence of NRBCs as an independent predictor for in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-3.53; P < 0.001), ICU admission (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.51; P < 0.001), CPR (aOR, 3.83; 95% CI, 2.33-6.30; P < 0.001), and 30-day return to the ED (aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.15-1.26; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of NRBCs is an independent predictor for mortality, including in-hospital mortality, ICU admission, CPR, and readmission within 30 days for children presenting to the ED.

The association of hospital quality ratings with adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how patient-reported quality is related to adverse events (AEs). DESIGN: Random sample telephone survey. SETTING: Sixteen acute care Massachusetts hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand and five hundred and eight-two of 4163 (62% response rate) eligible adult patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients hospitalized from 1 April 2003 to 1 October 2003 provided global quality ratings and whether they experienced AEs. Service recovery, defined as efforts by a service provider to return customers to a state of satisfaction after a lapse in service, was operationalized as high participation in one's care, timely discharge and disclosure of the circumstances of an AE. RESULTS: Of respondents, 82% rated the quality as high and 23% reported one or more AEs. Patients with no AEs gave higher quality ratings (85 vs. 77 or 62% for patients with 1 or 2+ AEs, respectively, P < 0.001). Patients were more likely to rate the quality high if they reported high participation (86 vs. 53%), or felt discharge timing was just right (85 vs. 64%); for those with AEs, ratings were higher among those reporting disclosure (82 vs. 66%) (all P < 0.01). In adjusted analyses, patients with AEs experiencing all three service recovery components rated their quality higher (86 vs. 68%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AEs rate the quality of care lower than others. However, patients with AEs who experienced 'service recovery' as we defined it rated their quality of care at levels similar to those who did not experience AEs. Hospitals seeking to improve quality ratings might consider efforts to ensure patient safety and to address AEs in a transparent and responsive way.

Feasibility of Weekly Electronic Health Record-Embedded Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Starting Oral Cancer-Directed Therapy.

PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility of integrating a symptom management platform into the electronic health record (EHR) using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) during oral cancer-directed therapy (OCDT) and explore the impact of prompting oncology nurse navigators (ONNs) to respond to severe symptomatic adverse events (SAEs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults prescribed OCDT at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were consecutively invited to participate. Participants received weekly messages to complete ePROs. The first half enrolled in a passive (P) group where ePROs responses could be viewed anytime, but outreach was not expected. The second half enrolled in an active (A) group where severe SAEs prompted emails to ONNs for outreach within 1 business day. Feasibility was the proportion of participants completing ≥2 ePROs during the first 30 days. Participants were followed for up to 90 days. RESULTS: From June 25, 2019, to August 18, 2021, 100 participants enrolled, and 96 remained enrolled for at least 30 days. Overall, average age was 59 years, 80% female, and 9% used the platform in Spanish. Twenty-two A (45%) and 27 P (57%) participants met the feasibility threshold (P = .26). ePROs returned at 30 days were similar (P = .50): 0 ePROs 17 A, 13 P; 1 ePRO 10 A, 7 P; 2 ePROs 3 A, 5 P; 3 ePROs 1 A, 4 P; 4 ePROs 7 A, 8 P; and 5 ePROs 11 A, 10 P. Documented telephone encounters at 30 days were similar (109 A, 101 P; P = .86). CONCLUSION: EHR-embedded ePROs administered weekly for people on OCDT was feasible, although many went incomplete. ePRO completion was not clearly affected by nursing calls for severe SAEs. Future efforts will investigate improving engagement and addressing symptoms proactively.

Effect of the Serious Illness Care Program on Health Care Utilization at the End of Life for Patients with Cancer.

Objectives: To determine the effect of the Serious Illness Care Program on health care utilization at the end of life in oncology. Design: Analysis of the secondary outcome of health care utilization as part of a cluster-randomized clinical trial that ran from 2012 to 2016. Clinicians in the intervention group received training, coaching, and system supports to have discussions with patients using a Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG); clinicians in the control arm followed usual care. Setting/Subject: Patients with advanced cancer who died within two years of enrollment at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Measurement: Health care utilization was abstracted from the electronic medical record using the National Quality Forum (NQF)-endorsed indicators of aggressive cancer care at the end of life and scored from 0 to 6 (one point for each aggressive indicator); t tests and chi-square tests were used to determine differences between intervention and control patients. Results: The charts of 159 patients who died were reviewed. Neither the main outcome of mean number of aggressive indicators (0.9 vs. 0.9, p = 0.84) nor the proportion of patients with any aggressive care (49% intervention [95% CI: 40-57] vs. 54% control [95% CI: 42-67]) differed between patients in the intervention and control groups. Conclusion: In this analysis of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial of the Serious Illness Care Program, intervention and control patients had similar end-of-life health care utilization as measured by the mean number of NQF-endorsed indicators. Future research efforts should focus on studying the strategies by which communication about patients' prognosis, values, and goals leads to personalized care plans.

The Surgical Safety Checklist and Teamwork Coaching Tools: a study of inter-rater reliability.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of two novel observation tools for measuring surgical safety checklist performance and teamwork. SUMMARY BACKGROUND: Data surgical safety checklists can promote adherence to standards of care and improve teamwork in the operating room. Their use has been associated with reductions in mortality and other postoperative complications. However, checklist effectiveness depends on how well they are performed. METHODS: Authors from the Safe Surgery 2015 initiative developed a pair of novel observation tools through literature review, expert consultation and end-user testing. In one South Carolina hospital participating in the initiative, two observers jointly attended 50 surgical cases and independently rated surgical teams using both tools. We used descriptive statistics to measure checklist performance and teamwork at the hospital. We assessed IRR by measuring percent agreement, Cohen's κ, and weighted κ scores. RESULTS: The overall percent agreement and κ between the two observers was 93% and 0.74 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), respectively, for the Checklist Coaching Tool and 86% and 0.84 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.90) for the Surgical Teamwork Tool. Percent agreement for individual sections of both tools was 79% or higher. Additionally, κ scores for six of eight sections on the Checklist Coaching Tool and for two of five domains on the Surgical Teamwork Tool achieved the desired 0.7 threshold. However, teamwork scores were high and variation was limited. There were no significant changes in the percent agreement or κ scores between the first 10 and last 10 cases observed. CONCLUSIONS: Both tools demonstrated substantial IRR and required limited training to use. These instruments may be used to observe checklist performance and teamwork in the operating room. However, further refinement and calibration of observer expectations, particularly in rating teamwork, could improve the utility of the tools.

Preventing cardiac remodeling: the combination of cell-based therapy and cardiac support therapy preserves left ventricular function in rodent model of myocardial ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Cellular and mechanical treatment to prevent heart failure each holds therapeutic promise but together have not been reported yet. The goal of the present study was to determine whether combining a cardiac support device with cell-based therapy could prevent adverse left ventricular remodeling, more than either therapy alone. METHODS: The present study was completed in 2 parts. In the first part, mesenchymal stem cells were isolated from rodent femurs and seeded on a collagen-based scaffold. In the second part, myocardial infarction was induced in 60 rats. The 24 survivors were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: control, stem cell therapy, cardiac support device, and a combination of stem cell therapy and cardiac support device. Left ventricular function was measured with biweekly echocardiography, followed by end-of-life histopathologic analysis at 6 weeks. RESULTS: After myocardial infarction and treatment intervention, the ejection fraction remained preserved (74.9-80.2%) in the combination group at an early point (2 weeks) compared with the control group (66.2-82.8%). By 6 weeks, the combination therapy group had a significantly greater fractional area of change compared with the control group (69.2% ± 6.7% and 49.5% ± 6.1% respectively, P = .03). Also, at 6 weeks, the left ventricular wall thickness was greater in the combination group than in the stem cell therapy alone group (1.79 ± 0.11 and 1.33 ± 0.13, respectively, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Combining a cardiac support device with stem cell therapy preserves left ventricular function after myocardial infarction, more than either therapy alone. Furthermore, stem cell delivery using a cardiac support device is a novel delivery approach for cell-based therapies.