Reducing Opioid Analgesic Prescribing in Dentistry Through Prescribing Defaults: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a uniform, reduced, default dispense quantity for new opioid analgesic prescriptions on the quantity of opioids prescribed in dentistry practices. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial within a health system in the Bronx, NY, USA. We randomly assigned three dentistry sites to a 10-tablet default, a 5-tablet default, or no change (control). The primary outcome was the quantity of opioid analgesics prescribed in the new prescription. Secondary outcomes were opioid analgesic reorders and health service utilization within 30 days after the new prescription. We analyzed outcomes from 6 months before implementation through 18 months after implementation. RESULTS: Overall, 6,309 patients received a new prescription. Compared with the control site, patients at the 10-tablet-default site had a significantly larger change in prescriptions for 10 tablets or fewer (38.7 percentage points; confidence interval [CI]: 11.5 to 66.0), lower number of tablets prescribed (-3.3 tablets; CI: -5.9 to -0.7), and lower morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed (-14.1 MME; CI: -27.8 to -0.4), which persisted in the 30 days after the new prescription despite a higher percentage of reorders (3.3 percentage points; CI: 0.2 to 6.4). Compared with the control site, patients at the 5-tablet-default site did not have a significant difference in any outcomes except for a significantly higher percentage of reorders (2.6 percentage points; CI: 0.2 to 4.9). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings further support the efficacy of strategies that lower default dispense quantities, although they indicate that caution is warranted in the selection of the default. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org ID: NCT03030469.

SARS-CoV-2 coinfection with additional respiratory virus does not predict severe disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) claimed over 4 million lives by July 2021 and continues to pose a serious public health threat. OBJECTIVES: Our retrospective study utilized respiratory pathogen panel (RPP) results in patients with SARS-CoV-2 to determine if coinfection (i.e. SARS-CoV-2 positivity with an additional respiratory virus) was associated with more severe presentation and outcomes. METHODS: All patients with negative influenza/respiratory syncytial virus testing who underwent RPP testing within 7 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test at a large, academic medical centre in New York were examined. Patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RPP were compared with patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 and positive for a virus by RPP in terms of biomarkers, oxygen requirements and severe COVID-19 outcome, as defined by mechanical ventilation or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Of the 306 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with RPP testing, 14 (4.6%) were positive for a non-influenza virus (coinfected). Compared with the coinfected group, patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a negative RPP had higher inflammatory markers and were significantly more likely to be admitted (P = 0.01). Severe COVID-19 outcome occurred in 111 (36.3%) patients in the SARS-CoV-2-only group and 3 (21.4%) patients in the coinfected group (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 along with a non-influenza respiratory virus had less severe disease on presentation and were more likely to be admitted-but did not have more severe outcomes-than those infected with SARS-CoV-2 alone.

BNP-Response to Acute Heart Failure Treatment Identifies High-Risk Population.

BACKGROUND: Using serial measurements of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) has been proposed as a method to guide therapy for patients treated for acute decompensated heart failure. However, 20-47% of patients do not achieve the target BNP thresholds despite treatment. We hypothesised that "BNP unresponsive" patients represent a distinct group at high risk for poor outcomes and sought to examine the characteristics and outcomes of this group. METHODS: In a retrospective study using electronic health record (EHR) data, we examined the outcomes of patients admitted with acute decompensated heart failure. Patients were divided into two groups based on their pro-BNP response to treatment: (1) pro-BNP responsive to treatment (decrease by at least 30%) and (2) pro-BNP unresponsive to treatment (decrease by less than 30%). The primary outcomes of interest were 180-day mortality and 180-day readmission. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the independent association between pro-BNP response to treatment and 180-day mortality and readmission. Adjustment variables included age, gender, Charlson co-morbidity score, admission creatinine, admission haematocrit, ejection fraction, preserved ejection fraction, and LV end-diastolic dimension. RESULTS: The total study population included 819 patients with 455 (55.6%) in the pro-BNP responsive group and 364 (44.4%) in the pro-BNP unresponsive group. Admissions whose BNP was unresponsive to treatment had significantly increased risk for 180-day mortality, compared with BNP-responsive admissions (26.4% vs. 13.2%, p < 0.001). Brain natriuretic peptide unresponsiveness remained significantly associated with increased 180-day mortality after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics (HRadj = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.52-3.14). BNP-unresponsiveness was not associated with significantly increased 180-day readmission rates (HRadj = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.92-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Patients whose pro-BNP did not improve by >30% were at increased risk for 180-day mortality, but not 180-day readmission. Thus, BNP-unresponsiveness provides meaningful prognostic information, and it may define a patient population that would benefit from specific therapies to reduce the risk.

Effect of Restriction of the Number of Concurrently Open Records in an Electronic Health Record on Wrong-Patient Order Errors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recommendations in the United States suggest limiting the number of patient records displayed in an electronic health record (EHR) to 1 at a time, although little evidence supports this recommendation. Objective: To assess the risk of wrong-patient orders in an EHR configuration limiting clinicians to 1 record vs allowing up to 4 records opened concurrently. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 3356 clinicians at a large health system in New York and was conducted from October 2015 to April 2017 in emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient settings. Interventions: Clinicians were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an EHR configuration limiting to 1 patient record open at a time (restricted; n = 1669) or allowing up to 4 records open concurrently (unrestricted; n = 1687). Main Outcomes and Measures: The unit of analysis was the order session, a series of orders placed by a clinician for a single patient. The primary outcome was order sessions that included 1 or more wrong-patient orders identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder measure (an electronic query that identifies orders placed for a patient, retracted, and then reordered shortly thereafter by the same clinician for a different patient). Results: Among the 3356 clinicians who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 43.1 [12.5] years; mean [SD] experience at study site, 6.5 [6.0] years; 1894 females [56.4%]), all provided order data and were included in the analysis. The study included 12 140 298 orders, in 4 486 631 order sessions, placed for 543 490 patients. There was no significant difference in wrong-patient order sessions per 100 000 in the restricted vs unrestricted group, respectively, overall (90.7 vs 88.0; odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]; P = .60) or in any setting (ED: 157.8 vs 161.3, OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83-1.20], P = .96; inpatient: 185.6 vs 185.1, OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.11]; P = .86; or outpatient: 7.9 vs 8.2, OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.70-1.28], P = .71). The effect did not differ among settings (P for interaction = .99). In the unrestricted group overall, 66.2% of the order sessions were completed with 1 record open, including 34.5% of ED, 53.7% of inpatient, and 83.4% of outpatient order sessions. Conclusions and Relevance: A strategy that limited clinicians to 1 EHR patient record open compared with a strategy that allowed up to 4 records open concurrently did not reduce the proportion of wrong-patient order errors. However, clinicians in the unrestricted group placed most orders with a single record open, limiting the power of the study to determine whether reducing the number of records open when placing orders reduces the risk of wrong-patient order errors. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02876588.

No Differences in Achieving Hepatitis C Virus Care Milestones Between Patients Identified by Birth Cohort or Risk-Based Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: National hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening guidelines recommended 1-time testing of persons born between 1945 and 1965. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study to compare care milestones achieved by HCV-infected patients identified by birth cohort versus risk-based screens. RESULTS: We determined the proportions of patients newly identified with HCV infection who met care milestones (viral load, referral to and evaluation by a specialist, offer of treatment, initiation of treatment, and sustained viral response) and the time it took to reach them. We found no differences in HCV care milestones for patients identified via birth cohort testing versus risk-based screening. Overall, only 43% of HCV antibody-positive patients were referred to care, and less than 4% started treatment. The time to each care milestone was lengthy and varied greatly; treatment was initiated in a median of 308 days. CONCLUSIONS: Although birth cohort testing will likely increase identification of patients with HCV infection, it does not seem to increase the number of patients that meet management milestones. New methods are needed to increase access to care and establish efficient models of health care delivery.

Increased Risk of Mortality among Patients Cared for by Physicians with Short Length-of-Stay Tendencies.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the prospective payment system in 1983, U.S. hospitals have been financially incentivized to reduce inpatient length of stay, and average length of stay has shortened dramatically. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether short length of stay is associated with worse patient outcomes. DESIGN: We used a quasi-experimental design to compare the outcomes of admissions assigned to physicians with short versus long length-of-stay tendencies. We used each physician's mean length of stay to define their length of stay tendency. We then compared the outcomes of admissions assigned to physicians with short versus long length-of-stay tendencies in propensity score-matched and adjusted analyses using mixed-effects and conditional logistic regression models. PATIENTS: The study included all admissions for 10 common diagnoses among patients admitted to the medical teaching service of an urban academic hospital from 7/1/2002 through 6/30/2008. MAIN MEASURE: The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: We examined 12,341 admissions among 79 physicians. After propensity score matching, admission groups were similar with respect to all demographic and clinical characteristics. Admissions of patients receiving care from short length-of-stay physicians were associated with significantly increased risk of 30-day mortality in adjusted (OR 1.43, 95 % CI: 1.11-1.85), propensity score-matched (OR 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.08-1.63), and matched and adjusted analyses (OR 1.36, 95 % CI: 0.98-1.90). CONCLUSIONS: Policies that incentivize short length of stay may lead to worse patient outcomes. The financial benefits of shortening inpatient length of stay should be weighed against the potential harm to patients.

A Birth-cohort testing intervention identified hepatitis c virus infection among patients with few identified risks: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines and U.S. guidelines prior to 2012 only recommended testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among patients at risk, but adherence to guidelines is poor, and the majority of those infected remain undiagnosed. A strategy to perform one-time testing of all patients born during 1945-1965, birth cohort testing, may diagnose HCV infection among patients whose risk remains unknown. We sought to determine if a birth-cohort testing intervention for HCV antibody positivity helped identify patients with fewer documented risk factors or medical indications than a pre-intervention, risk-based testing strategy. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional design with retrospective electronic medical record review to examine patients identified with HCV antibody positivity (Ab+) during a pre-intervention (risk-based) phase, the standard of care at the time, vs. a birth-cohort testing intervention phase. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics and HCV risk-associated factors among patients whose HCV Ab + was identified during the pre-intervention (risk-based testing) vs. post birth-cohort intervention phases. Study subjects were patients identified as HCV-Ab + in the baseline (risk-based) and birth-cohort testing phases of the Hepatitis C Assessment and Testing (HepCAT) Project. RESULTS: Compared to the risk-based phase, patients newly diagnosed with HCV Ab + after the birth-cohort intervention were significantly less likely to have a history of any substance abuse (30.5% vs. 49.5%, p = 0.02), elevated alanine transaminase levels of > 40 U/L (22.0% vs. 46.7%, p = 0.002), or the composite any risk-associated factor (55.9% vs. 79.0%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Birth-cohort testing is an useful strategy for identifying previously undiagnosed HCV Ab + because it does not require providers ask risk-based questions, or patients to disclose risk behaviors, and appears to identify HCV Ab + in patients who would not have been identified using a risk-based testing strategy.

Profiting and providing less care: comprehensive services at for-profit, nonprofit, and public opioid treatment programs in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorders are frequently associated with medical and psychiatric comorbidities (eg, HIV infection and depression), as well as social problems (eg, lack of health insurance). Comprehensive services addressing these conditions improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the proportion of for-profit, nonprofit, and public opioid treatment programs offering comprehensive services, which are not mandated by government regulations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis of opioid treatment programs offering outpatient care in the United States (n=1036). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Self-reported offering of communicable disease (HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and viral hepatitis) testing, psychiatric services (screening, assessment and diagnostic evaluation, and pharmacotherapy), and social services support (assistance in applying for programs such as Medicaid). Mixed-effects logistic regression models were developed to adjust for several county-level factors. RESULTS: Of opioid treatment programs, 58.0% were for profit, 33.5% were nonprofit, and 8.5% were public. Nonprofit programs were more likely than for-profit programs to offer testing for all communicable diseases [adjusted odds ratios (AOR), 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2, 2.5], all psychiatric services (AOR, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.9, 13.1), and social services support (AOR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.3, 4.8). Public programs were also more likely than for-profit programs to offer communicable disease testing (AOR, 6.4; 95% CI, 3.5, 11.7), all psychiatric services (AOR, 25.8; 95% CI, 12.6, 52.5), and social services support (AOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.4, 4.3). CONCLUSIONS: For-profit programs were significantly less likely than nonprofit and public programs to offer comprehensive services. Interventions to increase the offering of comprehensive services are needed, particularly among for-profit programs.

National Survey of Patient Safety Experiences in Hospital Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals were caring for increasing numbers of patients with a novel and highly contagious respiratory illness, forcing adaptations in care delivery. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of these adaptations on patient safety in hospital medicine. METHODS: The authors conducted a nationwide survey to understand patient safety challenges experienced by hospital medicine clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was distributed to members of the Society of Hospital Medicine via an e-mail listserv. It consisted of closed- and open-ended questions to elicit respondents' experience in five domains: error reporting and communication, staffing, equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE) and isolation practices, and infrastructure. Quantitative questions were reported as counts and percentages; qualitative responses were coded and analyzed for relevant themes. RESULTS: Of 196 total responses, 167 respondents (85.2%) were attending physicians and 85 (43.8%) practiced at teaching hospitals. Safety concerns commonly identified included nursing shortages (71.0%), limiting patient interactions to conserve PPE (61.9%), and feeling that one was practicing in a more hazardous environment (61.4%). In free-text responses, clinicians described poor outcomes and patient decompensation due to provider and equipment shortages, as well as communication lapses and diagnostic errors resulting from decreased patient contact and the need to follow isolation protocols. CONCLUSION: Efforts made to accommodate shortages in staff and equipment, adapt to limited PPE, and enforce isolation policies had unintended consequences that affected patient safety and created a more hazardous environment characterized by less efficient care, respiratory decompensations, diagnostic errors, and poor communication with patients.

The impact of ethnicity and obesity on the course of colonic diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Little research has been performed on the impact of race/ethnicity and obesity on the course of diverticulitis. PURPOSE: To determine whether patients of different racial/ethnic backgrounds and patients who are obese have disparate courses of disease with regard to complications, recurrence rates, and need for surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the charts of 347 patients with confirmed diverticulitis in 2 university teaching hospitals at Bronx, NY. RESULTS: African Americans were more likely [odds ratio (OR), 2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-5.00, P = 0.04] and Hispanics were less likely than other racial/ethnic groups (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-0.97; P = 0.04) to require surgery for recurrent diverticulitis after at least 1 medically managed hospital admission for diverticulitis. Caucasians were less likely than other racial/ethnic groups to suffer a recurrence of diverticulitis (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.86; P = 0.01). Obese patients [ body mass index (BMI) >30] were more likely than nonobese patients to experience a recurrent episode of diverticulitis (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.08-2.64; P = 0.02). The odds of requiring surgery on the initial presentation of diverticulitis were not significantly different among the various races/ethnicities nor was the likelihood of surgery influenced by BMI. Complication rates did not differ significantly when patients were stratified by age, sex, race, BMI, or number of prior episodes of diverticulitis. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for diverticulitis after at least 1 medically managed hospital admission for diverticulitis is more frequently needed in African Americans and less frequently needed in Hispanics. Caucasians are less likely than other races/ethnicities to suffer a recurrence of diverticulitis. Finally, obesity is a risk factor for recurrent diverticulitis, but not for surgical therapy of diverticulitis.

Effect of restricting electronic health records on clinician efficiency: substudy of a randomized clinical trial.

A prior randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no significant difference in wrong-patient errors between clinicians assigned to a restricted electronic health record (EHR) configuration (limiting to 1 record open at a time) versus an unrestricted EHR configuration (allowing up to 4 records open concurrently). However, it is unknown whether an unrestricted EHR configuration is more efficient. This substudy of the RCT compared clinician efficiency between EHR configurations using objective measures. All clinicians who logged onto the EHR during the substudy period were included. The primary outcome measure of efficiency was total active minutes per day. Counts were extracted from audit log data, and mixed-effects negative binomial regression was performed to determine differences between randomized groups. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Among a total of 2556 clinicians, there was no significant difference between unrestricted and restricted groups in total active minutes per day (115.1 vs 113.3 min, respectively; IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.06), overall or by clinician type and practice area.

Effectiveness of a risk screener in identifying hepatitis C virus in a primary care setting.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated an intervention designed to identify patients at risk for hepatitis C virus (HCV) through a risk screener used by primary care providers. METHODS: A clinical reminder sticker prompted physicians at 3 urban clinics to screen patients for 12 risk factors and order HCV testing if any risks were present. Risk factor data were collected from the sticker; demographic and testing data were extracted from electronic medical records. We used the t test, χ(2) test, and rank-sum test to compare patients who had and had not been screened and developed an analytic model to identify the incremental value of each element of the screener. RESULTS: Among screened patients, 27.8% (n = 902) were identified as having at least 1 risk factor. Of screened patients with risk factors, 55.4% (n = 500) were tested for HCV. Our analysis showed that 7 elements (injection drug use, intranasal drug use, elevated alanine aminotransferase, transfusions before 1992, ≥ 20 lifetime sex partners, maternal HCV, existing liver disease) accounted for all HCV infections identified. CONCLUSIONS: A brief risk screener with a paper-based clinical reminder was effective in increasing HCV testing in a primary care setting.

Early treatment with thiamine and mortality among patients with alcohol use disorder who are hospitalized for pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The paucity of research linking thiamine treatment with improved outcomes may be driving its underutilization among patients at risk for Wernicke encephalopathy. OBJECTIVE: To assess relationships of thiamine usage to outcomes of patients hospitalized with alcohol use disorder and pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with pneumonia who also have alcohol use disorder and were treated with benzodiazepines during the initial two hospital days, between 2010 and 2015 at hospitals participating in the Premier Healthcare Database. EXPOSURE: Any thiamine treatment, and, among those treated, high-dose thiamine treatment, during the initial two hospital days. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Death on days 3-14 of hospitalization (primary); discharge home; transfer to intensive care unit; length of stay (LOS). We used propensity-weighted models to estimate treatment effects. RESULTS: Among 36,732 patients from 625 hospitals, 26,520 (72.2%) patients received thiamine, with mortality of 6.5% and 8.1% among recipients and nonrecipients, respectively. With propensity score adjustment, thiamine was associated with reduced mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.85) and more frequent discharges to home (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.14). Other outcomes were similar. Relative to low-dose thiamine, high-dose thiamine was not associated with mortality (adjusted OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.89-1.10), but LOS was longer (ratio of means: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04-1.08), and discharges to home were less frequent (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87-0.97). CONCLUSION: Thiamine is not reliably given to patients with pneumonia and alcohol use disorder receiving benzodiazepines. Improving thiamine administration may represent an opportunity to save lives in this high-risk group of inpatients.

Critical Care Clinicians' Experiences of Patient Safety During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: It is unknown how hospital- and systems-level factors have impacted patient safety in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand how the pandemic has exacerbated preexisting patient safety issues and created novel patient safety challenges in ICUs in the United States. METHODS: We performed a national, multi-institutional, mixed-methods survey of critical care clinicians to elicit experiences related to patient safety during the pandemic. The survey was disseminated via email through the Society of Critical Care Medicine listserv. Data were reported as valid percentages, compared by COVID caseload and peak of the pandemic; free-text responses were analyzed and coded for themes. RESULTS: We received 335 survey responses. On general patient safety, 61% felt that conditions were more hazardous when compared with the prepandemic period. Those who took care of mostly COVID-19 patients were more likely to perceive that care was more hazardous (odds ratio, 4.89; 95% CI, 2.49-9.59) compared with those who took care of mostly non-COVID-19 or no COVID-19 patients. In free-text responses, providers identified patient safety risks related to pandemic adaptations, such as ventilator-related lung injury, medication and diagnostic errors, oversedation, oxygen device removal, and falls. CONCLUSIONS: Increased COVID-19 case burden was significantly associated with perceptions of a less safe patient care environment by frontline ICU clinicians. Results of the qualitative analysis identified specific patient safety hazards in ICUs across the United States as downstream consequences of hospital and provider strain during periods of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Association Between English Proficiency and Timing of Analgesia Administration After Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients from families with limited English proficiency (LEP) are at risk for health care disparities. We examined timeliness of analgesic administration in pediatric postoperative patients with a limb fracture from LEP versus non-LEP families. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of children aged 1 year to <18 years of age, hospitalized to the general inpatient floor after surgical correction of single limb fractures between July 2016 and July 2019 were eligible. Patients whose consent was in a non-English language or for whom an interpreter was used were classified as from LEP families. The primary outcome was time to first analgesia. Secondary outcomes included time to first opioid, proportion with any analgesia and opioid analgesia, and number of pain assessments. Associations between LEP and outcomes were tested by using χ2 tests, Kaplan-Meier plots, and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: We examined 306 patients, of whom 59 (19%) were from LEP families. Children in LEP families were significantly less likely to receive any analgesia (86.4% vs 96.8%, P ≤ .01) and experienced longer time to first analgesia in unadjusted (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.92) and adjusted analyses (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.94). There was no significant association between LEP and time to first opioid, proportion given opioid analgesia, or number of pain assessments. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized children from LEP families experience a longer time to analgesia administration after surgery. The mechanisms that lead to these differences in care must be identified so that interventions can be designed to address them.

Effect of Changing Electronic Health Record Opioid Analgesic Dispense Quantity Defaults on the Quantity Prescribed: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Interventions to improve judicious prescribing of opioid analgesics for acute pain are needed owing to the risks of diversion, misuse, and overdose. Objective: To assess the effect of modifying opioid analgesic prescribing defaults in the electronic health record (EHR) on prescribing and health service use. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster randomized clinical trial with 2 parallel arms was conducted between June 13, 2016, and June 13, 2018, in a large urban health care system comprising 32 primary care and 4 emergency department (ED) sites in the Bronx, New York. Data were analyzed using a difference-in-differences method from 6 months before implementation through 18 months after implementation. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to February 2020. Interventions: A default dispense quantity for new opioid analgesic prescriptions of 10 tablets (intervention) vs no change (control) in the EHR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the quantity of opioid analgesics prescribed with the new default prescription. Secondary outcomes were opioid analgesic reorders and health service use within 30 days after the new prescription. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Results: Overall, 21 331 patients received a new opioid analgesic prescription from 490 prescribers. Comparing the intervention and control arms, site, prescriber, and patient characteristics were similar. For the new prescription, compared with the control arm, patients in the intervention arm had significantly more prescriptions for 10 tablets or fewer (7.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.1-9.2 percentage points), a lower number of tablets prescribed (-2.1 tablets; 95% CI, -3.3 to -0.9 tablets), and lower morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed (-14.6 MME; 95% CI, -22.6 to -6.6 MME). Within 30 days after the new prescription, significant differences remained in the number of tablets prescribed (-2.7 tablets; 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.6 tablets), but not MME (-15.8 MME; 95% CI, -33.8 to 2.2 MME). Within this 30-day period, there were no significant differences between the arms in health service use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, implementation of a uniform reduced default dispense quantity of 10 tablets for opioid analgesic prescriptions led to a modest reduction in the quantity prescribed initially, without significantly increasing health service use. However, during 30 days after implementation, the influence on prescribing was mixed. Reducing EHR default dispense quantities for opioid analgesics is a feasible strategy that can be widely disseminated and may modestly reduce prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03003832.

Severe obesity, increasing age and male sex are independently associated with worse in-hospital outcomes, and higher in-hospital mortality, in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 in the Bronx, New York.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: New York is the current epicenter of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The underrepresented minorities, where the prevalence of obesity is higher, appear to be affected disproportionately. Our objectives were to assess the characteristics and early outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Bronx and investigate whether obesity is associated with worse outcomes independently from age, gender and other comorbidities. METHODS: This retrospective study included the first 200 patients admitted to a tertiary medical center with COVID-19. The electronic medical records were reviewed at least three weeks after admission. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 200 patients were included (female sex: 102, African American: 102). The median BMI was 30 kg/m2. The median age was 64 years. Hypertension (76%), hyperlipidemia (46.2%), and diabetes (39.5%) were the three most common comorbidities. Fever (86%), cough (76.5%), and dyspnea (68%) were the three most common symptoms. 24% died during hospitalization (BMI < 25 kg/m2: 31.6%, BMI 25-34 kg/m2: 17.2%, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2: 34.8%, p = 0.03). Increasing age (analyzed in quartiles), male sex, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 (reference: BMI 25-34 kg/m2), heart failure, CAD, and CKD or ESRD were found to have a significant univariate association with mortality. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 (reference: BMI 25-34 kg/m2, OR: 3.78; 95% CI: 1.45-9.83; p = 0.006), male sex (OR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.25-5.98; p = 0.011) and increasing age (analyzed in quartiles, OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.13-2.63; p = 0.011) were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Similarly, age, male sex, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 and current or prior smoking were significant predictors for increasing oxygenation requirements in the multivariate analysis, while male sex, age and BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 were significant predictors in the multivariate analysis for the outcome of intubation. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in a minority-predominant population, severe obesity, increasing age, and male sex were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and in general worse in-hospital outcomes.

Screening of Clostridioides difficile carriers in an urban academic medical center: Understanding implications of disease.

OBJECTIVE: Efforts to reduce Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) have targeted transmission from patients with symptomatic C. difficile. However, many patients with the C. difficile organism are carriers without symptoms who may serve as reservoirs for spread of infection and may be at risk for progression to symptomatic C. difficile. To estimate the prevalence of C. difficile carriage and determine the risk and speed of progression to symptomatic C. difficile among carriers, we established a pilot screening program in a large urban hospital. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: An 800-bed, tertiary-care, academic medical center in the Bronx, New York. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of admitted adults without diarrhea, with oversampling of nursing facility patients. METHODS: Perirectal swabs were tested by polymerase chain reaction for C. difficile within 24 hours of admission, and patients were followed for progression to symptomatic C. difficile. Development of symptomatic C. difficile was compared among C. difficile carriers and noncarriers using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of the 220 subjects, 21 (9.6%) were C. difficile carriers, including 10.2% of the nursing facility residents and 7.7% of the community residents (P = .60). Among the 21 C. difficile carriers, 8 (38.1%) progressed to symptomatic C. difficile, but only 4 (2.0%) of the 199 noncarriers progressed to symptomatic C. difficile (hazard ratio, 23.9; 95% CI, 7.2-79.6; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic carriage of C. difficile is prevalent among admitted patients and confers a significant risk of progression to symptomatic CDI. Screening for asymptomatic carriers may represent an opportunity to reduce CDI.

The effect of erroneous computer interpretation of ECGs on resident decision making.

BACKGROUND: The use of computer interpretations of electrocardiograms(ECGs) as an aid to physician interpretations is widespread. Computer misinterpretations are common and negatively affect physician interpretations. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of computer ECG misinterpretations on clinical decision making. DESIGN: Quasi-randomized trial. SETTING: Resident teaching conferences. PARTICIPANTS: Included 105 internal and emergency medicine residents. INTERVENTION: After a brief case presentation, residents were asked to interpret an ECG and choose appropriate management. Residents chose from a concealed stack of handouts; some contained an erroneous computer interpretation of the ECG (citing acute ischemia), and some contained no computer interpretation. MEASUREMENTS: ECG interpretations and management decisions by residents whose ECG did or did not include an erroneous computer interpretation were compared using chi-square tests. RESULTS: The presence or absence of erroneous computer interpretations of ischemia did not significantly affect residents' ECG interpretations (P = 0.62). However, the residents whose ECGs included erroneous computer interpretations were more likely to recommend revascularization than the residents without (30% v. 10%, P = 0.01). Of those residents who read the ECG as diagnostic of ischemia, those with the erroneous computer interpretation were more likely to recommend revascularization than those without (54% v. 25%, P = 0.048). LIMITATIONS: A single ECG was used. CONCLUSIONS: Erroneous computer interpretations of ECGs affected residents' clinical decision making in the absence of an effect on the actual interpretation of the ECG. Measuring the impact of computer misinterpretations by examining only physician interpretations will underestimate the effect of computer misinterpretations on clinical decision making.