Trends in Location of Death for Individuals With Primary Bone Tumors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Given the significant morbidity and mortality associated with primary bone cancer, provision of high-quality end-of-life care concordant with patient preferences is critical. This study aimed to evaluate trends in use of dedicated end-of-life care settings and investigate sociodemographic disparities in location of death among individuals with primary bone cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, population-based review of patients who died of primary bone cancer-related causes was performed using the Underlying Cause of Death public use record from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database for the years 2003 through 2019. A total of 24,557 patients were included. RESULTS: Over the study period, the proportion of primary bone cancer-related deaths occurring at home and in hospice increased, whereas those occurring in hospital, nursing home, and outpatient medical facility/emergency department settings decreased. Several sociodemographic factors were found to be associated with location of death, including age, marital status, and level of education. Moreover, patients of racial and ethnic minority groups were at significantly lower risk of experiencing death at home or in outpatient medical facility/emergency department settings relative to a hospital compared with White patients. CONCLUSION: Although rates of in-hospital death from primary bone cancer are decreasing, marked racial and ethnic disparities in use of dedicated end-of-life care settings exist. These gaps must be addressed to ensure all patients with primary bone cancer have equitable access to high-quality end-of-life care regardless of racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic status. [Orthopedics. 202x;4x(x):xx-xx.].

Regarding "Burden of Comorbidities and Healthcare Resource Utilization Among Medicaid-Enrolled Extremely Premature Infants".

In their article, Mowitz et al investigated the burden of comorbidities and healthcare resource utilization among extremely premature infants enrolled in Medicaid, laying a foundation for further policy action.

Clinician Perspectives on Barriers and Enablers to Implementing an Inpatient Oncology Early Warning System: A Mixed-Methods Study.

PURPOSE: To elicit end-user and stakeholder perceptions regarding design and implementation of an inpatient clinical deterioration early warning system (EWS) for oncology patients to better fit routine clinical practices and enhance clinical impact. METHODS: In an explanatory-sequential mixed-methods study, we evaluated a stakeholder-informed oncology early warning system (OncEWS) using surveys and semistructured interviews. Stakeholders were physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and nurses. For qualitative data, we used grounded theory and thematic content analysis via the constant comparative method to identify determinants of OncEWS implementation. RESULTS: Survey respondents generally agreed that an oncology-focused EWS could add value beyond clinical judgment, with nurses endorsing this notion significantly more strongly than other clinicians (nurse: median 5 on a 6-point scale [6 = strongly agree], interquartile range 4-5; doctors/advanced practice providers: 4 [4-5]; P = .005). However, some respondents would not trust an EWS to identify risk accurately (n = 36 [42%] somewhat or very concerned), while others were concerned that institutional culture would not embrace such an EWS (n = 17 [28%]).Interviews highlighted important aspects of the EWS and the local context that might facilitate implementation, including (1) a model tailored to the subtleties of oncology patients, (2) transparent model information, and (3) nursing-centric workflows. Interviewees raised the importance of sepsis as a common and high-risk deterioration syndrome. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders prioritized maximizing the degree to which the OncEWS is understandable, informative, actionable, and workflow-complementary, and perceived these factors to be key for translation into clinical benefit.

Beginning to Address an Implementation Gap in Asthma: Clinicians' Views of Prescribing Reliever Budesonide-Formoterol Inhalers and SMART in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Global Initiative for Asthma and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recently made paradigm-shifting recommendations regarding inhaler management in asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma now recommends that combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol inhalers replace short-acting ß-agonists as the preferred reliever therapy at all steps of asthma management. Although the most recent guidelines of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program did not review reliever ICS-formoterol usage in mild asthma, they similarly recommended single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) at steps 3 and 4 of asthma management. Despite these recommendations, many clinicians-particularly in the United States-are not prescribing new inhaler paradigms. Clinician-level reasons for this implementation gap remain largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To gain an in-depth understanding of the facilitators and barriers to prescribing reliever ICS-formoterol inhalers and SMART in the United States. METHODS: Community and academic primary care providers, pulmonologists, and allergists who reported regularly caring for adults with asthma were interviewed. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, qualitatively coded, and analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were continued until theme saturation. RESULTS: Among 20 interviewed clinicians, only 6 clinicians described regularly prescribing ICS-formoterol inhalers as a reliever inhaler (either alone or within SMART). Significant barriers to new inhaler approaches included concerns surrounding a lack of Food and Drug Administration labeling for ICS-formoterol as a reliever therapy, a lack of awareness regarding a patient's formulary-preferred ICS-long-acting ß-agonist choices, the high cost of combination inhalers, and time constraints. Facilitators to using new inhaler approaches included clinicians' beliefs that the latest inhaler recommendations are simpler and more congruent with real-world patients' behavior, and that a potential change in management strategy would offer a valuable opportunity for shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Although new guidelines exist in asthma, many clinicians described significant barriers to using them including medicolegal issues, pharmaceutical formulary confusion, and high drug costs. Nonetheless, most clinicians believed that the latest inhaler approaches would be more intuitive for their patients and would offer an opportunity for patient-centered collaboration and care. Stakeholders may find these results useful in future attempts to increase the real-world adoption of recent asthma recommendations.

Symptom-driven inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist therapy for adult patients with asthma who are non-adherent to daily maintenance inhalers: a study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are considered the essential foundation of most asthma therapy, ICS inhaler nonadherence is a notoriously common problem and a significant cause of asthma-related morbidity. Partially acknowledging the problem of nonadherence, international organizations recently made paradigm-shifting recommendations that all patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma be considered for symptom-driven ICS-containing inhalers rather than relying on adherence to traditional maintenance ICS inhalers and symptom-driven short-acting beta-agonists (SABA). With this new approach, asthma patients are at least exposed to the important anti-inflammatory effects of ICS-containing inhalers when their symptom reliever inhaler is deployed due to acute symptoms. METHODS: This study will (Part 1) complete a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to evaluate if an inhaler strategy that utilizes symptom-driven ICS inhalers is particularly beneficial in maintenance ICS inhaler non-adherent asthma patients, and (Part 2) use a dissemination and implementation (D&I) science conceptual framework to better understand patients' and providers' views of inhaler nonadherence. This study, which will have an option of taking place entirely remotely, will use a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved electronic sensor (Hailie® sensor) to monitor inhaler adherence and includes semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). DISCUSSION: This study is assessing the problem of nonadherence using a D&I implementation science research lens while testing a new inhaler approach to potentially ameliorate the detrimental consequences of maintenance inhaler nonadherence. We hypothesize that the use of a symptom-driven ICS/LABA management strategy, as compared to traditional maintenance ICS treatment and symptom-driven SABA, will lead to improved adherence to an asthma treatment strategy, decreased asthma-related morbidity, less cumulative ICS exposure, and greater patient satisfaction with an inhaler approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05111262. Registered on November 8, 2021.

Crowdsourced Assessment of Surgical Skill Proficiency in Cataract Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether crowdsourced lay raters can accurately assess cataract surgical skills. DESIGN: Two-armed study: independent cross-sectional and longitudinal cohorts. SETTING: Washington University Department of Ophthalmology. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Sixteen cataract surgeons with varying experience levels submitted cataract surgery videos to be graded by 5 experts and 300+ crowdworkers masked to surgeon experience. Cross-sectional study: 50 videos from surgeons ranging from first-year resident to attending physician, pooled by years of training. Longitudinal study: 28 videos obtained at regular intervals as residents progressed through 180 cases. Surgical skill was graded using the modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (mOSATS). Main outcome measures were overall technical performance, reliability indices, and correlation between expert and crowd mean scores. RESULTS: Experts demonstrated high interrater reliability and accurately predicted training level, establishing construct validity for the modified OSATS. Crowd scores were correlated with (r = 0.865, p < 0.0001) but consistently higher than expert scores for first, second, and third-year residents (p < 0.0001, paired t-test). Longer surgery duration negatively correlated with training level (r = -0.855, p < 0.0001) and expert score (r = -0.927, p < 0.0001). The longitudinal dataset reproduced cross-sectional study findings for crowd and expert comparisons. A regression equation transforming crowd score plus video length into expert score was derived from the cross-sectional dataset (r2 = 0.92) and demonstrated excellent predictive modeling when applied to the independent longitudinal dataset (r2 = 0.80). A group of student raters who had edited the cataract videos also graded them, producing scores that more closely approximated experts than the crowd. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourced rankings correlated with expert scores, but were not equivalent; crowd scores overestimated technical competency, especially for novice surgeons. A novel approach of adjusting crowd scores with surgery duration generated a more accurate predictive model for surgical skill. More studies are needed before crowdsourcing can be reliably used for assessing surgical proficiency.