Association of Daily Step Count and Postoperative Complication among All of Us Research Participants.

BACKGROUND: The association between preoperative wearable device step counts and surgical outcomes has not been examined using commercial devices linked to electronic health records (EHR). This study measured the association between daily preoperative step counts and postoperative complications. STUDY DESIGN: Data was obtained using the All of Us (AOU) Research program, a nationwide initiative to collect EHR and health-related data from the population. Included were patients who underwent a surgical procedure included in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) targeted procedures dataset. Excluded were patients who did not have available physical activity FitBit data. Primary outcome was the development of a postoperative complication. All analyses were performed in the AOU researcher workbench. RESULTS: Of 27,150 patients who underwent a surgical procedure, 475 participants with preoperative wearable data were included. 74.7% were female and 85.2% were White. The average age was 57.2 years. The overall rate of postoperative complications was 12.6%. Patients averaging fewer than 7,500 daily steps were at increased odds for developing a postoperative complication (OR 1.83, 95% CI [1.01, 3.31]). Following adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbid disease, body mass index (BMI), and relative procedure risk, patients with a baseline average steps/day < 7,500 were at increased odds for postoperative complication (aOR = 2.06, 95% CI [1.05, 4.06]). CONCLUSIONS: This study found an increase in overall postoperative complication rate in patients recording lower average preoperative step counts. Patients with a baseline of less than 7,500 steps per day had increased odds of postoperative complications in this cohort. This data supports the use of wearable devices for surgical risk stratification and suggests step count may measure preoperative fitness.

Characterizing rural families' experiences receiving pediatric surgical care: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Access to pediatric surgical care is influenced by multiple factors, including proximity to care and financial resources. There is limited understanding regarding the process by which rural children acquire surgical care. We qualitatively explored rural families' experiences seeking surgical care for their children at a major children's hospital. METHODS: Parents or legal guardians ≥18 years of age with children who received general surgical care at a major children's hospital and who lived in rural areas were included. Operative logs from 2020 to 2021 and postoperative clinic visits were used to identify families. Semi-structured interviews explored rural families' experiences receiving surgical care. Interviews were inductively and deductively analyzed to create codes and identify thematic domains. Twelve interviews (with 15 individuals) were conducted before thematic saturation was reached. FINDINGS: Children were predominantly White (92%) and lived a median of 98.3 mi (interquartile range 49.4-147.0 mi) from the hospital. Four thematic domains were identified: (1) Accessing surgical care included difficulties with referral processes and travel/lodging burdens; (2) surgical care processes involved treatment details and provider/hospital expertise; (3) resources for navigating care encompassed families' employment status, financial burden, and technology use; and (4) social support included family situations, emotions and stress, and coping with diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Rural families experienced difficulties with obtaining referrals, challenges with travel and employment, and the benefits of technology use. These findings can be applied to the development of tools that can ease challenges faced by rural families whose children require surgical care.

Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Stage at Diagnosis for US Adults with Pancreatic Cancer: a Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated whether Medicaid expansion is associated with earlier stage at diagnosis for pancreatic cancer taking into account key demographic, clinical, and geographic factors. METHODS: We obtained Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER-18) data on individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from 2007 to 2016 (< 65 years of age). We defined non-metastatic as either local or regional disease (vs. metastatic disease). To estimate the association of Medicaid expansion with pancreatic cancer stage at diagnosis, we used a difference-in-differences model, at the individual level, comparing those from early-adopting states in 2014 to non-early-adopting states. We utilized cluster-robust standard errors and explored the role of demographic factors (race, sex, insurance at diagnosis), clinical indicator (disease in the head of the pancreas), and county characteristics (Urban Influence Code, Social Deprivation Index). RESULTS: In the univariable setting, the probability of non-metastatic disease at diagnosis increased by 3.9 percentage points (ppt) for those from Medicaid expansion states post-expansion (n = 36,609). After adjustment for covariates, the ppt was attenuated to 2.7. Of particular note, we observed evidence of interactions with sex and race. The beneficial effect was less pronounced for men (increase in the probability of non-metastatic stage at diagnosis by 2.1ppt) than women (3.6ppt) and non-existent for blacks (- 3.1ppt) compared to whites (4.9ppt) and other races (4.8ppt). CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion is associated with increased probability of non-metastatic stage at diagnosis for pancreatic cancer; however, this beneficial effect is not uniform across sex and race. This underscores the need to investigate the impact of policy and implementation strategies on pancreatic cancer survival disparities.

Managing innovation: a qualitative study on the implementation of telehealth services in rural emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth studies have highlighted the positive benefits of having the service in rural areas. However, there is evidence of limited adoption and utilization. Our objective was to evaluate this gap by exploring U.S. healthcare systems' experience in implementing telehealth services in rural hospital emergency departments (TeleED) and by analyzing factors influencing its implementation and sustainability. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 key informants from six U.S. healthcare systems (hub sites) that provided TeleED services to 65 rural emergency departments (spoke sites). All used synchronous high-definition video to provide the service. We applied an inductive qualitative analysis approach to identify relevant quotes and themes related to TeleED service uptake facilitators and barriers. RESULTS: We identified three stages of implementation: 1) the start-up stage; 2) the utilization stage; and 3) the sustainment stage. At each stage, we identified emerging factors that can facilitate or impede the process. We categorized these factors into eight domains: 1) strategies; 2) capability; 3) relationships; 4) financials; 5) protocols; 6) environment; 7) service characteristics; and 8) accountability. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of healthcare innovation can be influenced by multiple factors. Our study contributes to the field by highlighting key factors and domains that play roles in specific stages of telehealth operation in rural hospitals. By appreciating and responding to these domains, healthcare systems may achieve more predictable and favorable implementation outcomes. Moreover, we recommend strategies to motivate the diffusion of promising innovations such as telehealth.

Beyond patient care: a qualitative study of rural hospitals' role in improving community health.

OBJECTIVES: Rural population face more health disadvantages than those living in urban and suburban areas. In rural communities, hospitals are frequently the primary organisation with the resources and capabilities to address health issues. This characteristic highlights their potential to be a partner and leader for community health initiatives. This study aims to understand rural hospitals' motivations to engage in community health improvement efforts and examine their strategies to address community health issues. DESIGN: Eleven semistructured interviews were conducted with key leaders from four rural hospitals in a US Midwestern state. On-site and telephone interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The combination of inductive and deductive qualitative analysis was applied to identify common themes and categories. SETTINGS: Participating hospitals are located in US rural counties that have demonstrated progress in creating healthier communities. RESULTS: Three types of motivation drive rural hospitals' community health improvement efforts: internal values, economic conditions and social responsibilities. Three categories of strategies to address community health issues were identified: building capacity, building relationships and building programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges, rural hospitals can successfully conduct community-oriented programmes. The finds extend the literature on how rural hospitals may strategise to improve rural health by engaging their communities and conduct activities beyond patient care.

Mobilising cross-sector collaborations to improve population health in US rural communities: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines types and forms of cross-sector collaborations employed by rural communities to address community health issues and identifies factors facilitating or inhibiting such collaborations. SETTING: We conducted case studies of four rural communities in the US state of Iowa that have demonstrated progress in creating healthier communities. PARTICIPANTS: Key informants from local public health departments, hospitals and other health-promoting organisations and groups participated in this study. Twenty-two key-informant interviews were conducted. Participants were selected based on their organisation's involvement in community health initiatives. RESULTS: Rural communities used different forms of collaborations, including cross-sector partnership, cross-sector interaction and cross-sector exploration, to address community health issues. Stakeholders from public health, healthcare, social services, education and business sectors were involved. Factors facilitating cross-sector collaborations include health-promoting local contexts, seed initiatives that mobilise communities, hospital visions that embrace broad views of health and shared collaboration leadership and governance. Challenges to developing and sustaining cross-sector collaborations include different institutional logics, financial and human resources constraints and geographic dispersion. CONCLUSIONS: Rural communities use cross-sector collaborations to address community health issues in the forms of interaction and exploration, but real and lasting partnerships are rare. The development, operation and sustainment of cross-sector collaborations are influenced by a set of contextual and practical factors. Practical strategies and policy interventions may be used to enhance cross-sector collaborations in rural communities.