Systematic Analysis of Extracting Data on Advance Directives from Patient Electronic Health Records (EHR) in Terminal Oncology Patients.

BACKGROUND: Advance directives are legal documents that include living wills and durable health care power of attorney documents. They are critical components of care for seriously ill patients which are designed to be implemented when a patient is terminally ill and incapacitated. We sought to evaluate potential reasons for why advance directives were not appropriately implemented, by reviewing the electronic health record (EHR) in patients with terminal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the EHR of 500 cancer patients from 1/1/2013 to 12/31/2016 was performed. Data points were manually collected and entered in a central database. RESULTS: Of the 500 patients, 160 (32%) had an advance directive (AD). The most common clinical terminology used by physicians indicating a terminal diagnosis was progressive (36.6%) and palliative (31%). The most common clinical terminology indicating incapacity was altered mental status (25.6%), and not oriented (14%). 34 (6.8%) patients met all criteria of having a terminal diagnosis, a documented AD, and were deemed incapacitated. Of these patients who met all of these data points, their ADs were implemented on average 1.7 days (SD: 4.4 days) after which they should have been. This resulted in a total of 58 days of additional care provided. DISCUSSION: This study provided insight on to how ADs are managed in day to day practice in the hospital. From our analysis it appears that physicians are able to identify when a patient is terminal, however, it is typically later than it should have been recognized. Further studies should be performed focusing on harnessing the power of the EHR and providing physicians formative and evaluative feedback of practice patterns to ensure that ADs are honored when appropriate.

Can an Integrative Care Approach Improve Physical Function Trajectories after Orthopaedic Trauma? A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic trauma patients frequently experience mobility impairment, fear-related issues, self-care difficulties, and work-related disability []. Recovery from trauma-related injuries is dependent upon injury severity as well as psychosocial factors []. However, traditional treatments do not integrate psychosocial and early mobilization to promote improved function, and they fail to provide a satisfying patient experience. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to determine (1) whether an early psychosocial intervention (integrative care with movement) among patients with orthopaedic trauma improved objective physical function outcomes during recovery compared with usual care, and (2) whether an integrative care approach with orthopaedic trauma patients improved patient-reported physical function outcomes during recovery compared with usual care. METHODS: Between November 2015 and February 2017, 1133 patients were admitted to one hospital as orthopaedic trauma alerts to the care of the three orthopaedic trauma surgeons involved in the study. Patients with severe or multiple orthopaedic trauma requiring one or more surgical procedures were identified by our orthopaedic trauma surgeons and approached by study staff for enrollment in the study. Patients were between 18 years and 85 years of age. We excluded individuals outside of the age range; those with diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury []; those who were unable to communicate effectively (for example, at a level where self-report measures could not be answered completely); patients currently using psychotropic medications; or those who had psychotic, suicidal, or homicidal ideations at time of study enrollment. A total of 112 orthopaedic trauma patients were randomized to treatment groups (integrative and usual care), with 13 withdrawn (n = 99; 58% men; mean age 44 years ± 17 years). Data was collected at the following time points: baseline (acute hospitalization), 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and at 1 year. By 1-year follow-up, we had a 75% loss to follow-up. Because our data showed no difference in the trajectories of these outcomes during the first few months of recovery, it is highly unlikely that any differences would appear months after 6 months. Therefore, analyses are presented for the 6-month follow-up time window. Integrative care consisted of usual trauma care plus additional resources, connections to services, as well as psychosocial and movement strategies to help patients recover. Physical function was measured objectively (handgrip strength, active joint ROM, and Lower Extremity Gain Scale) and subjectively (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function [PROMIS®-PF] and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia). Higher values for hand grip, Lower Extremity Gain Scale (score range 0-27), and PROMIS®-PF (population norm = 50) are indicative of higher functional ability. Lower Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (score range 11-44) scores indicate less fear of movement. Trajectories of these measures were determined across time points. RESULTS: We found no differences at 6 months follow-up between usual care and integrative care in terms of handgrip strength (right handgrip strength ß = -0.0792 [95% confidence interval -0.292 to 0.133]; p = 0.46; left handgrip strength ß = -0.133 [95% CI -0.384 to 0.119]; p = 0.30), or Lower Extremity Gain Scale score (ß = -0.0303 [95% CI -0.191 to 0.131]; p = 0.71). The only differences between usual care and integrative care in active ROM achieved by final follow-up within the involved extremity was noted in elbow flexion, with usual care group 20° ± 10° less than integrative care (t [27] = -2.06; p = 0.05). Patients treated with usual care and integrative care showed the same Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia score trajectories (ß = 0.0155 [95% CI -0.123 to 0.154]; p = 0.83). CONCLUSION: Our early psychosocial intervention did not change the trajectory of physical function recovery compared with usual care. Although this specific intervention did not alter recovery trajectories, these interventions should not be abandoned because the greatest gains in function occur early in recovery after trauma, which is the key time in transition to home. More work is needed to identify ways to capitalize on improvements earlier within the recovery process to facilitate functional gains and combat psychosocial barriers to recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Outcome Measures and Mental Health in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients During Early Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the relationships between negative affective states (depression and anxiety), physical/functional status, and emotional well-being during early treatment and later in recovery after orthopaedic trauma injury. DESIGN: This was a secondary observational analysis from a randomized controlled study performed at a Level-1 trauma center. PATIENTS: Patients with orthopaedic trauma (N = 101; 43.5 ± 16.4 years, 40.6% women) were followed from acute care to week 12 postdischarge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system measures of Physical Function, Psychosocial Illness Impact-Positive and Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities and the Beck Depression Inventory-II and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory were administered during acute care and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. Secondary measures included hospital length of stay, adverse readmissions, injury severity, and surgery number. RESULTS: At week 12, 20.9% and 35.3% of patients reported moderate-to-severe depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II score ≥20 points) and anxiety (State-Anxiety score ≥40 points), respectively. Depressed patients had greater length of stay, complex injuries, and more readmissions than those without. The study sample improved patient-reported outcomes measurement information system T-scores for Physical Function and Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities by 40% and 22.8%, respectively (P < 0.0001), by week 12. Anxiety attenuated improvements in physical function. Both anxiety and depression were associated with lower Psychosocial Illness Impact-Positive scores by week 12. CONCLUSIONS: Although significant improvements in patient-reported physical function and satisfaction scores occurred in all patients, patients with depression or anxiety likely require additional psychosocial support and resources during acute care to improve overall physical and emotional recovery after trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

An integrated-delivery-of-care approach to improve patient reported physical function and mental wellbeing after orthopedic trauma: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Orthopedic trauma injury impacts nearly 2.8 million people each year. Despite surgical improvements and excellent survivorship rates, many patients experience poor quality of life (QOL) outcomes years later. Psychological distress commonly occurs after injury. Distressed patients more frequently experience rehospitalizations, pain medication dependence, and low QOL. This study was developed to test whether an integrative care approach (IntCare; ten-step program of emotional support, education, customized resources, and medical care) was superior to usual care (UsCare). The primary aim was to assess patient functional QOL (objective and patient-reported outcomes) with secondary objectives encompassing emotional wellbeing and hospital outcomes. The primary outcome was the Lower Extremity Gain Scale score. METHODS/DESIGN: A single-blinded, single-center, repeated measures, randomized controlled study is being conducted with 112 orthopedic trauma patients aged 18-85 years. Patients randomized to the IntCare group have completed or are receiving a guided ten-step support program during acute care and at follow-up outpatient visits. The UsCare group is being provided the standard of care. Patient-reported outcomes and objective functional measures are collected at the hospital and at weeks 2, 6, and 12 and months 6 and 12 post surgery. The main study outcomes are changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaires of Physical Function quality of life, Satisfaction with Social Roles, and Positive-Illness Impact, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Check List, and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-11 from baseline to month 12. Secondary outcomes are changes in objective functional measures of the Lower Extremity Gain Scale, handgrip strength, and range of motion of major joints from week 2 to month 12 post surgery. Clinical outcomes include hospital length of stay, medical complications, rehospitalizations, psychological measures, and use of pain medications. A mixed model repeated measures approach assesses the main effects of treatment and time on outcomes, as well as their interaction (treatment × time). DISCUSSION: The results from this study will help determine whether an integrative care approach during recovery from traumatic orthopedic injury can improve the patient perceptions of physical function and emotional wellbeing compared to usual trauma care. Additionally, this study will assess the ability to reduce the incidence or severity of psychological distress and mitigate medical complications, readmissions, and reduction of QOL after injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02591472 . Registered on 28 October 2015.

Preexisting psychiatric illness worsens acute care outcomes after orthopaedic trauma in obese patients.

PURPOSE: Pre-existing psychiatric illness, illicit drug use, and alcohol abuse adversely impact patients with orthopaedic trauma injuries. Obesity is an independent factor associated with poorer clinical outcomes and discharge disposition, and higher hospital resource use. It is not known whether interactions exist between pre-existing illness, illicit drug use and obesity on acute trauma care outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cohort study is from orthopaedic trauma patients prospectively measured over 10 years (N = 6353). Psychiatric illness, illicit drug use and alcohol were classified by presence or absence. Body mass index (BMI) was analyzed as both a continuous and categorical measure (<30 kg/m2 [non-obese], 30-39.9 kg/m2 [obese] and ≥40 kg/m2 [morbidly obese]). Main outcomes were the number of acute care services provided, length of stay (LOS), discharge home, hospital readmissions, and mortality in the hospital. RESULTS: Statistically significant BMI by pre-existing condition (psychiatric illness, illicit drug use) interactions existed for LOS and number of acute care services provided (ß values 0.012-0.098; all p < 0.05). The interaction between BMI and psychiatric illness was statistically significant for discharge to locations other than home (ß = 0.023; p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: Obese patients with orthopaedic trauma, particularly with preexisting mental health conditions, will require more hospital resources and longer care than patients without psychiatric illness. Early identification of these patients through screening for psychiatric illness and history of illicit drug use at admission is imperative to mobilize the resources and provide psychosocial support to facilitate the recovery trajectory of affected obese patients.

Patient-reported outcomes for open versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Rates of living kidney donation have increased dramatically in recent years, in large part because of improved surgical techniques such as laparoscopic nephrectomy. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes of laparoscopic nephrectomy versus open donor nephrectomy in 84 adult live kidney donors. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included perceptions of pain and surgical scarring, number of surgical/medical complications, hospital length of stay, physical health problems related to donation, return to work, financial impact, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with the donation experience. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The 2 groups did not differ significantly in pain perceptions, number of surgical/medical complications, physical health problems, financial impact, health-related quality of life, or overall satisfaction. However, laparoscopic nephrectomy donors had significantly fewer hospital days and faster return to work time than open donor nephrectomy donors. The majority of donors report excellent health-related quality of life and no complications in the months following surgery. In addition, it appears that laparoscopic nephrectomy, in comparison to open donor nephrectomy, may reduce barriers to living kidney donation by reducing hospital length of stay and time away from work. Being able to return to work much sooner after surgery may significantly reduce the indirect costs (ie, lost wages) associated with living donation.