Variation in US acute ischemic stroke treatment by hospital regions: limited endovascular access despite evidence.

BACKGROUND: Although national organizations recognize the importance of regionalized acute ischemic stroke (AIS) care, data informing expansion are sparse. We assessed real-world regional variation in emergent AIS treatment, including growth in revascularization therapies and stroke center certification. We hypothesized that we would observe overall growth in revascularization therapy utilization, but observed differences would vary greatly regionally. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was carried out of de-identified national inpatient Medicare Fee-for-Service datasets from 2016 to 2019. We identified AIS admissions and treatment with thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy (ET) with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We grouped hospitals in Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare Hospital Referral Regions (HRR) and calculated hospital, demographic, and acute stroke treatment characteristics for each HRR. We calculated the percent of hospitals with stroke certification and AIS cases treated with thrombolysis or ET per HRR. RESULTS: There were 957 958 AIS admissions. Relative mean (SD) growth in percent of AIS admissions receiving revascularization therapy per HRR from 2016 to 2019 was 13.4 (31.7)% (IQR -6.1-31.7%) for thrombolysis and 28.0 (72.0)% (IQR 0-56.0%) for ET. The proportion of HRRs with decreased or no difference in ET utilization was 38.9% and the proportion of HRRs with decreased or no difference in thrombolysis utilization was 32.7%. Mean (SD) stroke center certification proportion across HRRs was 45.3 (31.5)% and this varied widely (IQR 18.3-73.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall growth in AIS treatment has been modest and, within HRRs, growth in AIS treatment and the proportion of centers with stroke certification varies dramatically.

Creating ophthalmology experiences in undergraduate medical education: pilot of a cased-based learning ophthalmology tool.

PURPOSE: To evaluate medical student perceptions of a novel ophthalmology resource delivered through facilitated workshops in the core clerkship curriculum. METHODS: We created www.2020sim.com, a free case-based learning (CBL) ophthalmology tool, adapted from NephSIM (www.nephsim.com). The tool was first piloted with the internal medicine (IM) residents. After confirming a need, we focused on undergraduate medical education (UME) by expanding the 20/20 SIM content and partnering with the neurology (pilot academic year [AY] 2020-2021) and pediatric clerkships (pilot AY 2021-2022) to deliver a facilitated one-hour ophthalmology workshop within each clerkship's didactic curriculum. We evaluated the tool using pre- and post-surveys and knowledge assessments. RESULTS: Of 80 IM residents, 33 (41.3%) completed the needs assessment. Of the 25 residents who attended the workshop, 23 (92.0%) completed the exit survey. IM residents reported discomfort in several ophthalmology domains (9 of 14 rated mean score < 3.0), confirming a need. Most (n = 21/23, 91.3%) rated the tool as good/excellent. Of 145 neurology clerkship students, 125 (86.2%) and at least 88 (60.7%) students completed the pre- and post-test/exit surveys, respectively. On average, participants highly rated the tool, perceiving 20/20 SIM to be relevant to their education [4.1 (0.8)]. Mean pre- to post-test knowledge scores increased from 7.5 to 8.5/10.0 points (p < 0.001). Of the 136 pediatric clerkship students, 67 (49.3%) and 51 (37.5%) completed the pre- and post-surveys, respectively. Respondents perceived increased comfort with ophthalmology topics after the facilitated workshop [3.8 (0.8)]. Mean pre- to post-test knowledge scores trended from 1.8 to 2.0/5.0 points (p = 0.30). Collectively, 20/139 (14.4%) of exit survey respondents visited www.2020sim.com within 1 month after the workshop. CONCLUSION: After identifying areas of greatest need with residents, we partnered with core clerkships to deliver cross-disciplinary ophthalmology content in UME. We found high engagement with 20/20 SIM, with trends toward increased knowledge.

High Risk Features Contributing to 30-Day Readmission After Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Single Center Retrospective Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Risk of 30-day stroke readmission has been attributed to medical comorbidities, stroke severity, and hospitalization metrics. The leading etiologies appear to vary across institutions and remain a moving target. We hypothesized that patients with increased medical complexity have higher odds of 30-day readmission and the immediate time after discharge may be most vulnerable. We aimed to characterize patients with 30-day readmission after acute ischemic stroke (IS) and identify predictors of post-IS readmission. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study analyzing post-IS 30-day readmission between January 2016-December 2019 using data from Mount Sinai Hospital's Get With The Guidelines database. We performed chi square analyses and multivariate adjusted logistic regression model including age, sex, coronary artery disease (CAD), renal insufficiency (RI), history of prior stroke or TIA, length of stay (LOS) > 7, and NIHSS ≥ 5. RESULTS: 6.7% (n = 115) of 1,706 IS encounters had 30-day readmission. The 115 cases were compared to 1,591 controls without 30-day readmission. In our adjusted model, CAD (OR = 1.7, p = 0.01), history of prior stroke or TIA (OR = 1.6, p = 0.01), LOS >7 (OR = 1.7, p = 0.02), and NIHSS ≥ 5 (OR = 4.5, p < 0.001) predicted 30-day readmission. 65% (n = 75) of readmitted patients had readmission within 14 days post-discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with post-IS 30-day readmission were more likely to have complex medical comorbidities and history of stroke or TIA compared to controls. Patients with more severe stroke and longer LOS may benefit from individualized transition of care plans and closer follow up during the vulnerable 30-day post-stroke period.

Key Insights From the Development and Implementation of a Novel Virtual Interview Process for Medical School Admissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PROBLEM: During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical schools have offered a virtual application process. Minimal literature is available to guide best practices. APPROACH: The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) implemented a completely virtual interview (VI) process in April/May 2020. Large-group sessions for applicants, interviews with applicants, and ISMMS Admissions Committee meetings occurred via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc., San Jose, California). Large-group sessions and committee meetings occurred via communal conference calls, while one-on-one, semistructured interviews occurred in individual breakout rooms. ISMMS offered live, virtual question-and-answer sessions with students and faculty, plus digital resources describing program features. After the interview day, applicants and interviewers were invited to complete anonymous surveys regarding their experiences with and perspectives of VI. OUTCOMES: Of 125 applicants and 20 interviewers, 99 (79%) and 18 (90%), respectively, completed at least part of the survey. Of the applicants, 85/95 (89%) agreed VI met or exceeded expectations, with many praising the day's organization and convenience, and 71/95 (75%) agreed they received a sufficient sense of the student body. A minority (n = 39/95 [41%]) felt limited in their ability to learn about the institution (commonly related to their inability to tour campus), and a majority (n =74/91 [81%]) would have preferred an in-person interview. Most interviewers felt comfortable assessing applicants' verbal communication skills (n = 13/16 [81%]), and most (n = 12/17 [71%]) felt VI should be an option for future applicants. NEXT STEPS: VI, likely to be a temporary-but-universal fixture of upcoming application cycles, may benefit applicants and interviewers alike by saving resources and diversifying those involved. Next steps are developing programming that will permit applicants to virtually explore the institution and connect more with current students. Future research should evaluate potential bias in VI to ensure an equitable application process for all.

Acute Cerebrovascular Events With COVID-19 Infection.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with an increased incidence of thrombotic events, including stroke. However, characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with stroke are not well known. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of risk factors, stroke characteristics, and short-term outcomes in a large health system in New York City. We included consecutively admitted patients with acute cerebrovascular events from March 1, 2020 through April 30, 2020. Data were stratified by COVID-19 status, and demographic variables, medical comorbidities, stroke characteristics, imaging results, and in-hospital outcomes were examined. Among COVID-19-positive patients, we also summarized laboratory test results. RESULTS: Of 277 patients with stroke, 105 (38.0%) were COVID-19-positive. Compared with COVID-19-negative patients, COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to have a cryptogenic (51.8% versus 22.3%, P<0.0001) stroke cause and were more likely to suffer ischemic stroke in the temporal (P=0.02), parietal (P=0.002), occipital (P=0.002), and cerebellar (P=0.028) regions. In COVID-19-positive patients, mean coagulation markers were slightly elevated (prothrombin time 15.4±3.6 seconds, partial thromboplastin time 38.6±24.5 seconds, and international normalized ratio 1.4±1.3). Outcomes were worse among COVID-19-positive patients, including longer length of stay (P<0.0001), greater percentage requiring intensive care unit care (P=0.017), and greater rate of neurological worsening during admission (P<0.0001); additionally, more COVID-19-positive patients suffered in-hospital death (33% versus 12.9%, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline characteristics in patients with stroke were similar comparing those with and without COVID-19. However, COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to experience stroke in a lobar location, more commonly had a cryptogenic cause, and had worse outcomes.

Real-time Assessment of Neurology Residents' Perceptions of Inappropriate Consults.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize perceptions of inappropriate neurology consults of neurology residents (NR) and requesting providers (RP) immediately following the consult interaction. METHODS: Student investigators were embedded in the Mount Sinai neurology consult service for 4 weeks in May/June 2018. For each consecutive neurology consult the NR's real-time attitudes toward the consult were evaluated with a survey using Likert scales. A similar survey was immediately administered to the RP who called the consult. Response scores for each attribute were dichotomized and data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS. RESULTS: Data from 69 consults were collected. NRs perceived 45% of consults as inappropriate and 82% of all consults as low urgency. When NRs perceived a consult as inappropriate, they felt more resistance (r=-0.79). NRs also felt more resistant when they thought that the RP could have cared for the patient without the consult (r=0.79). NRs felt that perceived medicolegal risk highly influenced the RP's decision to call a consult in 36% of cases. Of these "high liability" consults, NRs considered 76% inappropriate and 100% low urgency. CONCLUSIONS: NRs were more likely to rate consults as inappropriate if they were also perceived as low urgency, strongly influenced by liability concerns, or unnecessary due to belief that the RP could have cared for the patient without the consult. Our findings suggest a discrepancy in how NRs and RPs perceive neurology consult appropriateness, and help to elucidate potential drivers of these perceptions that could be barriers to education and to interdisciplinary care.