Publications by Year: 2024

In critical care, the specific, structured approach to patient care known as a "time-limited trial" has been promoted in the literature to help patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians navigate consequential decisions about life-sustaining therapy in the face of uncertainty. Despite promotion of the time-limited trial approach, a lack of consensus about its definition and essential elements prevents optimal clinical use and rigorous evaluation of its impact. The objectives of this American Thoracic Society Workshop Committee were to establish a consensus definition of a time-limited trial in critical care, identify the essential elements for conducting a time-limited trial, and prioritize directions for future work. We achieved these objectives through a structured search of the literature, a modified Delphi process with 100 interdisciplinary and interprofessional stakeholders, and iterative committee discussions. We conclude that a time-limited trial for patients with critical illness is a collaborative plan among clinicians and a patient and/or their surrogate decision makers to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined duration, after which the patient's response to therapy informs the decision to continue care directed toward recovery, transition to care focused exclusively on comfort, or extend the trial's duration. The plan's 16 essential elements follow four sequential phases: consider, plan, support, and reassess. We acknowledge considerable gaps in evidence about the impact of time-limited trials and highlight a concern that if inadequately implemented, time-limited trials may perpetuate unintended harm. Future work is needed to better implement this defined, specific approach to care in practice through a person-centered equity lens and to evaluate its impact on patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Emergence agitation is a complex syndrome of altered consciousness after emergence from anesthesia. It can result in injury to patients and staff and is associated with other postoperative complications. Sevoflurane has been associated with emergence agitation, potentially due to low tissue solubility and therefore speed of emergence. Prior meta-analyses comparing emergence agitation incidence between sevoflurane and isoflurane anesthetics did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference. Given the publication of additional relevant studies not included in prior meta-analyses as well as improved diagnosis of emergence agitation, we aim to perform an updated, comprehensive meta-analysis comparing emergence agitation incidence between sevoflurane and isoflurane anesthetics in children.

METHODS: We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing sevoflurane to isoflurane in children <18 years of age, reporting emergence agitation as an outcome, published before July 2023 using databases and registers. Our primary outcome was the incidence of emergence agitation. Secondary outcomes were time to extubation, awakening time, and length of stay in the postanesthetic care unit. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2. We pooled the effect size for the outcomes using the fixed effects model if we had low heterogeneity, otherwise, we used a random-effects model.

RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials (523 children) were included in the final analysis. The incidence of emergence agitation after isoflurane was significantly lower compared to sevoflurane (risk ratio: 0.62 (95% CI: [0.46-0.83]; I2  = 40.01%, p < .001)). Time to extubation, awakening times, and postanesthetic care unit duration were not significantly different. The protective effect of isoflurane compared to sevoflurane remained significant in subgroups of patients who received premedication or intraoperative systemic analgesics (risk ratios: (0.48 [0.28-0.82]; I2  = 60.78%, p = .01), (0.52 [0.37-0.75]; I2  = 0.00%, p < .001), respectively).

CONCLUSION: The risk of emergence agitation in children after maintenance anesthesia with sevoflurane is significantly greater than with isoflurane; we did not find evidence of prolonged emergence or postanesthetic length of stay. When possible, isoflurane should be considered for maintenance anesthesia over sevoflurane in patients at high risk of emergence agitation.

BACKGROUND: Timely primary care follow-up after acute care discharge may improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether post-discharge follow-up rates differ among patients discharged from hospitals directly affiliated with their primary care clinic (same-site), other hospitals within their health system (same-system), and hospitals outside their health system (outside-system).

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS: Adult patients of five primary care clinics within a 14-hospital health system who were discharged home after a hospitalization or emergency department (ED) stay.

MAIN MEASURES: Primary care visit within 14 days of discharge. A multivariable Poisson regression model was used to estimate adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and risk differences (aRDs), controlling for sociodemographics, acute visit characteristics, and clinic characteristics.

KEY RESULTS: The study included 14,310 discharges (mean age 58.4 [SD 19.0], 59.5% female, 59.5% White, 30.3% Black), of which 57.7% were from the same-site, 14.3% same-system, and 27.9% outside-system. By 14 days, 34.5% of patients discharged from the same-site hospital received primary care follow-up compared to 27.7% of same-system discharges (aRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98; aRD - 6.5 percentage points (pp), 95% CI - 11.6 to - 1.5) and 20.9% of outside-system discharges (aRR 0.77, 95% CI [0.70 to 0.85]; aRD - 11.9 pp, 95% CI - 16.2 to - 7.7). Differences were greater for hospital discharges than ED discharges (e.g., aRD between same-site and outside-system - 13.5 pp [95% CI, - 20.8 to - 8.3] for hospital discharges and - 10.1 pp [95% CI, - 15.2 to - 5.0] for ED discharges).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged from a hospital closely affiliated with their primary care clinic were more likely to receive timely follow-up than those discharged from other hospitals within and outside their health system. Improving care transitions requires coordination across both care settings and health systems.

IMPORTANCE: Despite its importance to medical education and competency assessment for internal medicine trainees, evidence about the relationship between physicians' milestone residency ratings or the American Board of Internal Medicine's initial certification examination and their hospitalized patients' outcomes is sparse.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between physicians' milestone ratings and certification examination scores and hospital outcomes for their patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort analyses of 6898 hospitalists completing training in 2016 to 2018 and caring for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during hospitalizations in 2017 to 2019 at US hospitals.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome measures included 7-day mortality and readmission rates. Thirty-day mortality and readmission rates, length of stay, and subspecialist consultation frequency were also assessed. Analyses accounted for hospital fixed effects and adjusted for patient characteristics, physician years of experience, and year.

EXPOSURES: Certification examination score quartile and milestone ratings, including an overall core competency rating measure equaling the mean of the end of residency milestone subcompetency ratings categorized as low, medium, or high, and a knowledge core competency measure categorized similarly.

RESULTS: Among 455 120 hospitalizations, median patient age was 79 years (IQR, 73-86 years), 56.5% of patients were female, 1.9% were Asian, 9.8% were Black, 4.6% were Hispanic, and 81.9% were White. The 7-day mortality and readmission rates were 3.5% (95% CI, 3.4%-3.6%) and 5.6% (95% CI, 5.5%-5.6%), respectively, and were 8.8% (95% CI, 8.7%-8.9%) and 16.6% (95% CI, 16.5%-16.7%) for mortality and readmission at 30 days. Mean length of stay and number of specialty consultations were 3.6 days (95% CI, 3.6-3.6 days) and 1.01 (95% CI, 1.00-1.03), respectively. A high vs low overall or knowledge milestone core competency rating was associated with none of the outcome measures assessed. For example, a high vs low overall core competency rating was associated with a nonsignificant 2.7% increase in 7-day mortality rates (95% CI, -5.2% to 10.6%; P = .51). In contrast, top vs bottom examination score quartile was associated with a significant 8.0% reduction in 7-day mortality rates (95% CI, -13.0% to -3.1%; P = .002) and a 9.3% reduction in 7-day readmission rates (95% CI, -13.0% to -5.7%; P < .001). For 30-day mortality, this association was -3.5% (95% CI, -6.7% to -0.4%; P = .03). Top vs bottom examination score quartile was associated with 2.4% more consultations (95% CI, 0.8%-3.9%; P < .003) but was not associated with length of stay or 30-day readmission rates.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among newly trained hospitalists, certification examination score, but not residency milestone ratings, was associated with improved outcomes among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The emotional impact of medical errors on patients may be long-lasting. Factors associated with prolonged emotional impacts are poorly understood.

METHODS: The authors conducted a subanalysis of a 2017 survey (response rate 36.8% [2,536/6,891]) of US adults to assess emotional impact of medical error. Patients reporting a medical error were included if the error occurred ≥ 1 year prior. Duration of emotional impact was categorized into no/short-term impact (impact lasting < 1 month), prolonged impact (> 1 month), and especially prolonged impact (> 1 year). Based on their reported experience with communication about the error, patients' experience was categorized as consistent with national disclosure guidelines, contrary to guidelines, mixed, or neither. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between patient factors, event characteristics, and organizational communication with prolonged emotional impact (> 1 month, > 1 year).

RESULTS: Of all survey respondents, 17.8% (451/2,536) reported an error occurring ≥ 1 year prior. Of these, 51.2% (231/451) reported prolonged/especially prolonged emotional impact (30.8% prolonged, 20.4% especially prolonged). Factors associated with prolonged emotional impact included female gender (adjusted odds ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval 1.5-2.9]); low socioeconomic status (SES; 1.7 [1.1-2.7]); physical impact (7.3 [4.3-12.3]); no organizational disclosure and no patient/family error reporting (1.5 [1.03-2.3]); communication contrary to guidelines (4.0 [2.1-7.5]); and mixed communication (2.2 [1.3-3.7]). The same factors were significantly associated with especially prolonged emotional impact (female, 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; low SES, 2.2 [1.3-3.6]; physical impact, 6.8 [3.8-12.5]; no disclosure/reporting, 1.9 [1.2-3.2]; communication contrary to guidelines, 4.6 [2.2-9.4]; mixed communication, 2.1 [1.1-3.9]).

CONCLUSION: Prolonged emotional impact affected more than half of Americans self-reporting a medical error. Organizational failure to communicate according to disclosure guidelines after patient-perceived errors may exacerbate harm, particularly for patients at risk of health care disparities.

IMPORTANCE: The opioid crisis is impacting people across the country and deserves attention to be able to curb the rise in opioid-related deaths.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate practice patterns in opioid infusion administration and dosing for patients with acute respiratory failure receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients from 21 hospitals in Kaiser Permanente Northern California and 96 hospitals in Philips electronic ICU Research Institute.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We assessed whether patients received opioid infusion and the dose of said opioid infusion.

RESULTS: We identified patients with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure who were initiated on invasive mechanical ventilation. From each patient, we determined if opioid infusions were administered and, among those who received an opioid infusion, the median daily dose of fentanyl infusion. We used hierarchical regression models to quantify variation in opioid infusion use and the median daily dose of fentanyl equivalents across hospitals. We included 13,140 patients in the KPNC cohort and 52,033 patients in the eRI cohort. A total of 7,023 (53.4%) and 16,311 (31.1%) patients received an opioid infusion in the first 21 days of mechanical ventilation in the KPNC and eRI cohorts, respectively. After accounting for patient- and hospital-level fixed effects, the hospital that a patient was admitted to explained 7% (95% CI, 3-11%) and 39% (95% CI, 28-49%) of the variation in opioid infusion use in the KPNC and eRI cohorts, respectively. Among patients who received an opioid infusion, the median daily fentanyl equivalent dose was 692 µg (interquartile range [IQR], 129-1341 µg) in the KPNC cohort and 200 µg (IQR, 0-1050 µg) in the eRI cohort. Hospital explained 4% (95% CI, 1-7%) and 20% (95% CI, 15-26%) of the variation in median daily fentanyl equivalent dose in the KPNC and eRI cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the context of efforts to limit healthcare-associated opioid exposure, our findings highlight the considerable opioid exposure that accompanies mechanical ventilation and suggest potential under and over-treatment with analgesia. Our results facilitate benchmarking of hospitals' analgesia practices against risk-adjusted averages and can be used to inform usual care control arms of analgesia and sedation clinical trials.