Predictors of Initial CPAP Prescription and Subsequent Course with CPAP in Patients with Central Sleep Apneas at a Single Center.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend considering an initial trial of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to treat central sleep apnea (CSA). However, practice patterns vary widely. This study investigated predictors for an initial trial of CPAP in patients with central apneas and whether those factors predict adequate treatment response in patients receiving an initial CPAP trial. METHODS: Charts of patients receiving a diagnostic code for CSA following a sleep study during 2016-2018 at a single center were reviewed. Patient factors, initial treatment prescriptions, and subsequent changes to therapy were extracted from electronic health records. Regression models were used to estimate factors associated with an initial CPAP prescription and the likelihood of an adequate CPAP response (no subsequent therapy change and no discontinuation of therapy) among patients prescribed CPAP. RESULTS: 429/588 (73%) patients with central apneas received an initial trial of CPAP. Younger age, diagnosis by home sleep testing, non-opiate etiology of central apneas, and a lower proportion of central apneas at diagnosis were independently associated with a higher likelihood of an initial CPAP trial. A lower proportion of central apneas was associated with a higher probability of adequate response, while current smoking and opiate-related central apneas predicted an unsuccessful CPAP trial. A new finding was that older age predicted a lower likelihood of an initial CPAP prescription but did not predict an unsatisfactory response to CPAP. CONCLUSION: Clinicians may incorrectly weigh certain clinical and sleep study characteristics when deciding whether to trial CPAP for patients with central apneas.

Challenges faced by patients with low socioeconomic status during the post-hospital transition.

BACKGROUND: Patients with low socioeconomic status (low-SES) are at risk for poor outcomes during the post-hospital transition. Few prior studies explore perceived reasons for poor outcomes from the perspectives of these high-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: We explored low-SES patients' perceptions of hospitalization, discharge and post-hospital transition in order to generate hypotheses and identify common experiences during this transition. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviewing. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 65 patients who were: 1) uninsured, insured by Medicaid or dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare; 2) residents of five low-income ZIP codes; 3) had capacity or a caregiver who could be interviewed as a proxy; and 4) hospitalized on the general medicine or cardiology services of two academically affiliated urban hospitals. APPROACH: Our interview guide investigated patients' perceptions of hospitalization, discharge and the post-hospital transition, and their performance of recommended post-hospital health behaviors related to: 1) experience of hospitalization and discharge; 2) external constraints on patients' ability to execute discharge instructions; 3) salience of health behaviors; and 4) self-efficacy to execute discharge instructions. We used a modified grounded theory approach to analysis. KEY RESULTS: We identified six themes that low-SES patients shared in their narratives of hospitalization, discharge and post-hospital transition. These were: 1) powerlessness during hospitalization due to illness and socioeconomic factors; 2) misalignment of patient and care team goals; 3) lack of saliency of health behaviors due to competing issues; 4) socioeconomic constraints on patients' ability to perform recommended behaviors; 5) abandonment after discharge; and 6) loss of self-efficacy resulting from failure to perform recommended behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Low-SES patients describe discharge goals that are confusing, unrealistic in the face of significant socioeconomic constraints, and in conflict with their own immediate goals. We hypothesize that this goal misalignment leads to a cycle of low achievement and loss of self-efficacy that may underlie poor post-hospital outcomes among low-SES patients.

Unintended Consequences of Code Status in the Intensive Care Unit: What Happens After a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order Is Placed? A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Some clinicians suspect that patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders receive less aggressive care. Extrapolation from code status to goals of care could cause significant harm. This study asked the question: Do DNR orders in the intensive care unit (ICU) lead to a decrease in invasive interventions? Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of ICU patients from three teaching hospitals. All ICU patients were assessed for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were medical futility and death, comfort care, or ICU discharge <48 hours after DNR initiation. Five hundred thirty-six patients met inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-five were included in the final analysis. Primary outcomes were occurrence of invasive interventions after DNR initiation-surgical operation, central line, ventilation, dialysis, or other procedure. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic administration, blood transfusion, mortality, and discharge location. Results: Patients with DNR orders underwent fewer surgical operations (14.5% vs. 31.1%, p = 0.002), but more central lines (42.1% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.009), ventilator use (49.0% vs. 18.9%, p < 0.001), and dialysis (20.0% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.002), compared with patients without DNR orders. Transfusions and antibiotic use decreased similarly over admission for both groups (transfusions: ß = 1.25; p = 0.59; and antibiotics: ß = 1.44; p = 0.27). Mortality and hospice discharges were higher for DNR patients (p < 0.001.). Conclusions: DNR status did not decrease the number of nonoperative interventions patients received as compared with full code counterparts. Although differences in populations existed, patients with DNR orders were likely to receive a similar number of invasive interventions. This finding suggests that providers do not wholesale limit these options for patients with code status limitations.

More than just an eyesore: local insights and solutions on vacant land and urban health.

Vacant land is a significant economic problem for many cities, but also may affect the health and safety of residents. In order for community-based solutions to vacant land to be accepted by target populations, community members should be engaged in identifying local health impacts and generating solutions. We conducted 50 in-depth semi-structured interviews with people living in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a city with high vacancy, about the impact of vacant land on community and individual health and safety, as well as ideas for solutions to vacant land. Participants described a neighborhood physical environment dominated by decaying abandoned homes and overgrown vacant lots which affected community well-being, physical health, and mental health. Vacant land was thought to affect community well-being by overshadowing positive aspects of the community, contributing to fractures between neighbors, attracting crime, and making residents fearful. Vacant land was described as impacting physical health through injury, the buildup of trash, and attraction of rodents, as well as mental health through anxiety and stigma. Participants had several ideas for solutions to vacant land in their community, including transformation of vacant lots into small park spaces for the elderly and playgrounds for youth, and the use of abandoned homes for subsidized housing and homeless shelters. A few participants took pride in maintaining vacant lots on their block, and others expressed interest in performing maintenance but lacked the resources to do so. Public health researchers and practitioners, and urban planners should engage local residents in the design and implementation of vacant land strategies. Furthermore, municipalities should ensure that the health and safety impact of vacant land helps drive policy decisions around vacant land.

Predictors of Initial CPAP Prescription and Subsequent Course with CPAP in Patients with Central Sleep Apneas.

Purpose: Guidelines recommend considering an initial trial of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to treat central sleep apnea (CSA). However, practice patterns vary widely. This study investigated predictors for an initial trial of CPAP in patients with central apneas and whether those factors predict adequate treatment response in patients receiving an initial CPAP trial. Methods: Charts of patients receiving a diagnostic code for CSA following a sleep study during 2016-2018 at a single center were reviewed. Patient factors, initial treatment prescriptions, and subsequent changes to therapy were extracted from electronic health records. Regression models were used to estimate factors associated with an initial CPAP prescription and the likelihood of an adequate CPAP response (no subsequent therapy change or nonadherence) among patients prescribed CPAP. Results: 429/588 (73%) patients with central apneas received an initial trial of CPAP. Younger age, diagnosis by home sleep testing, non-opiate etiology of central apneas, and a lower proportion of central apneas at diagnosis were independently associated with a higher likelihood of an initial CPAP trial. A lower proportion of central apneas was associated with a higher probability of adequate response, while current smoking and opiate-related central apneas predicted an unsuccessful CPAP trial. A new finding was that older age predicted a lower likelihood of an initial CPAP prescription but did not predict a suboptimal response to CPAP. Conclusion: Clinicians may incorrectly weigh certain clinical and sleep study characteristics when deciding whether to trial CPAP for patients with central apneas.

Patient-centered community health worker intervention to improve posthospital outcomes: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE Socioeconomic and behavioral factors can negatively influence posthospital outcomes among patients of low socioeconomic status (SES). Traditional hospital personnel often lack the time, skills, and community linkages required to address these factors. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a tailored community health worker (CHW) intervention would improve posthospital outcomes among low-SES patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A 2-armed, single-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted between April 10, 2011, and October 30, 2012, at 2 urban, academically affiliated hospitals. Of 683 eligible general medical inpatients (ie, low-income, uninsured, or Medicaid) that we screened, 237 individuals (34.7%) declined to participate. The remaining 446 patients (65.3%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to study arms. Nearly equal percentages of control and intervention group patients completed the follow-up interview (86.6% vs 86.9%). INTERVENTIONS During hospital admission, CHWs worked with patients to create individualized action plans for achieving patients' stated goals for recovery. The CHWs provided support tailored to patient goals for a minimum of 2 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The prespecified primary outcome was completion of primary care follow-up within 14 days of discharge. Prespecified secondary outcomes were quality of discharge communication, self-rated health, satisfaction, patient activation, medication adherence, and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS Using intention-to-treat analysis, we found that intervention patients were more likely to obtain timely posthospital primary care (60.0% vs 47.9%; P = .02; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.03-2.23), to report high-quality discharge communication (91.3% vs 78.7%; P = .002; adjusted OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.5-5.8), and to show greater improvements in mental health (6.7 vs 4.5; P = .02) and patient activation (3.4 vs 1.6; P = .05). There were no significant differences between groups in physical health, satisfaction with medical care, or medication adherence. Similar proportions of patients in both arms experienced at least one 30-day readmission; however, intervention patients were less likely to have multiple 30-day readmissions (2.3% vs 5.5%; P = .08; adjusted OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.14-1.06). Among the subgroup of 63 readmitted patients, recurrent readmission was reduced from 40.0% vs 15.2% (P = .03; adjusted OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.89). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Patient-centered CHW intervention improves access to primary care and quality of discharge while controlling recurrent readmissions in a high-risk population. Health systems may leverage the CHW workforce to improve posthospital outcomes by addressing behavioral and socioeconomic drivers of disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01346462.