Informational letters or postcards to initiate remote monitoring among veterans with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is a Class 1, Level of Evidence A recommendation because of its multitude of clinical benefits. However, RM adherence rates are suboptimal, precluding patients from achieving these benefits. There is a need for direct-to-patient efforts to improve adherence. METHODS: In this national randomized, controlled trial conducted in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), 2120 patients with a pacemaker or ICD who had not sent an RM transmission for ≥1 year (and usually ≥3 years) while under VHA care for their device were randomly assigned to be mailed a postcard (n = 1076) or a detailed letter (n = 1044). The postcard described what RM does and its key benefits (reduced mortality and fewer in-person visits). The letter provided a similar message but included more details about RM benefits and the process. The primary outcome was an RM transmission sent within 90 days of mailing, and a secondary outcome was an RM transmission sent within 365 days. RESULTS: The primary outcome was achieved in 121 (11.3%) in the postcard and 96 patients (9.2%) in the letter group (p = .12). The secondary outcome was achieved in 266 (24.7%) and 239 (22.9%), respectively (p = .32). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial showed no significant difference in the proportion of chronically non-adherent patients who sent an RM transmission after receiving a low-cost postcard or a detailed, higher-cost letter encouraging their participation in RM. However, as only a minority of patients responded to either, further work is needed to engage patients in the life-saving benefits of RM.

Strategies to enhance remote monitoring adherence among patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.

Background: Remote monitoring (RM) of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) (pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) has a Class 1, Level of Evidence A Heart Rhythm Society recommendation. Yet RM adherence varies widely across settings, and factors associated with variation are not understood. Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify strategies for supporting RM across Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. Methods: In a national evaluation, we surveyed and interviewed 27 nurses, medical instrument technicians, and advanced practice providers across 26 VHA facilities (following approximately 15,000 CIED patients). Participants were selected based on overall patient adherence by facility, which ranged from 46%-96%. Questions covered RM adherence strategies, manufacturer resources, organizational characteristics, and workflows for optimizing adherence. Results: All clinicians reported that RM adherence was extremely important (53.8%), very important (34.6%), or important (11.5%) for improving patient outcomes. High performing facilities prioritized consistent patient education about RM and evaluated nonadherence using dashboards and manufacturer web sites. High performing facilities instituted clear standard operating procedures that defined staff responsibilities and facilitated efficient contact with nonadherent patients and then family members by phone and then mail. Clinicians based at high performing facilities spent twice as many hours per week (9.1) on average managing RM adherence compared to other facilities (4.5). Effective communication (internally and with non-VHA care partners) and use of CIED manufacturer resources were essential. Facilities that were not high performing rarely used these strategies. Conclusion: Clinicians can support high RM adherence by emphasizing patient education, regularly assessing and addressing nonadherence using staff protocols, and engaging CIED manufacturers.

Emerging Indoor Air Laws for Onsite Cannabis Consumption Businesses in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: Secondhand cannabis smoke, like secondhand tobacco smoke, creates unhealthy indoor air quality. Ventilation and engineering techniques cannot reduce this pollution to healthy levels, and complete smoke-free policies are the only way to provide healthy indoor environments. Even so, multiple state and local governments have begun to allow indoor smoking of cannabis in businesses. METHODS: A systematic search of Lexis Advance, NewsBank, and government websites for U.S. state and local laws passed between November 6, 2012 and June 10, 2020 that permit and regulate onsite cannabis consumption businesses was conducted in February-July 2020. RESULTS: In total, 6 of 11 states and the District of Columbia that legalized adult-use cannabis as of June 10, 2020 allowed onsite consumption and ≥56 localities within these 6 states allowed onsite cannabis consumption. Only 9% (5/56) of localities ban indoor smoking in these businesses; 23% (13/56) require indoor smoking to occur in physically isolated rooms. Other common local legal requirements address onsite odor control, ventilation/filtration, and building location. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the localities that allow onsite cannabis consumption do not explicitly prohibit smoking or vaping inside. Policymakers should be made aware that ventilation and other engineering interventions cannot fully protect workers and patrons. Health authorities and local leaders should educate policymakers on the science of secondhand smoke remediation and advocate for the same standards for secondhand cannabis smoking and vaping that apply to tobacco, particularly because other modes of cannabis administration do not pollute the air.