Building Pandemic-Resilient Primary Care Systems: Lessons Learned From COVID-19.

On January 30, 2023, the Biden Administration announced its intention to end the existing COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. The transition to a "postpandemic" landscape presents a unique opportunity to sustain and strengthen pandemic-era changes in care delivery. With this in mind, we present 3 critical lessons learned from a primary care perspective during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, clinical workflows must support both in-person and internet-based care delivery. Second, the integration of asynchronous care delivery is critical. Third, planning for the future means planning for everyone, including those with potentially limited access to health care due to barriers in technology and communication. While these lessons are neither unique to primary care settings nor all-encompassing, they establish a grounded foundation on which to construct higher-quality, more resilient, and more equitable health systems.

More isn't always better: Technology in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Clinical care in modern intensive care units (ICUs) combines multidisciplinary expertise and a complex array of technologies. These technologies have clearly advanced the ability of clinicians to do more for patients, yet so much equipment also presents the possibility for cognitive overload. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of technology in ICUs. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We analyzed qualitative data from 30 interviews with ICU clinicians and frontline managers within four ICUs. RESULTS: Our interviews identified three main challenges associated with technology in the ICU: (a) too many technologies and too much data; (b) inconsistent and inaccurate technologies; and (c) not enough integration among technologies, alignment with clinical workflows, and support for clinician identities. To address these challenges, interviewees highlighted mitigation strategies to address both social and technical systems and to achieve joint optimization. CONCLUSION: When new technologies are added to the ICU, they have potential both to improve and to disrupt patient care. To successfully implement technologies in the ICU, clinicians' perspectives are crucial. Understanding clinicians' perspectives can help limit the disruptive effects of new technologies, so clinicians can focus their time and attention on providing care to patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As technology and data continue to play an increasingly important role in ICU care, everyone involved in the design, development, approval, implementation, and use of technology should work together to apply a sociotechnical systems approach to reduce possible negative effects on clinical care for critically ill patients.

Patient preferences regarding intraoperative versus external beam radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery.

The TARGIT-A Trial is an international randomized, prospective trial comparing intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) for equivalence to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) following lumpectomy for invasive breast cancer in selected low-risk patients; early results suggest that outcomes are similar. In addition to effectiveness data and cost considerations, the preferences of patients should help inform practice. This study was undertaken to explore and quantify preference in choosing between IORT and the current standard, EBRT. Eligible subjects were current or past candidates for breast-conserving surgery and radiation being seen at the University of California, San Francisco Breast Care Center. A trade-off technique varying the risk of local recurrence for IORT was used to quantify any additional accepted risk that these patients would accept to receive either treatment. Patients were first presented with a slideshow comparing EBRT with the experimental IORT option before being asked their preferences given hypothetical 10-year local recurrence risks. Patients were then given a questionnaire on demographic, social and clinical factors. Data from 81 patients were analyzed. The median additional accepted risk to have IORT was 2.3 % (-9 to 39 %), mean 3.2 %. Only 7 patients chose to accept additional risk for EBRT; 22 accepted IORT at no additional risk; and the remaining 52 chose IORT with some additional risk. Patients weigh trade-offs of risks and benefits when presented with medical treatment choices. Our results show that the majority of breast cancer patients will accept a small increment of local risk for a simpler delivery of radiation. Further studies that incorporate outcome and side effect data from the TARGIT-A trial clarify the expected consequences of a local recurrence, and include an expanded range of radiation options that could help guide clinical decision making in this area.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Pneumonia in Urgent Care Clinics: Opportunities for Improving Care.

Background: Community-acquired pneumonia is a well-studied condition; yet, in the urgent care setting, patient characteristics and adherence to guideline-recommended care are poorly described. Within Intermountain Health, a nonprofit integrated US health care system based in Utah, more patients present to urgent care clinics (UCCs) than emergency departments (EDs) for pneumonia care. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study 1 January 2019 through 31 December 2020 in 28 UCCs within Utah. We extracted electronic health record data for patients aged ≥12 years with ICD-10 pneumonia diagnoses entered by the bedside clinician, excluding patients with preceding pneumonia within 30 days or missing vital signs. We compared UCC patients with radiographic pneumonia (n = 4689), without radiographic pneumonia (n = 1053), without chest imaging (n = 1472), and matched controls with acute cough/bronchitis (n = 15 972). Additional outcomes were 30-day mortality and the proportion of patients with ED visits or hospital admission within 7 days after the index encounter. Results: UCC patients diagnosed with pneumonia and possible/likely radiographic pneumonia by radiologist report had a mean age of 40 years and 52% were female. Almost all patients with pneumonia (93%) were treated with antibiotics, including those without radiographic confirmation. Hospital admissions and ED visits within 7 days were more common in patients with radiographic pneumonia vs patients with "unlikely" radiographs (6% vs 2% and 10% vs 6%, respectively). Observed 30-day all-cause mortality was low (0.26%). Patients diagnosed without chest imaging presented similarly to matched patients with cough/acute bronchitis. Most patients admitted to the hospital the same day after the UCC visit (84%) had an interim ED encounter. Pneumonia severity scores (pneumonia severity index, electronic CURB-65, and shock index) overestimated patient need for hospitalization. Conclusions: Most UCC patients with pneumonia were successfully treated as outpatients. Opportunities to improve care include clinical decision support for diagnosing pneumonia with radiographic confirmation and development of pneumonia severity scores tailored to the UCC.

Real-world Effectiveness and Tolerability of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Ambulatory Patients With Early COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are a promising therapy for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their effectiveness has not been confirmed in a real-world setting. METHODS: In this quasi-experimental pre-/postimplementation study, we estimated the effectiveness of MAb treatment within 7 days of symptom onset in high-risk ambulatory adults with COVID-19. The primary outcome was a composite of emergency department visits or hospitalizations within 14 days of positive test. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and 14-day mortality. The average treatment effect in the treated for MAb therapy was estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting and the impact of MAb implementation using propensity-weighted interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: Pre-implementation (July-November 2020), 7404 qualifying patients were identified. Postimplementation (December 2020-January 2021), 594 patients received MAb treatment and 5536 did not. The primary outcome occurred in 75 (12.6%) MAb recipients, 1018 (18.4%) contemporaneous controls, and 1525 (20.6%) historical controls. MAb treatment was associated with decreased likelihood of emergency care or hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79). After implementation, the weighted probability that a given patient would require an emergency department visit or hospitalization decreased significantly (0.7% per day; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.10%). Mortality was 0.2% (n = 1) in the MAb group compared with 1.0% (n = 71) and 1.0% (n = 57) in pre- and postimplementation controls, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 7 (1.2%); 2 (0.3%) were considered serious. CONCLUSIONS: MAb treatment of high-risk ambulatory patients with early COVID-19 was well tolerated and likely effective at preventing the need for subsequent emergency department or hospital care.

The impact of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging on surgical treatment and outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful imaging modality for invasive cancer, its role in preoperative surgical planning for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has not been established. We sought to determine whether preoperative MRI affects surgical treatment and outcomes in women with pure DCIS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed consecutive records of women diagnosed with pure DCIS on core biopsy between 2000 and 2007. Patient characteristics, surgical planning, and outcomes were compared between patients with and without preoperative MRI. Multivariable regression was performed to determine which covariates were independently associated with mastectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). RESULTS: Of 149 women diagnosed with DCIS, 38 underwent preoperative MRI. On univariate analysis, patients undergoing MRI were younger (50 years vs. 59 years; P < .001) and had larger DCIS size on final pathology (1.6 cm vs. 1.0 cm; P = .007) than those without MRI. Mastectomy and SLNB rates were significantly higher in the preoperative MRI group (45% vs. 14%, P < .001; and 47% vs. 23%, P = .004, respectively). However, there were no differences in number of re-excisions, margin status, and margin size between the two groups. On multivariate analysis, preoperative MRI and age were independently associated with mastectomy (OR, 3.16, P = .018; OR, 0.95, P = .031, respectively), while multifocality, size, and family history were not significant predictors. CONCLUSION: We found a strong association between preoperative MRI and mastectomy in women undergoing treatment for DCIS. Additional studies are needed to examine the increased rates of mastectomy as a possible consequence of preoperative MRI for DCIS.

Type and duration of exogenous hormone use affects breast cancer histology.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether hormone replacement therapy (HRT), in addition to increasing risk for breast cancer, affects the type of breast cancer diagnosed. We conducted this investigation to assess whether the type of hormone used (none, estrogen, progesterone, or combined) and duration of use influences subsequent breast cancer histology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis among women listed as incident cases of breast malignancy in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Cancer Registry during 2003 (n = 2830). Type and duration of hormone used (none, estrogen, progesterone, or combined) before breast cancer diagnosis was obtained from electronic pharmacy records. The association between type and duration of hormone use with characteristics of subsequent breast cancers was examined. RESULTS: Among women aged >50 years (n = 1701), any use of estrogen, progesterone, or combination therapy was not associated with an increased risk of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease. However, >6 months' use of combined HRT increased the odds of ER-positive tumors (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.5; P = .02). Estrogen HRT patients were more likely than nonusers to present with low-grade (P = .05), and early-stage tumors (P = .03). This trend was not seen in combined HRT users. CONCLUSIONS: Short-duration HRT did not increase the likelihood of ER-positive breast cancer. However, prolonged duration of combined HRT, but not estrogen or progesterone alone, resulted in a marked increase in ER-positive disease. Our findings suggest that the effect of combined HRT on breast cancer incidence or progression is not immediate and that long-term use is more likely to affect breast cancer histology.