Point of Care Lung Ultrasound Injury Score-A simple and reliable assessment tool in COVID-19 patients (PLIS I): A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: In COVID-19 patients, lung ultrasound is superior to chest radiograph and has good agreement with computerized tomography to diagnose lung pathologies. Most lung ultrasound protocols published to date are complex and time-consuming. We describe a new illustrative Point-of-care ultrasound Lung Injury Score (PLIS) to help guide the care of patients with COVID-19 and assess if the PLIS would be able to predict COVID-19 patients' clinical course. METHODS: This retrospective study describing the novel PLIS was conducted in a large tertiary-level hospital. COVID-19 patients were included if they required any form of respiratory support and had at least one PLIS study during hospitalization. Data collected included PLIS on admission, demographics, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, and patient outcomes. The primary outcome was the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients and 293 PLIS studies were included in our analysis. The mean age was 60.9, and overall mortality was 18.3%. Median PLIS score was 5.0 (3.0-6.0) vs. 2.0 (1.0-3.0) in ICU and non-ICU patients respectively (p<0.001). Total PLIS scores were directly associated with SOFA scores (inter-class correlation 0.63, p<0.001), and multivariate analysis showed that every increase in one PLIS point was associated with a higher risk for ICU admission (O.R 2.09, 95% C.I 1.59-2.75) and in-hospital mortality (O.R 1.54, 95% C.I 1.10-2.16). CONCLUSIONS: The PLIS for COVID-19 patients is simple and associated with SOFA score, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality. Further studies are needed to demonstrate whether the PLIS can improve outcomes and become an integral part of the management of COVID-19 patients.

Early Point-of-Care Ultrasound Assessment for Medical Patients Reduces Time to Appropriate Treatment: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Numerous studies emphasize the diagnostic importance of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), but the level of evidence remains low as most data are gathered from observational studies. We conducted a pilot, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of POCUS exam on medical patient's management and clinical outcomes. Patients presenting with chest pain or dyspnea were enrolled and randomly allocated to an early POCUS scan group and a control group. POCUS assessment, within 24 h of internal ward admission, was conducted only for the intervention group. The primary outcome was time to correct diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included time to appropriate treatment, POCUS-related rate of primary diagnosis alteration and new clinically relevant findings and time to hospital discharge. Sixty patients were enrolled. Thirty patients were randomly allocated to each study arm. The POCUS exam revealed clinically relevant findings among 79% of patients and led to alteration of the primary diagnosis among 28% of patients. Time to appropriate treatment was significantly shorter among patients in the POCUS group compared with the control group (median time of 5 h [95% confidence interval: 0.5-9] vs. 24 h [95% CI: 19-29] p = 0.014). The time needed to achieve correct diagnosis by the primary team was shorter in the POCUS group compared with the control group, yet it did not reach statistical significance (median time of 24 h [95% CI: 18-30] vs. 48 h [95% CI: 20-76], p = 0.12). These results indicate that POCUS assessment conducted early among patients with dyspnea or chest pain improves diagnostic accuracy and shortens significantly the time to appropriate treatment.

Association of hospice utilization and publicly reported outcomes following hospitalization for pneumonia or heart failure: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Hospital Quality Alliance began collecting and reporting United States hospital performance in the treatment of pneumonia and heart failure in 2008. Whether the utilization of hospice might affect CMS-reported mortality and readmission rates is not known. METHODS: Hospice utilization (mean days on hospice per decedent) for 2012 from the Dartmouth Atlas (a project of the Dartmouth Institute that reports a variety of public health and policy-related statistics) was merged with hospital-level 30-day mortality and readmission rates for pneumonia and heart failure from CMS. The association between hospice use and outcomes was analyzed with multivariate quantile regression controlling for quality of care metrics, acute care bed availability, regional variability and other measures. RESULTS: 2196 hospitals reported data to both CMS and the Dartmouth Atlas in 2012. Higher rates of hospice utilization were associated with lower rates of 30-day mortality and readmission for pneumonia but not for heart failure. Higher quality of care was associated with lower rates of mortality for both pneumonia and heart failure. Greater acute care bed availability was associated with increased readmission rates for both conditions (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of hospice utilization were associated with lower rates of 30-day mortality and readmission for pneumonia as reported by CMS. While causality is not established, it is possible that hospice referrals might directly affect CMS outcome metrics. Further clarification of the relationship between hospice referral patterns and publicly reported CMS outcomes appears warranted.

Understanding the Extent and Drivers of Interphysician Cost Variation for Spine Procedures.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of billing data, medical records, and hospital cost data. OBJECTIVE: To quantify intersurgeon variation for hospital costs of four spine procedures while adjusting for patient comorbidities and demographic factors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine care accounts for $90 billion in health care expenditures in the United States. Past findings demonstrate regional variation in surgery rates and high intersurgeon variation for anterior cervical discectomies/fusions. However, less has been done to examine intersurgeon variation in resource use across multiple procedures while adjusting for patient characteristics outside of a surgeon's control. METHODS: We examined intersurgeon variation for 1241 elective spine procedures at one facility for 3 years. The procedures included 1 to 2 level cases of anterior cervical discectomies/fusions, posterior lumbar decompressions/fusions, posterior laminectomies, and lumbar discectomies. We isolated mean and median costs by surgeon and adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedure types. Finally, we examined variation in subcategories such as instrumentation and inpatient stay costs to determine which contribute to total cost variation. RESULTS: Unadjusted costs per surgeon varied by a factor of 1.32 to 1.81 between lowest and highest cost surgeon depending on procedure. After adjusting for patient features and procedure, variation was reduced to 1.31x. Of the seven surgeons who had sufficient patient volume, one was significantly less costly (-$1,462 per procedure) whereas three were significantly more costly than mean (+$685, +$839, +$702 per procedure). Intersurgeon differences in supply and operating room costs largely accounted for total variation, though actual drivers of variation were surgeon-specific. CONCLUSION: Surgeons vary in average cost for spine procedures, though variation is more modest once adjusted for patient characteristics. Data on procedure-level variation should be discussed with individual surgeons to shift practice patterns. Finally, the comparison methodology can be applied to other procedures and specialties. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

[Gender-based differences in the management of low back pain].

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a well-known reason people worldwide seek medical help and it is a Leading cause of chronic pain and disability among people of working age. Recent research reveals that the female gender is not only a risk factor for developing LBP but it may also influence the management of this common condition. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to evaluate gender-related differences in the management of LBP patients in a specialized hospital-based chronic pain unit. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out through telephone interviews and the hospital computerized database (N = 129). Socio-demographic, Lifestyle, occupational and medical variables were collected, and their association with the frequency of use of five different diagnostic and/or therapeutic modalities was examined using gender stratification. RESULTS: After adjustment for age, religion, socioeconomic data and the number of co-morbid conditions, women were more prone to poly-pharmacy of analgesic medications prescribed in the previous year compared to men (p = 0.024) and exhibited an increased rate of treatment cessations due to adverse effects (p < 0.001). Interestingly, while women tended to utilize more healthcare services besides the pain clinic (p = 0.097), men tended on average to have more visits than women to the pain clinic for their complaints (p = 0.019). Among those who applied for insurance compensation for LBP-related disability, women exhibited increased use of imaging procedures compared to men (p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional study reveals gender-related differences in management and health services utilization for treatment of LBP in the chronic pain clinic. If confirmed in other centers, these findings should inspire gender-sensitive resource management of the treatment of chronic pain patients. Moreover, the findings suggest that increased awareness of gender bias when seeking insurance compensation for LBP-related disability is warranted.