Medications for alcohol-use disorder and follow-up after hospitalization for alcohol withdrawal: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol withdrawal is a common reason for admission to acute care hospitals. Prescription of medications for alcohol-use disorder (AUD) and close outpatient follow-up are commonly recommended, but few studies report their effects on postdischarge outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of medications for AUD and follow-up appointments on readmission and abstinence. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated veterans admitted for alcohol withdrawal to medical services at 19 Veteran Health Administration hospitals between October 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019. Factors associated with all-cause 30-day readmission and 6-month abstinence were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 594 patients included in this study, 296 (50.7%) were prescribed medications for AUD at discharge and 459 (78.5%) were discharged with follow-up appointments, including 251 (42.8%) with a substance-use clinic appointment, 191 (32.9%) with a substance-use program appointment, and 73 (12.5%) discharged to a residential program. All-cause 30-day readmission occurred for 150 patients (25.5%) and 103 (17.8%) remained abstinent at 6 months. Medications for AUD and outpatient discharge appointments were not associated with readmission or abstinence. Discharge to residential treatment program was associated with reduced 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.39, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.18-0.82) and improved abstinence (AOR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.33-4.73). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission and return to heavy drinking are common for patients discharged for alcohol withdrawal. Medications for AUD were not associated with improved outcomes. The only intervention at the time of discharge that improved outcomes was discharge to residential treatment program, which was associated with decreased readmission and improved abstinence.

Contemporary Management and Outcomes of Veterans Hospitalized With Alcohol Withdrawal: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies describe contemporary alcohol withdrawal management in hospitalized settings or review current practices considering the guidelines by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with alcohol withdrawal on medical or surgical wards in 19 Veteran Health Administration (VHA) hospitals between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019. Demographic and comorbidity data were obtained from the Veteran Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse. Inpatient management and hospital outcomes were obtained by chart review. Factors associated with treatment duration and complicated withdrawal were examined. RESULTS: Of the 594 patients included in this study, 51% were managed with symptom-triggered therapy alone, 26% with fixed dose plus symptom-triggered therapy, 10% with front loading regimens plus symptom-triggered therapy, and 3% with fixed dose alone. The most common medication given was lorazepam (87%) followed by chlordiazepoxide (33%), diazepam (14%), and phenobarbital (6%). Symptom-triggered therapy alone (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.80) and front loading with symptom-triggered therapy (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92) were associated with reduced treatment duration. Lorazepam (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41) and phenobarbital (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54) were associated with increased treatment duration. Lorazepam (adjusted odds ratio, 4.30; 95% CI, 1.05-17.63) and phenobarbital (adjusted odds ratio, 6.51; 95% CI, 2.08-20.40) were also associated with complicated withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results support guidelines by the ASAM to manage patients with long-acting benzodiazepines using symptom-triggered therapy. Health care systems that are using shorter acting benzodiazepines and fixed-dose regimens should consider updating alcohol withdrawal management pathways to follow ASAM recommendations.

A Multicenter Observational Study Comparing Virtual with In-Person Morning Reports during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted how educational conferences were delivered, leaving programs to choose between in-person and virtual morning report formats. The objective of our study was to describe morning reports during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of virtual formats, attendance, leadership, and content. METHODS: A prospective observational study of morning reports was conducted at 13 Internal Medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020 and March 30, 2021, including a follow-up survey of current morning report format in January 2023. RESULTS: In total, 257 reports were observed; 74% used virtual formats, including single hospital, multiple hospital, and a hybrid format with both in-person and virtual participants. Compared with in-person reports, virtual reports had more participants, with increased numbers of learners (median 21 vs 7; P < 0.001) and attendings (median 4 vs 2; P < 0.001), and they were more likely to involve medical students (83% vs 40%; P < 0.001), interns (99% vs 53%; P < 0.001), and program directors (68% vs 32%; P < 0.001). Attendings were less likely to lead virtual reports (3% vs 28%, P < 0.001). Virtual reports also were more likely to be case based (88% vs 69%; P < 0.001) and to use digital presentation slides (91% vs 36%; P < 0.001). There was a marked increase in the number of slides (median 20 vs 0; P < 0.001). As of January 2023, all 13 programs had returned to in-person reports, with only 1 program offering an option to participate virtually. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual morning report formats predominated. Compared with traditional in-person reports, virtual report increased attendance, favored resident leadership, and approached a similar range of patient diagnoses with a greater number of case-based presentations and slides. In spite of these characteristics, all programs returned to an in-person format for morning report as pandemic restrictions waned.

What internal medicine attendings talk about at morning report: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Morning report is a core educational activity in internal medicine resident education. Attending physicians regularly participate in morning report and influence the learning environment, though no previous study has described the contribution of attending physicians to this conference. This study aims to describe attending comments at internal medicine morning reports. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of morning reports conducted at 13 internal medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020, and March 30, 2021. Each attending comment was described including its duration, whether the comment was teaching or non-teaching, teaching topic, and field of practice of the commenter. We also recorded morning report-related variables including number of learners, report format, program director participation, and whether report was scripted (facilitator has advance knowledge of the case). A regression model was developed to describe variables associated with the number of attending comments per report. RESULTS: There were 2,344 attending comments during 250 conferences. The median number of attendings present was 3 (IQR, 2-5). The number of comments per report ranged across different sites from 3.9 to 16.8 with a mean of 9.4 comments/report (SD, 7.4). 66% of comments were shorter than one minute in duration and 73% were categorized as teaching by observers. The most common subjects of teaching comments were differential diagnosis, management, and testing. Report duration, number of general internists, unscripted reports, and in-person format were associated with significantly increased number of attending comments. CONCLUSIONS: Attending comments in morning report were generally brief, focused on clinical teaching, and covered a wide range of topics. There were substantial differences between programs in terms of the number of comments and their duration which likely affects the local learning environment. Morning report stakeholders that are interested in increasing attending involvement in morning report should consider employing in-person and unscripted reports. Additional studies are needed to explore best practice models of attending participation in morning report.