National Patterns and Outcomes of Neurologist Care in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Background & Purpose: Specialist care of acute ischemic stroke patients has been associated with improved outcomes but is not well-characterized. We sought to elucidate the involvement and influence of neurologists on acute ischemic stroke care. Methods: Using 100% Medicare datasets, index acute ischemic stroke admissions from 2016-2018 were identified with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes. Neurologists were identified by NPI code. Neurologist involvement in care was defined as: "neurologist involved in care"; "hospital with a neurologist"; and "percent of acute ischemic stroke treated by neurologist." Adjusted logistic regression models summarized exposure to neurologists and their association with outcomes (inpatient mortality, good outcome, and 30-day readmission). Results: Among 647838 index AIS admissions from 2016-2018, 15.6% included a neurologist involved in care, associated with receiving intravenous thrombolysis (19.1% vs 6.5%), endovascular thrombectomy (13.2% vs 1.4%), treatment at a teaching hospital (87.7% vs 55.5%), and treatment at a hospital in the highest volume quartile (95.3% vs 75.6%). Of 4797 hospitals, 36.1% had a neurologist, among which the mean percent of admissions treated by a neurologist was 14.7% (SD 24.4). Neurologist involvement was associated with increased inpatient mortality (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.75-1.86), decreased odds of a good outcome (OR .92; 95% CI .90-.93), and increased 30-day readmission (OR 1.04; 95% C: 1.01-1.06). Conclusions: The minority of acute ischemic stroke admissions among the elderly in the US are treated by neurologists. Neurologist involvement in care is associated with worse outcomes, possibly from the allocation of severe cases to neurologists.

The Role of Experience: How Case Volume and Endourology-Fellowship Training Impact Surgical Outcomes for Ureteroscopy.

Introduction: Surgical experience is associated with superior outcomes in complex urologic cases, such as prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy. The question remains whether experience is predictive of outcomes for less complex procedures, such as ureteroscopy (URS). Our study examined how case volume and endourology-fellowship training impacts URS outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed URS cases from 2017 to 2019 by high ureteroscopy volume urologists (HV), low ureteroscopy volume urologists (LV), endourology-fellowship trained (FT), and non-endourology FT (NFT) urologists. Surgical outcomes including stone-free rate (SFR), complication and reoperation rates, and postoperative imaging follow-up were analyzed between groups. Results: One thousand fifty-seven cases were reviewed across 23 urologists: 6 HV, 17 LV, 3 FT, and 20 NFT. Both FT and HV operated on more complex cases with lower rates of pre-stented patients. HV also operated on patients with higher rates of renal stones, lower pole involvement, and prior failed procedures. Despite this, FT and HV showed between 11.7% and 14.4% higher SFR, representing 2.7- to 3.6-fold greater odds of stone-free outcomes for primary and secondary stones. Additionally, HV and FT had a 4.9% to 7.8% lower rate of postoperative complications and a 3.3% to 4.3% lower rate of reoperations, representing 1.9- to 4.0-fold lower odds of complications. Finally, their patients had a 1.6- to 2.1-fold higher odds of postoperative imaging follow-up with a greater proportion receiving postoperative imaging within the recommended 3-month postoperative period. Conclusions: More experienced urologists, as defined by higher case volume and endourology-fellowship training, had higher SFR, lower complication and reoperation rates, and better postoperative imaging follow-up compared with less experienced urologists. Although less experienced urologists had outcomes in-line with clinical and literature standards, continued training and experience may be a predictor of better outcomes across multiple URS modalities.

Barriers to telehealth access among homebound older adults.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To identify major barriers to video-based telehealth use among homebound older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A large home-based primary care (HBPC) program in New York City (NYC) serving 873 homebound patients living in the community. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen primary care physicians. MEASUREMENTS: An 11-item assessment of provider perceptions of patients' experience with and barriers to telehealth. RESULTS: According to physicians in the HBPC program, more than one-third (35%) of homebound patients (mean age of 82.7; 46.6% with dementia; mean of 4 comorbidities/patient) engaged in first-time video-based telehealth encounters between April and June 2020 during the first COVID-19 surge in NYC. The majority (82%) required assistance from a family member and/or paid caregiver to complete the visit. Among patients who had not used telehealth, providers deemed 27% (n = 153) "unable to interact over video" for reasons including cognitive or sensory impairment and 14% lacked access to a caregiver to assist them with technology. Physicians were not knowledgeable of their patients' internet connectivity, ability to pay for cellular plans, or video-capable device access. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a large and dramatic shift to video-based telehealth use in home-based primary care. However, 4 months into the pandemic a majority of patients had not participated in a video-based telehealth encounter due to a number of barriers. Patients lacking caregiver support to assist with technology may benefit from novel approaches such as the deployment of community health workers to assist with device setup. Physicians may not be able to identify potentially modifiable barriers to telehealth use among their patients, highlighting the need for better systematic data collection before targeted interventions to increase video-based telehealth use.