Response characteristics of objective perimetry in persons living with epilepsy.

PURPOSE: To investigate safety and visual-field changes in people with epilepsy undergoing multifocal Pupillographic Objective Perimetry (mfPOP). METHODS: 15 people with epilepsy and 15 controls underwent mfPOP in the context of routine clinical EEG testing. Safety measures comprised the proportion of participants developing an aura or seizure, a photoparoxysmal response, or increased epileptiform activity on their EEG during mfPOP. Pupil responses were obtained concurrently from 44 regions/field of each eye. Changes in standardised amplitude of constriction and time-to-peak were compared between people with generalised and focal epilepsy, and controls. RESULTS: No participant developed an epileptic aura or clinical seizure during (or after) testing. One participant demonstrated EEG evidence of a focal subclinical seizure which began before mfPOP testing and continued unchanged during testing. Regional field sensitivities were increased in people with generalised epilepsy (+3.80 ± 1.43 dB compared to controls) but were reduced in individuals taking antiepileptic medication (-4.04 ± 1.74 dB). An extra delay of 24.9 ± 10.2 ms was seen in the time-to-peak of the responses in people with focal epilepsy. Based on receiver-operating characteristic analyses, discrimination of people with epilepsy from controls was greatest when using the 4 to 10 most abnormal visual field regions of each eye (%AUC 77.3 ± 9.70). SIGNIFICANCE: In the absence of any safety signal, mfPOP appears harmless in people with epilepsy. The observed abnormalities in per-region sensitives and delays suggest that mfPOP may provide significant new insights into the study of epilepsy.

Emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations among older patients with brain metastases: a dual population- and institution-level analysis.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with brain metastases (BrM) commonly experience symptoms that prompt acute medical evaluation. We characterized emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient hospitalizations in this population. METHODS: We identified 17 789 and 361 Medicare enrollees diagnosed with BrM using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (2010-2016) and an institutional database (2007-2016), respectively. Predictors of ED visits and hospitalizations were assessed using Poisson regression. RESULTS: The institutional cohort averaged 3.3 ED visits/1.9 hospitalizations per person-year, with intracranial disease being the most common reason for presentation/admission. SEER-Medicare patients averaged 2.8 ED visits/2.0 hospitalizations per person-year. For patients with synchronous BrM (N = 7834), adjusted risk factors for ED utilization and hospitalization, respectively, included: male sex (rate ratio [RR] = 1.15 [95% CI = 1.09-1.22], P < .001; RR = 1.21 [95% CI = 1.13-1.29], P < .001); African American vs white race (RR = 1.30 [95% CI = 1.18-1.42], P < .001; RR = 1.25 [95% CI = 1.13-1.39], P < .001); unmarried status (RR = 1.07 [95% CI = 1.01-1.14], P = .02; RR = 1.09 [95% CI = 1.02-1.17], P = .01); Charlson comorbidity score >2 (RR = 1.27 [95% CI = 1.17-1.37], P < .001; RR = 1.36 [95% CI = 1.24-1.49], P < .001); and receipt of non-stereotactic vs stereotactic radiation (RR = 1.44 [95% CI = 1.34-1.55, P < .001; RR = 1.49 [95% CI = 1.37-1.62, P < .001). For patients with metachronous BrM (N = 9955), ED visits and hospitalizations were more common after vs before BrM diagnosis (2.6 vs 1.2 ED visits per person-year; 1.8 vs 0.9 hospitalizations per person-year, respectively; RR = 2.24 [95% CI = 2.15-2.33], P < .001; RR = 2.06 [95% CI = 1.98-2.15], P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with BrM commonly receive hospital-level care secondary to intracranial disease, especially in select subpopulations. Enhanced care coordination, closer outpatient follow-up, and patient navigator programs seem warranted for this population.

Provider experience and satisfaction with a novel 'virtual team rounding' program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: New inpatient virtual care models have proliferated in response to the challenges presented by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, few of these programs have yet been evaluated for acceptability and feasibility. OBJECTIVE: Assess feasibility and provider experience with the Virtual Team Rounding Program (VTRP), a quality improvement project developed and rapidly scaled at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, MA, in response to the surge of COVID-19 patients in the spring of 2020. METHODS: We surveyed 777 inpatient providers and 41 providers who served as 'virtual rounders' regarding their experience with the program. Inpatient providers were asked about their overall satisfaction with the program, whether the program saved them time, and if so, how much and their interest in working with a similar program in the future. Providers who had worked as virtual rounders were asked about their overall satisfaction with the program, the overall difficulty of the work and their interest in participating in a similar program in the future. RESULTS: We find that among both groups the program was well-received, with 72.5% of inpatient providers and 85.7% of virtual rounders reporting that they were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with their experience with the program. Among inpatient providers who worked with the program, two-thirds reported the program saved them time on a daily basis. Inpatient respondents who had worked with virtual rounders were more likely to say that they would be interested in working with the VTRP in the future compared with respondents who never worked with a virtual rounder (75.3 vs 52.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As the pandemic continues, rapidly implementing and studying virtual care delivery programs is crucial for hospitals and health systems. We demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a 'virtual rounding' program assisting inpatient providers. Future work should examine the impact of these programs on patient outcomes.

Virtual Team Rounding: A Cross-Specialty Inpatient Care Staffing Program to Manage COVID-19 Surges.

PROBLEM: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic presented numerous challenges to inpatient care, including overtaxed inpatient medicine services, surges in patient censuses, disrupted patient care and educational activities for trainees, underused providers in certain specialties, and personal protective equipment shortages and new requirements for physical distancing. In March 2020, as the COVID-19 surge began, an interdisciplinary group of administrators, providers, and trainees at Brigham and Women's Hospital created an inpatient virtual staffing model called the Virtual Team Rounding Program (VTRP). APPROACH: The conceptual framework guiding VTRP development was rapid-cycle innovation. The VTRP was designed iteratively using feedback from residents, physician assistants, attendings, and administrators from March to June 2020. The VTRP trained and deployed a diverse set of providers across specialties as "virtual rounders" to support inpatient teams by joining and participating in rounds via videoconference and completing documentation tasks during and after rounds. The program was rapidly scaled up from March to June 2020. OUTCOMES: In a survey of inpatient providers at the end of the pilot phase, 10/10 (100%) respondents reported they were getting either "a lot" or "a little" benefit from the VTRP and did not find the addition of the virtual rounder burdensome. During the scaling phase, the program grew to support 24 teams. In a survey at the end of the contraction phase, 117/187 (62.6%) inpatient providers who worked with a virtual rounder felt the rounder saved them time. VTRP leadership collaboratively and iteratively developed best practices for challenges encountered during implementation. NEXT STEPS: Virtual rounding provides a valuable extension of inpatient teams to manage COVID-19 surges. Future work will quantitatively and qualitatively assess the impact of the VTRP on inpatient provider satisfaction and well-being, virtual rounders' experiences, and patient care outcomes.

Advanced Practice Providers in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: The report highlights utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in an academic radiation oncology center and how their role benefits patient care and departmental workflow. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A self-reported workflow analysis of department APPs was conducted across 5 disease sites. A review of electronic medical records was performed to determine the percent of APP follow-ups completed independently versus in a shared capacity with the radiation oncologist. A review of the APP's didactic and clinical training program was performed. RESULTS: Across all disease sites, approximately 40% of the APP's time was spent on direct patient care, predominantly composed of independent follow-up visits (9%-35%) and telehealth (2%-30%). The breast malignancies group was an outlier with a higher focus on consults or shared visits (25%). Indirect patient care accounts for 30% to 50% of workflow with the focus on visit preparation or care coordination (13%-35%) and dictation (8%-13%). Administrative responsibilities including process improvement, research, education, and leadership account for the remainder (5%-26%) and are varied across disease sites. The central nervous system malignancies group and genitourinary malignancies group reported a greater percentage of their time (23%-26%) on administration compared with other groups (5%-9%). On average APPs see most of their visits independently from the physicians (86.41%) with 13.59% of visits being seen in a shared capacity. CONCLUSIONS: APPs can positively affect the field of radiation oncology by augmenting clinical capacity, optimizing workflow and increasing department efficiency via both direct and indirect patient care and through involvement in administrative and leadership duties. By implementing an independent-to practice model, simultaneous APP and physician clinics run parallel to each other, limiting shared visits for complex cases. This promotes APP job satisfaction and provides greater access to patient care without compromising quality. This article highlights a model for the utilization of APPs, which can be implemented by other radiation oncology departments or practices.

Quantification of incidental mediastinal and hilar irradiation delivered during definitive stereotactic body radiation therapy for peripheral non-small cell lung cancer.

To determine the amount of incidental radiation dose received by the mediastinal and hilar nodes for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Fifty consecutive patients with NSCLC, treated using an SBRT technique, were identified. Of these patients, 38 had a prescription dose of 60 Gy in 20-Gy fractions and were eligible for analysis. For each patient, ipsilateral upper (level 2) and lower (level 4) paratracheal, and hilar (level 10) nodal regions were contoured on the planning computed tomography (CT) images. Using the clinical treatment plan, dose and volume calculations were performed retrospectively for each nodal region. SBRT to upper lobe tumors resulted in an average total ipsilateral mean dose of between 5.2 and 7.8 Gy for the most proximal paratracheal nodal stations (2R and 4R for right upper lobe lesions, 2L and 4L for left upper lobe lesions). SBRT to lower lobe tumors resulted in an average total ipsilateral mean dose of between 15.6 and 21.5 Gy for the most proximal hilar nodal stations (10R for right lower lobe lesions, 10 l for left lower lobe lesions). Doses to more distal nodes were substantially lower than 5 Gy. The often substantial incidental irradiation, delivered during SBRT for peripheral NSCLC of the lower lobes to the most proximal hilar lymph nodes may be therapeutic for low-volume, subclinical nodal disease. Treatment of peripheral upper lobe lung tumors delivers less incidental irradiation to the paratracheal lymph nodes with lower likelihood of therapeutic benefit.