Patient-reported predictors of postdischarge mortality after cardiac hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Adults hospitalized for cardiovascular events are at high risk for postdischarge mortality. Screening of psychosocial risk is prioritized by the Joint Commission. We tested whether key patient-reported psychosocial and behavioral measures could predict posthospitalization mortality in a cohort of adults hospitalized for a cardiovascular event. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study to test the prognostic utility of validated patient-reported measures, including health literacy, social support, health behaviors and disease management, and socioeconomic status. Cox survival analyses of mortality were conducted over a median of 3.5 years. RESULTS: Among 2977 adults hospitalized for either acute coronary syndrome or acute decompensated heart failure, the mean age was 53 years, and 60% were male. After adjusting for demographic, clinical, and other psychosocial factors, mortality risk was greatest among patients who reported being unemployed (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]): 1.30-3.06), retired (HR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.60-2.87), or unable to work due to disability (HR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.73-3.21), as compared to those who were employed. Patient-reported perceived health competence (PHCS-2) and exercise frequency were also associated with mortality risk after adjusting for all other variables (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.00 per four-point increase in PHCS-2; HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.96 per 3-day increase in exercise frequency, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported measures of employment status, perceived health competence, and exercise frequency independently predict mortality after a cardiac hospitalization. Incorporating these brief, valid measures into hospital-based screening may help with prognostication and targeting patients for resources during post-discharge transitions of care.

Screening for the high-need population using single institution versus state-wide admissions discharge transfer feed.

BACKGROUND: Access to programs for high-needs patients depending on single-institution electronic health record data (EHR) carries risks of biased sampling. We investigate a statewide admission, discharge, and transfer feed (ADT) in assessing equity in access to these programs. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. We included high-need patients at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) 18 years or older, with at least three emergency visits (ED) or hospitalizations in Tennessee from January 1 to June 30, 2021, including at least one at VUMC. We used the Tennessee ADT database to identify high-need patients with at least one VUMC ED/hospitalization. Then, we compared this population with high-need patients identified using VUMC's Epic® EHR database. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of VUMC-only criteria for identifying high-need patients compared to the statewide ADT reference standard. RESULTS: We identified 2549 patients with at least one ED/hospitalization and assessed them as high-need based on the statewide ADT. Of those, 2100 had VUMC-only visits, and 449 had VUMC and non-VUMC visits. VUMC-only visit screening criteria showed high sensitivity (99.1%, 95% CI: 98.7 - 99.5%), showing that the high-needs patients admitted to VUMC infrequently access alternative systems. Results showed no meaningful difference in sensitivity when stratified by patient's race or insurance. CONCLUSIONS: ADT allows examination for potential selection bias when relying upon single-institution utilization. In VUMC's high-need patients, there's minimal selection bias when depending on same-site utilization. Further research must understand how biases vary by site and durability over time.

Patient-reported predictors of post-discharge mortality after cardiac hospitalization.

Background: Adults hospitalized for cardiovascular events are at high risk for post-discharge mortality. Hospital-based screening of health-related psychosocial risk factors is now prioritized by the Joint Commission and the National Quality Forum to achieve equitable, high-quality care. We tested our hypothesis that key patient-reported psychosocial and behavioral measures could predict post-hospitalization mortality in a cohort of adults hospitalized for a cardiovascular event. Methods: This was a prospective cohort of adults hospitalized at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Validated patient-reported measures of health literacy, social support, disease self-management, and socioeconomic status were used as predictors of interest. Cox survival analyses of mortality were conducted over a median 3.5-year follow-up (range: 1.25 - 5.5 years). Results: Among 2,977 adults, 1,874 (63%) were hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome and 1,103 (37%) were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure; 60% were male; and the mean age was 53 years. After adjusting for demographic, clinical, and other psychosocial factors, mortality risk was greatest among patients who reported being unable to work due to disability (Hazard Ratio (HR) 2.36, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.73-3.21), who were retired (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.60-2.87), and who reported unemployment (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.30-3.06) as compared to those who were employed. Patient-reported measures of disease self-management, perceived health competence and exercise frequency, were also associated with mortality risk after full covariate adjustment (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.00 per four-point increase), (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96 per three-day change), respectively. Conclusions: Patient-reported measures of employment status independently predict post-discharge mortality after a cardiac hospitalization. Measure of disease self-management also have prognostic modest utility. Hospital-based screening of psychosocial risk is increasingly prioritized in legislative policy. Incorporating brief, valid measures of employment status and disease self-management factors may help target patients for psychosocial, financial, and rehabilitative resources during post-discharge transitions of care.

Clinicians' perceptions on implementation strategies used to facilitate ABCDEF bundle adoption: A multicenter survey.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians struggle to routinely implement the ICU Liberation bundle (ABCDEF bundle). As a result, critically ill patients experience increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Despite extensive research related to the barriers and facilitators of bundle use, little is known regarding which implementation strategies are used to facilitate its adoption and sustainability. OBJECTIVES: To identify implementation strategies used to increase adoption of the ABCDEF bundle and how those strategies are perceived by end-users (i.e., ICU clinicians) related to their helpfulness, acceptability, feasibility, and cost. METHODS: We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey of ICU clinicians from the 68 ICU sites that previously participated in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's ICU Liberation Collaborative. The survey was structured using the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies. Surveys were delivered electronically to site contacts. RESULTS: Nineteen ICUs (28%) returned completed surveys. Sites used 63 of the 73 ERIC implementation strategies, with frequent use of strategies that may be readily available to clinicians (e.g., providing educational meetings or ongoing training), but less use of strategies that require changes to well-established organizational systems (e.g., alter incentive allowance structure). Overall, sites described the ERIC strategies used in their implementation process to be moderately helpful (mean score >3<4 on a 5-point Likert scale), somewhat acceptable and feasible (mean score >2<3), and either not-at-all or somewhat costly (mean scores >1<3). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a potential over-reliance on accessible strategies and the possible benefit of unused ERIC strategies related to changing infrastructure and utilizing financial strategies.

Using phenotypic data from the Electronic Health Record (EHR) to predict discharge.

BACKGROUND: Timely discharge to post-acute care (PAC) settings, such as skilled nursing facilities, requires early identification of eligible patients. We sought to develop and internally validate a model which predicts a patient's likelihood of requiring PAC based on information obtained in the first 24 h of hospitalization. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study. We collected clinical data and commonly used nursing assessments from the electronic health record (EHR) for all adult inpatient admissions at our academic tertiary care center from September 1, 2017 to August 1, 2018. We performed a multivariable logistic regression to develop the model from the derivation cohort of the available records. We then evaluated the capability of the model to predict discharge destination on an internal validation cohort. RESULTS: Age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.04 [per year]; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.04), admission to the intensive care unit (AOR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.79), admission from the emergency department (AOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.78), more home medication prescriptions (AOR, 1.06 [per medication count increase]; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.07), and higher Morse fall risk scores at admission (AOR, 1.03 [per unit increase]; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.03) were independently associated with higher likelihood of being discharged to PAC facility. The c-statistic of the model derived from the primary analysis was 0.875, and the model predicted the correct discharge destination in 81.2% of the validation cases. CONCLUSIONS: A model that utilizes baseline clinical factors and risk assessments has excellent model performance in predicting discharge to a PAC facility.

Why do older adults decline participation in research? Results from two deprescribing clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Heterogenous older adult populations are underrepresented in clinical trials, and their participation is necessary for interventions that directly target them. The purpose of this study was to evaluate reasons why hospitalized older adults declined participation in two deprescribing clinical trials. METHODS: We report enrollment data from two deprescribing trials, Shed-MEDS (non-Veterans) and VA DROP (Veterans). For both trials, inclusion criteria required participants to be hospitalized, age 50 or older, English-speaking, and taking five or more home medications. Eligible patients were approached for enrollment while hospitalized. When an eligible patient or surrogate declined participation, the reason(s) were recorded and subsequently analyzed inductively to develop themes, and a chi-square test was used for comparison (of themes between Veterans and non-Veterans). RESULTS: Across both trials, 1226 patients (545 non-Veterans and 681 Veterans) declined enrollment and provided reasons, which were condensed into three themes: (1) feeling overwhelmed by their current health status, (2) lack of interest or mistrust of research, and (3) hesitancy to participate in a deprescribing study. A greater proportion of Veterans expressed a lack of interest or mistrust in research (42% vs 26%, chi-square value = 36.72, p < .001), whereas a greater proportion of non-Veterans expressed feeling overwhelmed by their current health status (54% vs 35%, chi-square value = 42.8 p < 0.001). Across both trials, similar proportion of patients expressed hesitancy to participate in a deprescribing study, with no significant difference between Veterans and non-Veterans (23% and 21%). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the reasons older adults decline participation can inform future strategies to engage this multimorbid population.

An Exploration of Critical Care Professionals' Strategies to Enhance Daily Implementation of the Assess, Prevent, and Manage Pain; Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials; Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; Early Mobility and Exercise; and Family Engagement and Empowerment: A Group Concept Mapping Study.

The goals of this exploratory study were to engage professionals from the Society for Critical Care Medicine ICU Liberation Collaborative ICUs to: 1) conceptualize strategies to enhance daily implementation of the Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle from different perspectives and 2) identify strategies to prioritize for implementation. DESIGN: Mixed-methods group concept mapping over 8 months using an online method. Participants provided strategies in response to a prompt about what was needed for successful daily ABCDEF bundle implementation. Responses were summarized into a set of unique statements and then rated on a 5-point scale on degree of necessity (essential) and degree to which currently used. SETTING: Sixty-eight academic, community, and federal ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 121 ICU professionals consisting of frontline and leadership professionals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A final set of 76 strategies (reduced from 188 responses) were suggested: education (16 strategies), collaboration (15 strategies), processes and protocols (13 strategies), feedback (10 strategies), sedation/pain practices (nine strategies), education (eight strategies), and family (five strategies). Nine strategies were rated as very essential but infrequently used: adequate staffing, adequate mobility equipment, attention to (patient's) sleep, open discussion and collaborative problem solving, nonsedation methods to address ventilator dyssynchrony, specific expectations for night and day shifts, education of whole team on interdependent nature of the bundle, and effective sleep protocol. CONCLUSIONS: In this concept mapping study, ICU professionals provided strategies that spanned a number of conceptual implementation clusters. Results can be used by ICU leaders for implementation planning to address context-specific interdisciplinary approaches to improve ABCDEF bundle implementation.

Screening for the High-Need Population Using Single Institution Versus State-Wide Admissions Discharge Transfer Feed.

Background: Access to programs for high-needs patients depending on single-institution electronic health record data (EHR) carries risks of biased sampling. We investigate a statewide admissions, discharge, transfer feed (ADT), in assessing equity in access to these programs. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. We included high-need patients at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), who were 18 years or older, with minimum three emergency visits (ED) or hospitalizations in Tennessee from January 1 to June 30, 2021, including at least one at VUMC. We used the Tennessee ADT database to identify high-need patients with at least one VUMC ED/hospitalization, then compared this population with high-need patients identified using VUMC's Epic® EHR database. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of VUMC-only criteria for identifying high-need patient when compared to statewide ADT reference standard. Results: We identified 2549 patients that had at least one ED/hospitalization and were assessed to be high-need based on the statewide ADT. Of those, 2100 had VUMC-only visits, and 449 had VUMC and non-VUMC visits. VUMC-only visit screening criteria showed high sensitivity (99.1%, 95% CI: 98.7% - 99.5%), indicating that the high-needs patients admitted to VUMC infrequently access alternative systems. Results demonstrated no meaningful difference in sensitivity when stratified by patient's race or insurance. Conclusions: ADT allows examination for potential selection bias when relying upon single-institution utilization. In VUMC's high-need patients, there's minimal selection bias when relying upon same-site utilization. Further research needs to understand how biases may vary by site, and durability over time.

Effect of physical and occupational therapy on delirium duration in older emergency department patients who are hospitalized.

Objective: Delirium in older emergency department (ED) adults is associated with poorer long-term physical function and cognition. We sought to evaluate if the time to and intensity of physical and/or occupational therapy (PT/OT) are associated with the duration of ED delirium into hospitalization (ED delirium duration). Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study conducted from March 2012 to November 2014 at an urban, academic, tertiary care hospital. Patients aged ≥65 years presenting to the ED and who received PT/OT during their hospitalization were included. Days from enrollment to the first PT/OT session and PT/OT duration relative to hospital length of stay (PT/OT intensity) were abstracted from the medical record. ED delirium duration was defined as the duration of delirium detected in the ED using the Brief Confusion Assessment Method. Data were analyzed using a proportional odds logistic regression adjusted for multiple variables. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results: The median log PT/OT intensity was 0.5% (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.3%, 0.9%) and was associated with shorter delirium duration (adjusted OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-0.73). The median time to the first PT/OT session was 2 days (IQR: 1, 3 days) and was not associated with delirium duration (adjusted OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82-1.27). Conclusion: In older hospitalized adults, higher PT/OT intensity may be a useful intervention to shorten delirium duration. Time to first PT/OT session was not associated with delirium duration but was initiated a full 2 days after the ED presentation.

Deprescribing Medications Among Older Adults From End of Hospitalization Through Postacute Care: A Shed-MEDS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Deprescribing is a promising approach to addressing the burden of polypharmacy. Few studies have initiated comprehensive deprescribing in the hospital setting among older patients requiring ongoing care in a postacute care (PAC) facility. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a patient-centered deprescribing intervention among hospitalized older adults transitioning or being discharged to a PAC facility. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial of the Shed-MEDS (Best Possible Medication History, Evaluate, Deprescribing Recommendations, and Synthesis) deprescribing intervention was conducted between March 2016 and October 2020. Patients who were admitted to an academic medical center and discharged to 1 of 22 PAC facilities affiliated with the medical center were recruited. Patients who were 50 years or older and had 5 or more prehospital medications were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to the intervention group or control group. Patients who were non-English speaking, were unhoused, were long-stay residents of nursing homes, or had less than 6 months of life expectancy were excluded. An intention-to-treat approach was used. Interventions: The intervention group received the Shed-MEDS intervention, which consisted of a pharmacist- or nurse practitioner-led comprehensive medication review, patient or surrogate-approved deprescribing recommendations, and deprescribing actions that were initiated in the hospital and continued throughout the PAC facility stay. The control group received usual care at the hospital and PAC facility. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the total medication count at hospital discharge and PAC facility discharge, with follow-up assessments during the 90-day period after PAC facility discharge. Secondary outcomes included the total number of potentially inappropriate medications at each time point, the Drug Burden Index, and adverse events. Results: A total of 372 participants (mean [SD] age, 76.2 [10.7] years; 229 females [62%]) were randomized to the intervention or control groups. Of these participants, 284 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (142 in the intervention group and 142 in the control group). Overall, there was a statistically significant treatment effect, with patients in the intervention group taking a mean of 14% fewer medications at PAC facility discharge (mean ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P < .001) and 15% fewer medications at the 90-day follow-up (mean ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92; P < .001) compared with the control group. The intervention additionally reduced patient exposure to potentially inappropriate medications and Drug Burden Index. Adverse drug event rates were similar between the intervention and control groups (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.52-1.30). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this trial showed that the Shed-MEDS patient-centered deprescribing intervention was safe and effective in reducing the total medication burden at PAC facility discharge and 90 days after discharge. Future studies are needed to examine the effect of this intervention on patient-reported and long-term clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02979353.

Patient-Reported Barriers and Enablers to Deprescribing Recommendations During a Clinical Trial (Shed-MEDS).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Effective deprescribing requires shared decision making between a patient and their clinician, and should be used when implementing evidence-based deprescribing conversations. As part of the Shed-MEDS clinical trial, this study assessed barriers and enablers that influence patient decision making in deprescribing to inform future implementation efforts and adaptations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Shed-MEDS, a randomized controlled deprescribing trial, included hospitalized older adults discharging to post-acute care facilities. A trained clinician reviewed each participant's medical history and medication list to identify medications with potential for deprescribing. The study clinician then conducted a semistructured patient-centered deprescribing interview to determine patient (or surrogate) concerns about medications and willingness to deprescribe. Reeve et al.'s (2013) framework was used to categorize barriers and enablers to deprescribing from the patient's perspective, including "appropriateness of cessation," "fear," "dislike of a medication," "influences," and "process of cessation." RESULTS: Overall, participants/surrogates (N = 177) agreed with 63% (883 total medications) of the study clinician's deprescribing recommendations. Thematic analysis revealed that "appropriateness" of a medication was the most common barrier (88.2%) and enabler (67.3%) to deprescribing. Other deprescribing enablers were in the following domains: "influences" (22.7%), "process" (22.5%), "pragmatic" (19.4%), and "dislike" (5.3%). DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Use of a semistructured deprescribing interview conversation tool allowed study clinicians to elicit individual barriers and enablers to deprescribing from the patient's perspective. Participants in this study expressed more agreement than disagreement with study clinicians' deprescribing recommendations. These results should inform future implementation efforts that incorporate a patient-centered framework during deprescribing conversations. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02979353.

Characterizing hospitalization trajectories in the high-need, high-cost population using electronic health record data.

High utilization by a minority of patients accounts for a large share of health care costs, but the dynamics of this utilization remain poorly understood. We sought to characterize longitudinal trajectories of hospitalization among adult patients at an academic medical center from 2017 to 2023. Among 3404 patients meeting eligibility criteria, following an initial "rising-risk" period of 3 hospitalizations in 6 months, growth mixture modeling discerned 4 clusters of subsequent hospitalization trajectories: no further utilization, low chronic utilization, persistently high utilization with a slow rate of increase, and persistently high utilization with a fast rate of increase. Baseline factors associated with higher-order hospitalization trajectories included admission to a nonsurgical service, full code status, intensive care unit-level care, opioid administration, discharge home, and comorbid cardiovascular disease, end-stage kidney or liver disease, or cancer. Characterizing hospitalization trajectories and their correlates in this manner lays groundwork for early identification of those most likely to become high-need, high-cost patients.

Interprofessional Team Collaboration and Work Environment Health in 68 US Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND: Safe, reliable, high-quality critical care delivery depends upon interprofessional teamwork. OBJECTIVE: To describe perceptions of intensive care unit (ICU) teamwork and healthy work environments and evaluate whether perceptions vary by profession. METHODS: In August 2015, Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Healthy Work Environment Assessment Tool (HWEAT) surveys were distributed to all interprofessional members at the 68 ICUs participating in the ICU Liberation Collaborative. Overall scores range from 1 (needs improvement) to 5 (excellent). RESULTS: Most of the 3586 surveys completed were from registered nurses (51.2%), followed by respiratory therapists (17.8%), attending physicians (10.5%), rehabilitation therapists (8.3%), pharmacists (4.9%), nursing assistants (3.1%), and physician trainees (4.1%). Overall, respondents rated teamwork and work environment health favorably (mean [SD] scores: AITCS, 3.92 [0.64]; HWEAT, 3.45 [0.79]). The highest-rated AITCS domain was "partnership/shared decision-making" (mean [SD], 4.00 [0.63); lowest, "coordination" (3.67 [0.80]). The highest-scoring HWEAT standard was "effective decision-making" (mean [SD], 3.60 [0.79]); lowest, "meaningful recognition" (3.30 [0.92]). Compared with attending physicians (mean [SD] scores: AITCS, 3.99 [0.54]; HWEAT, 3.48 [0.70]), AITCS scores were lower for registered nurses (3.91 [0.62]), respiratory therapists (3.86 [0.76]), rehabilitation therapists (3.84 [0.65]), and pharmacists (3.83 [0.55]), and HWEAT scores were lower for respiratory therapists (3.38 [0.86]) (all P ≤ .05). CONCLUSIONS: Teamwork and work environment health were rated by ICU team members as good but not excellent. Care coordination and meaningful recognition can be improved.

Creation of a medical procedure service in a tertiary medical center: Blueprint and procedural outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Medical Procedure Services (MPS) may represent a solution to the educational gap in procedural training among internal medicine residents and the unmet need for the clinical provision of non-urgent inpatient procedures. However, there is little guidance available to help launch an MPS. Furthermore, procedural outcomes from a newly initiated MPS, including those comparing trainees versus attending physicians, are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe the blueprint used in the design, implementation, and ongoing oversight of an MPS and to report its procedural outcomes. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), Nashville, Tennessee. INTERVENTION: The launch of an MPS at a large tertiary academic hospital. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: 6,152 procedural consultations resulting in 5,320 attempted procedures over a four-and-a-half year period. RESULTS: The primary proceduralist was a supervised resident in 58.7% (3124 /5,320) and an attending in 41.3% (2,196/5,320) of procedures. The overall success rate was 91.1% (95% CI: 90.3-91.9%) and the major complication rate was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.5-1.0%). There was no difference in the mean number of attempts required to complete a procedure (1.6 vs 1.5 attempts, p=0.68) and the complication rates between supervised residents and attending proceduralists, respectively (20/3,124 vs 20/2,196, p=0.26). CONCLUSION: At a tertiary academic medical center, the implementation and maintenance of MPS is feasible, safe, and results in high rates of successful procedures performed by supervised residents. Procedures performed by supervised residents require comparable number of attempts for completion and carry similar risks as those performed alone by attendings.

Recommendations for outcome measurement for deprescribing intervention studies.

Interpreting results from deprescribing interventions to generate actionable evidence is challenging owing to inconsistent and heterogeneous outcome definitions between studies. We sought to characterize deprescribing intervention outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. A scoping literature review focused on deprescribing interventions for polypharmacy and informed a series of expert panel discussions and recommendations. Twelve experts in deprescribing research, policy, and clinical practice interventions participating in the Measures Workgroup of the US Deprescribing Research Network sought to characterize deprescribing outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. The scoping review identified 125 papers reflecting 107 deprescribing studies. Common outcomes included medication discontinuation, medication appropriateness, and a broad range of clinical outcomes potentially resulting from medication reduction. Panel recommendations included clearly defining clinically meaningful medication outcomes (e.g., number of chronic medications, dose reductions), ensuring adequate sample size and follow-up time to capture clinical outcomes resulting from medication discontinuation (e.g., quality of life [QOL]), and selecting appropriate and feasible data sources. A new conceptual model illustrates how downstream clinical outcomes (e.g., reduction in falls) should be interpreted in the context of initial changes in medication measures (e.g., reduction in mean total medications). Areas needing further development include implementation outcomes specific to deprescribing interventions and measures of adverse drug withdrawal events. Generating evidence to guide deprescribing is essential to address patient, caregiver, and clinician concerns about the benefits and harms of medication discontinuation. This article provides recommendations and an initial conceptual framework for selecting and applying appropriate intervention outcomes to support deprescribing research.

Patterns of utilization and evaluation of advanced practice providers on academic hospital medicine teams: A national survey.

This survey study aimed to provide a contemporary appraisal of advanced practice provider (APP) practice and to summarize perceptions of the benefits and challenges of integrating APPs into adult academic hospital medicine (HM) groups. We surveyed leaders of academic HM groups. We received responses from 43 of 86 groups (50%) surveyed. Thirty-four (79%) reported that they employed APPs. In most groups (85%), APPs were reported to perform daily tasks of patient care, including rounding and documentation. Less than half of the groups reported that APPs had completed HM-specific postgraduate training. The reported benefits of APPs included improved perceived quality of care and greater volume of patients that could be seen. Reported challenges included training requirements and support for new hires. Further investigation is needed to determine which APP team structures deliver the highest quality care. There may be a role for expanding standardized competency-based postgraduate training for APPs planning to practice HM.

Assessment of Awake Prone Positioning in Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Awake prone positioning may improve hypoxemia among patients with COVID-19, but whether it is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the recommendation of awake prone positioning is associated with improved outcomes among patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia who have not received mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 academic medical centers (Vanderbilt University Medical Center and NorthShore University HealthSystem) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 501 adult patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation were enrolled from May 13 to December 11, 2020. Interventions: Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either the practitioner-recommended awake prone positioning intervention (intervention group) or usual care (usual care group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome analyses were performed using a bayesian proportional odds model with covariate adjustment for clinical severity ranking based on the World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale, which was modified to highlight the worst level of hypoxemia on study day 5. Results: A total of 501 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [15.3] years; 284 [56.7%] were male; and most [417 (83.2%)] were self-reported non-Hispanic or non-Latinx) were included. Baseline severity was comparable between the intervention vs usual care groups, with 170 patients (65.9%) vs 162 patients (66.7%) receiving oxygen via standard low-flow nasal cannula, 71 patients (27.5%) vs 62 patients (25.5%) receiving oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, and 16 patients (6.2%) vs 19 patients (7.8%) receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. Nursing observations estimated that patients in the intervention group spent a median of 4.2 hours (IQR, 1.8-6.7 hours) in the prone position per day compared with 0 hours (IQR, 0-0.7 hours) per day in the usual care group. On study day 5, the bayesian posterior probability of the intervention group having worse outcomes than the usual care group on the modified World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale was 0.998 (posterior median adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.16-2.31). However, on study days 14 and 28, the posterior probabilities of harm were 0.874 (aOR, 1.29; 95% CrI, 0.84-1.99) and 0.673 (aOR, 1.12; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.86), respectively. Exploratory outcomes (progression to mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and 28-day mortality) did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, prone positioning offered no observed clinical benefit among patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation. Moreover, there was substantial evidence of worsened clinical outcomes at study day 5 among patients recommended to receive the awake prone positioning intervention, suggesting potential harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04359797.

Factors Associated With Spontaneous Awakening Trial and Spontaneous Breathing Trial Performance in Adults With Critical Illness: Analysis of a Multicenter, Nationwide, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Broad-scale adoption of spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) into everyday practice has been slow, and uncertainty exists regarding what factors facilitate or impede their routine delivery. RESEARCH QUESTION: What patient, practice, and pharmacologic factors are associated with SAT and SBT performance and to what extent do they predict overall SAT/SBT performance? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This secondary analysis used data collected from a national quality improvement collaborative composed of 68 diverse ICUs. Adults with critical illness adults who received mechanical ventilation and/or continuously infused sedative medications were included. We performed mixed-effects logistic regression modeling, created receiver operating characteristic curves, and calculated the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Included in the SAT and SBT analysis were 4,847 and 4,938 patients, respectively. In multivariable models controlling for admitting patient characteristics, factors independently associated with higher odds of a next-day SAT and SBT included physical restraint use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.42-1.87; AOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.60-2.09), documented target sedation level (AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.41-2.01; AOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.24-1.72), more frequent level of arousal assessments (AOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43; AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54), and dexmedetomidine administration (AOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45; AOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.27-1.80). Factors independently associated with lower odds of a next-day SAT and SBT included deep sedation/coma (AOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.80; AOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.28-0.37) and benzodiazepine (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95; AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.77) or ketamine (AOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.71; AOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.88) administration. Models incorporating admitting, daily, and unit variations displayed moderate discriminant accuracy in predicting next-day SAT (AUC, 0.73) and SBT (AUC, 0.72) performance. INTERPRETATION: There are a number of modifiable factors associated with SAT/SBT performance that are amenable to the development and testing of implementation interventions.

Effects of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative on ABCDEF Bundle Implementation.

BACKGROUND: The ABCDEF bundle (Assess, prevent, and manage pain and Delirium; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia/sedation; Early mobility; and Family engagement) improves intensive care unit outcomes, but adoption into practice is poor. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of quality improvement collaborative participation on ABCDEF bundle performance. METHODS: This interrupted time series analysis included 20 months of bundle performance data from 15 226 adults admitted to 68 US intensive care units. Segmented regression models were used to quantify complete and individual bundle element performance changes over time and compare performance patterns before (6 months) and after (14 months) collaborative initiation. RESULTS: Complete bundle performance rates were very low at baseline (<4%) but increased to 12% by the end. Complete bundle performance increased by 2 percentage points (SE, 0.9; P = .06) immediately after collaborative initiation. Each subsequent month was associated with an increase of 0.6 percentage points (SE, 0.2; P = .04). Performance rates increased significantly immediately after initiation for pain assessment (7.6% [SE, 2.0%], P = .002), sedation assessment (9.1% [SE, 3.7%], P = .02), and family engagement (7.8% [SE, 3%], P = .02) and then increased monthly at the same speed as the trend in the baseline period. Performance rates were lowest for spontaneous awakening/breathing trials and early mobility. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement collaborative participation resulted in clinically meaningful, but small and variable, improvements in bundle performance. Opportunities remain to improve adoption of sedation, mechanical ventilation, and early mobility practices.