Perceptions of Factors Associated With Sustainability of Health Care Innovation Centers.

Importance: Innovation centers in US health care systems are increasingly common but variably successful and sustainable. Few studies have examined how and why some centers achieve sustainable success but others do not. Objective: To explore whether and how innovation centers in US health care systems are able to successfully sustain themselves over multiple years. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, semistructured, qualitative interviews of leaders at 9 innovation centers across the US were conducted from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Data analysis was conducted from December 2020 to April 2021 using qualitative methods and a deductive framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Centers were identified through purposeful sampling. The 9 study centers had a mean age of 6 years (range, 2-15 years); most were affiliated with an academic teaching hospital and half with a medical school. Two were wholly separate from the health care system. Two-thirds had fewer than 10 full-time staff members. Exposures: All interviewees were staff of a US-based innovation center. This study did not evaluate particular interventions or innovations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Perceptions of and views on factors associated with the success and sustainability of innovation centers. Results: Staff interviewed at 9 innovation centers across the US described 3 key activities that appeared to be associated with long-term sustainability: facilitating innovation projects that were valued for quality improvement and cost avoidance, not just return on investment; acting as networking nodes for their institutions; and upskilling staff. These activities were associated with improved institutional culture. Two structural characteristics underpinned successful centers: finding an effective balance between being "internal" and being "external" to the organization and providing practical support and skills otherwise lacking within the wider institution. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of 9 innovation centers explored how centers sustained themselves within US health care institutions and showed that success was often associated with interpersonal relationships and cultural benefits. Independent financial sustainability was not always essential to longevity; systems also valued how centers could create cultures of innovation and upskill staff.

"I Am Not the Same as I Was Before": A Qualitative Analysis of COVID-19 Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the illness experience of patients' long-term emotional and physical recovery from severe COVID-19 infection. This study aimed to expand upon the recovery process of COVID-19 survivors up to 6 months after hospital discharge. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of free-response answers from a cohort study of 152 patients ≥ 18 years hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 surveyed at 1-month post hospital discharge and 6-months post hospital discharge. Responses were analyzed with a grounded theory approach to identify overarching themes. RESULTS: Participants described persistent complications, both physical and mental, that have affected their recovery from COVID-19. Five overarching themes of post-acute patient experiences were generated: (1) an increased awareness of a mind and body connection, (2) feelings of premature aging, (3) an overall decline in quality of life, (4) a continued fear of infection, and (5) methods of coping. CONCLUSIONS: Patients described lasting changes to their mental health and overall quality of life in connection to physical complications after severe COVID-19 infection. Patients' reports of their experience call for a greater awareness of the psychological aspects of COVID-19 recovery to provide both physical and psychological rehabilitation services. Additional resources such as education around re-infection and financial resources are needed.

Six-Month Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized with Severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Previous work has demonstrated that patients experience functional decline at 1-3 months post-discharge after COVID-19 hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether symptoms persist further or improve over time, we followed patients discharged after hospitalization for severe COVID-19 to characterize their overall health status and their physical and mental health at 6 months post-hospital discharge. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥ 18 years hospitalized for COVID-19 at a single health system, who required at minimum 6 l of supplemental oxygen during admission, had intact baseline functional status, and were discharged alive. MAIN MEASURES: Overall health status, physical health, mental health, and dyspnea were assessed with validated surveys: the PROMIS® Global Health-10 and PROMIS® Dyspnea Characteristics instruments. KEY RESULTS: Of 152 patients who completed the 1 month post-discharge survey, 126 (83%) completed the 6-month survey. Median age of 6-month respondents was 62; 40% were female. Ninety-three (74%) patients reported that their health had not returned to baseline at 6 months, and endorsed a mean of 7.1 symptoms. Participants' summary t-scores in both the physical health and mental health domains at 6 months (45.2, standard deviation [SD] 9.8; 47.4, SD 9.8, respectively) remained lower than their baseline (physical health 53.7, SD 9.4; mental health 54.2, SD 8.0; p<0.001). Overall, 79 (63%) patients reported shortness of breath within the prior week (median score 2 out of 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-5), vs 42 (33%) pre-COVID-19 infection (0, IQR 0-1)). A total of 11/124 (9%) patients without pre-COVID oxygen requirements still needed oxygen 6 months post-hospital discharge. One hundred and seven (85%) were still experiencing fatigue at 6 months post-discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Even 6 months after hospital discharge, the majority of patients report that their health has not returned to normal. Support and treatments to return these patients back to their pre-COVID baseline are urgently needed.

Post-Discharge Health Status and Symptoms in Patients with Severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about long-term recovery from severe COVID-19 disease. Here, we characterize overall health, physical health, and mental health of patients 1 month after discharge for severe COVID-19. METHODS: This was a prospective single health system observational cohort study of patients ≥ 18 years hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 disease who required at least 6 l of oxygen during admission, had intact baseline cognitive and functional status, and were discharged alive. Participants were enrolled between 30 and 40 days after discharge. Outcomes were elicited through validated survey instruments: the PROMIS® Dyspnea Characteristics and PROMIS® Global Health-10. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients (40.6% of eligible) were enrolled; 152 (38.3%) completed the survey. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR], 50-67); 57 (37%) were female. Overall, 113/152 (74%) participants reported shortness of breath within the prior week (median score 3 out of 10 [IQR 0-5]), vs 47/152 (31%) pre-COVID-19 infection (0, IQR 0-1), p < 0.001. Participants also rated their physical health and mental health as worse in their post-COVID state (43.8, standard deviation 9.3; mental health 47.3, SD 9.3) compared to their pre-COVID state, (54.3, SD 9.3; 54.3, SD 7.8, respectively), both p < 0.001. Physical and mental health means in the general US population are 50 (SD 10). A total of 52/148 (35.1%) patients without pre-COVID oxygen requirements needed home oxygen after hospital discharge; 20/148 (13.5%) reported still using oxygen at time of survey. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe COVID-19 disease typically experience sequelae affecting their respiratory status, physical health, and mental health for at least several weeks after hospital discharge.

Post-discharge health status and symptoms in patients with severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about long-term recovery from severe COVID-19 disease. Here, we characterize overall health, physical health and mental health of patients one month after discharge for severe COVID-19. METHODS: This was a prospective single health system observational cohort study of patients ≥18 years hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 disease who required at least 6 liters of oxygen during admission, had intact baseline cognitive and functional status and were discharged alive. Participants were enrolled between 30 and 40 days after discharge. Outcomes were elicited through validated survey instruments: the PROMIS Dyspnea Characteristics and PROMIS Global Health-10. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients (40.6% of eligible) were enrolled; 152 (38.3%) completed the survey. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR], 50-67); 57 (37%) were female. Overall, 113/152 (74%) participants reported shortness of breath within the prior week (median score 3 out of 10 [IQR 0-5]), vs. 47/152 (31%) pre-COVID-19 infection (0, IQR 0-1), p<0.001. Participants also rated their physical health and mental health as worse in their post-COVID state (43.8, standard deviation 9.3; mental health 47.3, SD 9.3) compared to their pre-COVID state, (54.3, SD 9.3; 54.3, SD 7.8, respectively), both p <0.001. A total of 52/148 (35.1%) patients without pre-COVID oxygen requirements needed home oxygen after hospital discharge; 20/148 (13.5%) reported still using oxygen at time of survey. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe COVID-19 disease typically experience sequelae affecting their respiratory status, physical health and mental health for at least several weeks after hospital discharge.

Patient Experience With Notification of Radiology Results: A Comparison of Direct Communication and Patient Portal Use.

OBJECTIVE: Patients increasingly access radiology results through digital portals. We compared patient satisfaction and understanding of radiology results when received through an electronic patient portal versus direct communication from providers. METHODS: Patients were invited to participate in an online survey within 7 days of undergoing a radiology examination. Participants received one of two survey versions, based on whether or not they viewed results in the patient portal. The associations between method of result notification and satisfaction with notification timing and self-reported understanding of results were evaluated using χ2 tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1,005 survey respondents, 87.8% (882 of 1,005) reported having received their imaging test results, with 486 (48.4%) first being notified through the patient portal and 396 (39.4%) via direct provider communication. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with timing regardless of whether they first received the results through the patient portal or through direct provider communication (88.8%-89.9%). Patients who first received their results through the patient portal reported a lesser degree of perceived understanding than those who first received their results through direct provider communication (26.7% versus 47.8%; P < .001). Patients were less likely to report clear understanding for advanced imaging (CT or MRI) than ultrasound or x-rays (29.3% versus 40.3% versus 38.2%, respectively; P = .02). Patient characteristics showed no association with understanding in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: As online portal release of radiology results to patients becomes commonplace, efforts may be warranted to improve patient experience when first receiving their radiology results online.

Natural Language Processing for Identification of Incidental Pulmonary Nodules in Radiology Reports.

PURPOSE: To develop natural language processing (NLP) to identify incidental lung nodules (ILNs) in radiology reports for assessment of management recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched the electronic health records for patients who underwent chest CT during 2014 and 2017, before and after implementation of a department-wide dictation macro of the Fleischner Society recommendations. We randomly selected 950 unstructured chest CT reports and reviewed manually for ILNs. An NLP tool was trained and validated against the manually reviewed set, for the task of automated detection of ILNs with exclusion of previously known or definitively benign nodules. For ILNs found in the training and validation sets, we assessed whether reported management recommendations agreed with Fleischner Society guidelines. The guideline concordance of management recommendations was compared between 2014 and 2017. RESULTS: The NLP tool identified ILNs with sensitivity and specificity of 91.1% and 82.2%, respectively, in the validation set. Positive and negative predictive values were 59.7% and 97.0%. In reports of ILNs in the training and validation sets before versus after introduction of a Fleischner reporting macro, there was no difference in the proportion of reports with ILNs (108 of 500 [21.6%] versus 101 of 450 [22.4%]; P = .8), or in the proportion of reports with ILNs containing follow-up recommendations (75 of 108 [69.4%] versus 80 of 101 [79.2%]; P = .2]. Rates of recommendation guideline concordance were not significantly different before and after implementation of the standardized macro (52 of 75 [69.3%] versus 60 of 80 [75.0%]; P = .43). CONCLUSION: NLP reliably automates identification of ILNs in unstructured reports, pertinent to quality improvement efforts for ILN management.