Human CIDEC transgene improves lipid metabolism and protects against high-fat diet-induced glucose intolerance in mice.

Cell death-inducing DNA fragmentation factor-like effector C (CIDEC) expression in adipose tissue positively correlates with insulin sensitivity in obese humans. Further, E186X, a single-nucleotide CIDEC variant is associated with lipodystrophy, hypertriglyceridemia, and insulin resistance. To establish the unknown mechanistic link between CIDEC and maintenance of systemic glucose homeostasis, we generated transgenic mouse models expressing CIDEC (Ad-CIDECtg) and CIDEC E186X variant (Ad-CIDECmut) transgene specifically in the adipose tissue. We found that Ad-CIDECtg but not Ad-CIDECmut mice were protected against high-fat diet-induced glucose intolerance. Furthermore, we revealed the role of CIDEC in lipid metabolism using transcriptomics and lipidomics. Serum triglycerides, cholesterol, and low-density lipoproteins were lower in high-fat diet-fed Ad-CIDECtg mice compared to their littermate controls. Mechanistically, we demonstrated that CIDEC regulates the enzymatic activity of adipose triglyceride lipase via interacting with its activator, CGI-58, to reduce free fatty acid release and lipotoxicity. In addition, we confirmed that CIDEC is indeed a vital regulator of lipolysis in adipose tissue of obese humans, and treatment with recombinant CIDEC decreased triglyceride breakdown in visceral human adipose tissue. Our study unravels a central pathway whereby adipocyte-specific CIDEC plays a pivotal role in regulating adipose lipid metabolism and whole-body glucose homeostasis. In summary, our findings identify human CIDEC as a potential 'drug' or a 'druggable' target to reverse obesity-induced lipotoxicity and glucose intolerance.

Sitting at the Bedside: Patient and Internal Medicine Trainee Perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Sitting at the bedside may strengthen physician-patient communication and improve patient experience. Yet despite the potential benefits of sitting, hospital physicians, including resident physicians, may not regularly sit down while speaking with patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency of sitting by internal medicine residents (including first post-graduate year [PGY-1] and supervising [PGY-2/3] residents) during inpatient encounters and to assess the association between patient-reported sitting at the bedside and patients' perceptions of other physician communication behaviors. We also assessed residents' attitudes towards sitting. DESIGN: In-person survey of patients and email survey of internal medicine residents between August 2019 and January 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to general medicine teaching services and internal medicine residents at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported frequency of sitting at the bedside, patients' perceptions of other communication behaviors (e.g., checking for understanding); residents' attitudes regarding sitting. KEY RESULTS: Of 334 eligible patients, 256 (76%) completed a survey. Among these 256 respondents, 198 (77%) and 166 (65%) reported recognizing the PGY-1 and PGY-2/3 on their care team, respectively, for a total of 364 completed surveys. On most surveys (203/364, 56%), patients responded that residents "never" sat. Frequent sitting at the bedside ("every single time" or "most of the time," together 48/364, 13%) was correlated with other positive behaviors, including spending enough time at the bedside, checking for understanding, and not seeming to be in a rush (p < 0.01 for all). Of 151 residents, 77 (51%) completed the resident survey; 28 of the 77 (36%) reported sitting frequently. The most commonly cited barrier to sitting was that chairs were not available (38 respondents, 49%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients perceived that residents sit infrequently. However, sitting was associated with other positive communication behaviors; this is compatible with the hypothesis that promoting sitting could improve overall patient perceptions of provider communication.

Models of Intermediate Care Organization and Staffing at an Academic Medical Center: Considerations of an Inpatient Planning Committee.

Rationale: Geographic co-localization of patients and provider teams (geography) may improve care efficiency and quality. Patients requiring intermediate care present a unique challenge to the geographic model. Objective: Identify the best organizational and staffing model for intermediate care at our academic medical center. Methods: A modified nominal group technique was employed to assess the benefits and limitations of an existing model of intermediate care, identify and review potential alternative models, and choose a new model. Results: In addition to the institution's current model, the benefits and limitations of six alternative organizational and staffing models were characterized. The anticipated impact of each model on nurse: provider communication, maintenance of nursing competencies, nurse satisfaction, efficient utilization of technical and human resources, triage of patients to the unit, care continuity, and the impact on trainee education are described. After considering these features, stakeholders ranked a closed provider staffing model on a unit dedicated to intermediate care highest of the six alternative models. Important outcomes to monitor following transition to a closed staffing model included patient outcomes, nursing job satisfaction and retention, provider and trainee experience, unexpected patient transfers to higher or lower levels of care, and administrative costs. Conclusions: After considering six alternative staffing models for intermediate care, stakeholders ranked a closed provider staffing model highest. Further qualitative and quantitative comparisons to determine optimal models of intermediate care are needed.

Wall-mounted folding chairs to promote resident physician sitting at the hospital bedside.

BACKGROUND: Sitting at the bedside may improve patient-clinician communication; however, many clinicians do not regularly sit during inpatient encounters. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of adding wall-mounted folding chairs inside patient rooms, beyond any impact from a resident education campaign, on the patient-reported frequency of sitting at the bedside by internal medicine resident physicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, controlled pre-post trial between 2019 and 2022 (data collection paused 2020-2021 due to COVID-19) at an academic hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. Folding chairs were installed in two of four internal medicine units and educational activities were delivered equally across all units. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Patient-reported frequency of sitting at bedside, assessed as means on Likert-type items with 1 being "never" and 5 being "every single time." We also examined the frequency of other patient-reported communication behaviors. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty six and 206 patients enrolled in the pre and post-intervention periods, respectively. The mean frequency of patient-reported sitting by resident physicians increased from 1.8 (SD 1.2) to 2.3 (1.2) on education-only units (absolute difference 0.48 [95% CI: 0.21-0.75]) and from 2.0 (1.3) to 3.2 (1.4) on units receiving chairs (1.16, [0.87-1.45]). Comparing differences between groups using ordered logistic regression adjusting for clustering within residents, units with added chairs had greater increases in sitting (odds ratio 2.05 [1.10-3.82]), spending enough time at the bedside (2.43 [1.32-4.49]), and checking for understanding (3.04 [1.44-6.39]). Improvements in sitting and other behaviors were sustained on both types of units. CONCLUSIONS: Adding wall-mounted folding chairs may help promote effective patient-clinician communication.

Same-Day vs Different-Day Elective Upper and Lower Endoscopic Procedures by Setting.

Importance: Performing elective upper and lower endoscopic procedures on the same day is a patient-centered and less costly approach than a 2-stage approach performed on different days, when clinically appropriate. Whether this practice pattern varies based on practice setting has not been studied. Objectives: To estimate the rate of different-day upper and lower endoscopic procedures in 3 types of outpatient settings and investigate the factors associated with the performance of these procedures on different days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis was conducted of Medicare claims between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2018, for Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a pair of upper and lower endoscopic procedures performed within 90 days of each other at hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and physician offices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Undergoing an upper and a lower endoscopic procedure on different days, adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence location and region, comorbidity, and procedure indication) and physician characteristics (sex, years in practice, procedure volume, and primary specialty). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were calculated. Results: A total of 4 028 587 procedure pairs were identified, of which 52.5% were performed in HOPDs, 43.3% in ASCs, and 4.2% in physician offices. The rate of different-day procedures was 13.6% in HOPDs, 22.2% in ASCs, and 47.7% in physician offices. For the 7564 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and ASCs, their different-day procedure rate changed from 14.1% at HOPDs to 19.4% at ASCs. For the 993 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and physician offices, their different-day procedure rate changed from 15.8% at HOPDs to 37.4% at physician offices. Patients were more likely to undergo different-day procedures at physician offices and ASCs compared with HOPDs, even after adjusting for patient and physician characteristics (physician office vs HOPD: aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.85-2.20; ASC vs HOPD: aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.32). Older age (85-94 years vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.11; 95 years or older vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), black and Hispanic race/ethnicity (black: aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.17; Hispanic: aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.10-1.14), and residing in the Northeast region (adjusted OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28-1.36) were risk factors for undergoing different-day procedures. Micropolitan location (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96) and rural location (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93), more comorbidities (≥5: aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76), physician's fewer years in practice (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), physician's higher procedure volume (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.68), and physician's specialty of general surgery (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91) were protective factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Physician offices and ASCs had much higher different-day procedure rates compared with HOPDs. This disparity may represent an opportunity for quality improvement and financial savings for common endoscopic procedures.