The impact of resilience on headache disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS).

OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to examine cross-sectional correlations of headache disability with measures of resilience, anxiety, and depression, and to determine if resilience modified the association between headache severity/frequency and disability. BACKGROUND: Resilience is associated with quality of life and functioning among patients with chronic conditions. We investigated whether resilience strongly mitigates headache-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS). METHODS: We prospectively recruited 160 patients with primary headache disorders seen in a tertiary headache medicine program between February 20, 2018 and August 2, 2019. Each participant completed the MIDAS, Conner Davidson Resilience Scale (CDRS-25), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. RESULTS: The CDRS-25 score was negatively correlated with the total MIDAS (r = -0.21, p = 0.009), GAD-7 (r = -0.56, p < 0.001), and PHQ-9 scores (r = -0.34, p < 0.001). Well-being inversely correlated with disability (r = -0.37, p < 0.001). Increases in anxiety and depression increased the odds of disability. A 1 point increase in the CDRS-25 score decreased the odds of being severely disabled by 4% (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94 to 0.99, p = 0.001). However, the CDRS-25 score did not significantly moderate the association between headache days and disability. CONCLUSION: Traits associated with resilience decreased the odds of severe disability from headaches, whereas anxiety, depression, and headache frequency were strongly associated with higher disability from headache.

Assessment of Clinician Diagnostic Concordance With Video Telemedicine in the Integrated Multispecialty Practice at Mayo Clinic During the Beginning of COVID-19 Pandemic From March to June 2020.

Importance: There was a shift in patient volume from in-person to video telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To determine the concordance of provisional diagnoses established at a video telemedicine visit with diagnoses established at an in-person visit for patients presenting with a new clinical problem. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a diagnostic study of patients who underwent a video telemedicine consultation followed by an in-person outpatient visit for the same clinical problem in the same specialty within a 90-day window. The provisional diagnosis made during the video telemedicine visit was compared with the reference standard diagnosis by 2 blinded, independent medical reviewers. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine factors significantly related to diagnostic concordance. The study was conducted at a large academic integrated multispecialty health care institution (Mayo Clinic locations in Rochester, Minnesota; Scottsdale and Phoenix, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida; and Mayo Clinic Health System locations in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) between March 24 and June 24, 2020. Participants included Mayo Clinic patients residing in the US without age restriction. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to June 2021. Exposures: New clinical problem assessed via video telemedicine visit to home using Zoom Care Anyplace integrated into Epic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Concordance of provisional diagnoses established over video telemedicine visits compared against a reference standard diagnosis. Results: There were 2393 participants in the analysis. The median (IQR) age of patients was 53 (37-64) years; 1381 (57.7%) identified as female, and 1012 (42.3%) identified as male. Overall, the provisional diagnosis established over video telemedicine visit was concordant with the in-person reference standard diagnosis in 2080 of 2393 cases (86.9%; 95% CI, 85.6%-88.3%). Diagnostic concordance by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision chapter ranged from 64.7% (95% CI, 42.0%-87.4%) for diseases of the ear and mastoid process to 96.8% (95% CI, 94.7%-98.8%) for neoplasms. Diagnostic concordance by medical specialty ranged from 77.3% (95% CI, 64.9%-89.7%) for otorhinolaryngology to 96.0% (92.1%-99.8%) for psychiatry. Specialty care was found to be significantly more likely than primary care to result in video telemedicine diagnoses concordant with a subsequent in-person visit (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.30; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This diagnostic study of video telemedicine visits yielded a high degree of diagnostic concordance compared with in-person visits for most new clinical concerns. Some specific clinical circumstances over video telemedicine were associated with a lower diagnostic concordance, and these patients may benefit from timely in-person follow-up.

Current Practices for Screening and Management of Financial Distress at NCCN Member Institutions.

BACKGROUND: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. RESULTS: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (<10,000 unique annual patients; P=.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. CONCLUSIONS: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.

Assessment of Quality of Life following Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant for Myelofibrosis.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients with myelofibrosis (MF) have been well characterized, but little is known about quality of life (QoL) following allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Medical data and PRO measures were collected before transplant and at day 30, day 100, and 1 year after allo-SCT. PRO measures include Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF), Brief Fatigue Inventory, Global Assessment of Change, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant. Forty-four patients who had baseline QoL and at least 1 post-transplant assessment were included. The median age of the patients was 62.5 years (range, 35 to 74 years). At baseline, the mean MPN Total Symptom Score was 28.0, and at day 30, day 100, and 1 year, it was 25.4, 32.3, and 24.3, respectively. However, in myeloproliferative neoplasm-specific symptoms, such as itching, night sweats, bone pain, and fever, a statistically significant improvement was observed for at least 1 time point following transplant. At day 30, 10 (26.3%) patients reported a little/moderately/very much better overall QoL since their transplant, and 26 (68.45%) had a little/moderately/very much worse QoL. At day 100, 10 (30.3%) reported better QoL and 19 (57.6%) reported worsening since transplant. By 1 year, 16 (61.5%) reported feeling better. Our study shows that there is very little change in symptom burden at 1 year following transplant in general, but MF-specific symptoms showed improvement. By 1 year, 61% felt that their QoL was better than it was before transplant.