Employee Dietary Initiative Improved Chronic Symptoms.

With the awareness that the Standard American Diet is a critical contributor to chronic diseases, this initiative aimed to assess the effects of a 28-day dietary challenge health care improvement project on health system employee energy level, sleep quality, gastrointestinal function, ability to concentrate, and aches/pains, including the impact of adherence level, during a period of restricted intake of gluten, dairy, and sugar offered annually from 2021 to 2023. A total of 754 employees completed the pre-challenge survey; analyses included 354 employees who completed both pre-challenge and post-challenge surveys in at least 1 year of this project. Wilcoxon signed rank tests compared presurvey and postsurvey responses to self-reported energy level, sleep quality, gastrointestinal function, ability to concentrate, and aches/pains. Analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference tests compared self-reported adherence level with change scores, with η2 representing effect size. In each challenge year, the mean rank levels of energy, sleep quality, gastrointestinal function, concentration, and aches/pains improved significantly between pre-surveys and post-surveys (all P<.001). Although an association between significant positive change and diet adherence level was found for all items in at least 1 challenge year, those who mostly or completely adhered to the challenge diet restrictions reported significantly greater positive change in energy levels and gastrointestinal symptoms than those who did not or minimally adhered in all challenge years, with small to medium effect sizes. In conclusion, Essentia Health's employee challenge appeared to improve self-reported outcomes in 5 symptom domains, with energy levels and gastrointestinal symptoms correlating most favorably to adherence to the challenge. These findings have health and cost implications, which could be confirmed by formal research in employee and other populations.

Physician and Advanced Practice Clinician Burnout in Rural and Urban Settings.

INTRODUCTION: Recruiting rural-practicing clinicians is a high priority. In this study, we explored burnout and contributing work conditions among rural, urban, and family practice physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in an Upper Midwestern health care system. METHODS: The Mini Z burnout reduction measure was administered by anonymous electronic survey in March 2022. We conducted bivariate analyses of study variables, then assessed relationships of study variables to burnout with multivariate binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1118 clinicians (63% response rate), 589 physicians and 496 APCs were included in this study (n = 1085). Most were female (56%), physicians (54%), and White (86%), while 21% were in family practice, 46% reported burnout, and 349 practiced rurally. Rural and urban clinician burnout rates were comparable (45% vs 47%). Part-time work protected against burnout for family practice and rural clinicians, but not urban clinicians. In multivariate models for rural clinicians, stress (OR: 8.53, 95% CI: 4.09 to 17.78, P < .001), lack of workload control (OR: 3.06, 95% CI: 1.47-6.36, P = .003), busy/chaotic environments (OR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.29-4.99, P = .007), and intent to leave (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.06-4.45, P = .033) increased burnout odds. In family practice clinicians, stress (OR: 13.43 95% CI: 4.90-36.79, P < .001) also significantly increased burnout odds. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout was comparable between rural and urban physicians and APCs. Part-time work was associated with decreased burnout in rural and family practice clinicians. Addressing burnout drivers (stress, workload control, chaos) may improve rural work environments, reduce turnover, and aid rural clinician recruitment. Addressing stress may be particularly impactful in family practice.

Scanning the aged to minimize missed injury: An EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high incidence of blunt trauma in older adults, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance for computed tomography (CT) imaging in this population. We aimed to identify an algorithm to guide use of a Pan-Scan (Head/C-spine/Torso) or a Selective Scan (Head/C-spine ± Torso). We hypothesized that a patient's initial history and exam could be used to guide imaging. METHODS: We prospectively studied blunt trauma patients aged 65+ at 18 Level I/II trauma centers. Patients presenting >24 h after injury or who died upon arrival were excluded. We collected history and physical elements and final injury diagnoses. Injury diagnoses were categorized into CT body regions of Head/C-spine or Torso (chest, abdomen/pelvis, and T/L spine). Using machine learning and regression modeling as well as a priori clinical algorithms based, we tested various decision rules against our dataset. Our priority was to identify a simple rule which could be applied at the bedside, maximizing sensitivity (Sens) and negative predictive value (NPV) to minimize missed injuries. RESULTS: We enrolled 5,498 patients with 3,082 injuries. Nearly half (47.1%, n = 2,587) had an injury within the defined CT body regions. No rule to guide a Pan-Scan could be identified with suitable Sens/NPV for clinical use. A clinical algorithm to identify patients for Pan-Scan, using a combination of physical exam findings and specific high-risk criteria, was identified and had a Sens of 0.94 and NPV of 0.86 This rule would have identified injuries in all but 90 patients (1.6%) and would theoretically spare 11.9% (655) of blunt trauma patients a torso CT. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings advocate for Head/Cspine CT in all geriatric patients with the addition of torso CT in the setting of positive clinical findings and high-risk criteria. Prospective validation of this rule could lead to streamlined diagnostic care of this growing trauma population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2, Diagnostic Tests or Criteria.