Eat to Treat: The Methods and Assessments of a Culinary Medicine Seminar for Future Physicians and Practicing Clinicians.

Nutrition-associated chronic disease is an epidemic in the United States (US), yet most medical schools lack adequate nutrition education. We developed a six-session culinary medicine (CM) seminar entitled "Eat to Treat: A Nutrition Course for Future Clinicians" that teaches culinary skills, nutrition science, and counseling techniques to improve clinical nutrition management. The seminar was offered in-person to first-year medical students in a medical school-based teaching kitchen from 2017 to 2019. A virtual three-session course was also offered to practicing clinicians in 2020. Voluntary self-efficacy questionnaires were collected at the beginning of the first and last sessions of the student seminar, and paired t-tests determined the course's effect on survey items. A total of 53 first-year medical students attended the program over five semesters, and 39 students (73.6%) completed both surveys. All except one measure of self-efficacy were significantly higher at session 6 than session 1 (p < 0.05). A post-course survey was utilized for the clinician seminar and of the 31 participants, 14 completed the surveys; 93% and 86% of respondents agreed the course was clinically relevant and improved their confidence, respectively. We developed a CM curriculum that improved nutrition knowledge and confidence among a professionally diverse cohort and may represent a scalable education model to improve nutrition education in US medical schools.

Comparing total medical expenditure between patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants vs warfarin for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: evidence from VA-Medicare dual enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an alternative to warfarin for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Evidence demonstrating the efficacy and safety of DOACs has primarily been from clinical trial settings. The real-world effectiveness of DOACs in specific nontrial populations that differ in age, comorbidity burden, and socioeconomic status is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare total downstream medical expenditure between AF patients treated with warfarin and DOACs dually enrolled in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System and fee-for-service Medicare. METHODS: This was an exploratory treatment effectiveness study that analyzed VA administrative data and Medicare claims. We examined patients with an incident diagnosis for AF and initiated warfarin or DOAC treatment between 2012 and 2015. The primary outcome was total medical expenditure over 3 years following treatment initiation. To address potential informative censoring, we applied a multipart estimator that extends traditional 2-part models to separate differences between groups due to survival and cost accumulation effects. Inverse probability weighting was applied to address potential treatment selection bias. RESULTS: We identified 31,276 and 17,021 patients receiving warfarin and DOACs, respectively. Mean unadjusted (SD) expenditure was higher for warfarin ($56,265 [$96,666]) compared with DOAC patients ($32,736 [$52,470]). Compared with patients receiving DOACs, adjusted 3-year expenditure was $25,688 (P < 0.001) higher for patients receiving warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: VA patients with AF initiating warfarin incurred markedly higher downstream expenditure compared with similar patients receiving DOACs. The benefits of DOACs found in previous clinical trials were present in this population, suggesting that these DOACs may be the preferred option for treatment of AF in older VA patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by a VA Health Services Research and Development Investigator Initiated Research Award (IIR 15-139). Support for VA/CMS data was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development, VA Information Resource Center (Project Numbers SDR 02-237 and 98-004). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the University of Washington, Northeastern University, and Boston University. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. This research includes data obtained from the VHA Office of Performance Measurement (17API2), which resides within the Office of Analytics and Performance Integration (API), under the Office of Quality and Patient Safety (QPS; formerly known as RAPID). An oral presentation documenting a subset of the findings from this study was presented at the 2020 AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting, delivered virtually on July 29, 2020.

COVID-19 guidelines for pregnant women and new mothers: A systematic evidence review.

BACKGROUND: Nearly a year after COVID-19 was initially detected, guidance for pregnant and new mothers remains varied. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this systematic review is to summarize recommendations for three areas of maternal and fetal care-breastfeeding, post-partum social distancing, and decontamination. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science spanning from inception to November 9, 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles were included if they focused on COVID-positive mothers, commented on at least one of the three areas of interest, and were published in English. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Our combined database search yielded 385 articles. After removing duplicates and articles that did not cover the correct populations or subject matter, a total of 74 articles remained in our analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Most articles recommended direct breastfeeding with enhanced precaution measures. Recommendations regarding post-partum social distancing varied, although articles published more recently often recommended keeping the mother and newborn in the same room when possible. Decontamination recommendations emphasized mask wearing, good hand hygiene, and proper cleaning of surfaces. CONCLUSION: In general, there was a focus on shared decision making when approaching topics such as breastfeeding and post-partum social distancing. Guidelines for decontamination were fairly uniform.

Association between hemoglobin A1c variability and hypoglycemia-related hospitalizations in veterans with diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: To study the impact of hemoglobin A1c (A1c) variability on the risk of hypoglycemia-related hospitalization (HRH) in veterans with diabetes mellitus. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 342 059 veterans with diabetes aged 65 years or older were identified for a retrospective cohort study. All participants had a 3-year baseline period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2016, during which they had at least four A1c tests. A1c variability measures included coefficient of variation (A1c CV), A1c SD, and adjusted A1c SD. HRH was identified during a 2-year follow-up period from Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration through validated algorithms of International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes. Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the relationship between A1c variability and HRH risk while controlling for relevant clinical covariates. RESULTS: 2871 patients had one or more HRH in the 2-year follow-up period. HRH risk increased with greater A1c variability, and this was consistent across A1c CV, A1c SD, and adjusted A1c SD. Average A1c levels were also independently associated with HRH, with levels <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) having lower risk and >9% (75 mmol/mol) with greater risk. The relationships between A1c variability remained significant after controlling for average A1c levels and prior HRH during the baseline period. CONCLUSION: Increasing A1c variability and elevated A1c levels are associated with a greater risk of HRH in older adults with diabetes. Clinicians should consider A1c variability when assessing patients for risk of severe hypoglycemia.

Implementing Teledermatology for Rural Veterans: An Evaluation Using the RE-AIM Framework.

Introduction: Few systematic evaluations of implementing teledermatology programs in large health care systems exist. We conducted a longitudinal evaluation of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative to expand asynchronous consultative teledermatology services for rural veterans. Methods: The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework guided the evaluation, which included analysis of quantitative VA administrative data as well as an online survey completed by participating facilities. The first 2 years of the program were compared with the year before the start of funding. Results: Sixteen hub facilities expanded teledermatology's reach over the 2-year period, increasing the number of referral spoke sites, unique patients served, and teledermatology encounters. Effectiveness was reflected as teledermatology constituted an increasing fraction of dermatology activity and served more remotely located patients. Adoption through defined stages of implementation progressed as facilities engaged in a variety of strategies to enhance teledermatology implementation, and facilitators and barriers were identified. Program maintenance was assessed by Program Sustainability Index scores, which reflected the importance of executive support, and ongoing concerns about staffing and longitudinal funding. Discussion: Enabling hubs to create solutions that best fit their needs and culture likely increased reach and effectiveness. Important facilitators included organizational leadership and encouraging communication between stakeholders before and during the intervention. Conclusions: A systematic analysis of teledermatology implementation to serve rural sites in VA documented a high degree of implementation and sustainability as well as areas for improvement.