Creating an Extraordinary Experience for Women Undergoing Cystoscopy: A Patient-Centered Approach to Process Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To re-examine and improve the cystoscopy process for women based on patient input. While cystoscopy is a common urological procedure, women perceive it as invasive, personal, and fear-inducing. Patients want to be treated as individuals and not just another "procedure." METHODS: Women's perspectives on cystoscopy were collected using experience-based design. Observations and timings, emotion word lists, debrief forms, patient surveys, simulation, and interviews were used. A structured 2-day quality improvement event included both in-person and virtual patient participation to gain a deeper understanding of patients' perspectives. Ideas for process improvements were generated using brainstorming, creativity exercises, and prioritization. These changes were implemented and refined using an iterative process based on feedback. RESULTS: Patients who reported feeling grateful for the positive impact of their care tended to minimize procedure-associated wait times, inconvenience, and discomfort. Women in the evaluation phase of their treatment and those who were unhappy with their symptoms tended to magnify the negative emotions associated with their procedure. Patient feedback and areas for improvement specific to women's needs were identified. Actionable changes were implemented including engaging clinic staff, updating the cystoscopy workflow, and physical changes to enhance patient privacy. CONCLUSION: Identifying and addressing the needs of women undergoing cystoscopy improves satisfaction as their emotional, physical, and knowledge-based needs are addressed. Active participation in the health care process empowers patients to have a voice in their care. An extraordinary experience with cystoscopy may decrease anxiety of the unknown and help patients have control over the experience.

Risk factors for severe illness in hospitalized Covid-19 patients at a regional hospital.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic threatens to overwhelm scarce clinical resources. Risk factors for severe illness must be identified to make efficient resource allocations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk factors for severe illness. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational case series. SETTING: Single-institution. PARTICIPANTS: First 117 consecutive patients hospitalized for Covid-19 from March 1 to April 12, 2020. EXPOSURE: None. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Intensive care unit admission or death. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 24.8% and average total length of stay was 11.82 days (95% CI: 10.01 to 13.63 days). 30.8% of patients required intensive care unit admission and 29.1% required mechanical ventilation. Multivariate regression identified the amount of supplemental oxygen required at admission (OR: 1.208, 95% CI: 1.011-1.443, p = .037), sputum production (OR: 6.734, 95% CI: 1.630-27.812, p = .008), insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (OR: 11.873, 95% CI: 2.218-63.555, p = .004) and chronic kidney disease (OR: 4.793, 95% CI: 1.528-15.037, p = .007) as significant risk factors for intensive care unit admission or death. Of the 48 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit or died, this occurred within 3 days of arrival in 42%, within 6 days in 71%, and within 9 days in 88% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: At our regional medical center, patients with Covid-19 had an average length of stay just under 12 days, required ICU care in 31% of cases, and had a 25% mortality rate. Patients with increased sputum production and higher supplemental oxygen requirements at admission, and insulin dependent diabetes or chronic kidney disease may be at increased risk for severe illness. A model for predicting intensive care unit admission or death with excellent discrimination was created that may aid in treatment decisions and resource allocation. Early identification of patients at increased risk for severe illness may lead to improved outcomes in patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

Cancer incidence among those initiating insulin therapy with glargine versus human NPH insulin.

OBJECTIVE: To add to the evidence on comparative long-term effects of insulin analog glargine versus human NPH insulin on the risk for cancer. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We identified cohorts of initiators of glargine and human NPH without an insulin prescription during the prior 19 months among patients covered by the Inovalon Medical Outcomes Research for Effectiveness and Economics Registry (MORE2 Registry) between January 2003 and December 2010. Patients were required to have a second prescription of the same insulin within 180 days and to be free of cancer. We balanced cohorts on risk factors for cancer outcomes based on comorbidities, comedication, and health care use during the prior 12 months using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Incident cancer was defined as having two claims for cancer (any cancer) or the same cancer (breast, prostate, colon) within 2 months. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% CI using weighted Cox models censoring for stopping, switching, or augmenting insulin treatment, end of enrollment, and mortality. RESULTS: More patients initiated glargine (43,306) than NPH (9,147). Initiators of glargine (NPH) were followed for 1.2 (1.1) years and 50,548 (10,011) person-years; 993 (178) developed cancer. The overall HR was 1.12 (95% CI 0.95-1.32). Results were consistent for breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer; various durations of treatment; and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating insulin glargine rather than NPH do not seem to be at an increased risk for cancer. While our study contributes significantly to our evidence base for long-term effects, this evidence is very limited mainly based on actual dynamics in insulin prescribing.