Crum, Brian A.

Background Although online self-triage is easily accessible, little is known about the patients who use self-triage or their subsequent diagnoses. We compared ear/hearing self-triage subsequent diagnoses to ear/hearing visit diagnoses in emergency departments (ED) and ambulatory clinics across the United States. Methods We compared International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD10) coded diagnoses following online self-triage for ear/hearing concerns with those from national ED and ambulatory clinic samples. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) for comparison. Using matched ear/hearing diagnostic categories for those aged 1 and over, we compared self-triage diagnosis frequencies with national ED and ambulatory diagnosis frequencies. Results Following ear/hearing self-triage, there were 1092 subsequent office visits with a primary diagnosis code. For five frequently diagnosed ear/hearing conditions (i.e., suppurative and nonsuppurative otitis media [OM], otalgia, otitis externa, and cerumen impaction), there was a strong correlation between diagnosis counts made following self-triage and estimated counts of national ED visit diagnoses (r = 0.94; CI 95% [0.37 to 0.99]; p = .016, adjusted r2 = 0.85). Seven diagnoses were available to compare with the national ambulatory sample; correlation was r = 0.79; CI 95% [0.08 to 0.97]; p = .037, adjusted r2 = 0.54. For ages 1 and over, estimated hospital admissions from the national ED visits for ear/hearing were 0.76%, CI 95% [0.28-2.1%]; estimated total national ear/hearing ED visits were 7.5 million (for 4 years, 2016 through 2019). Conclusion The strong correlation of ear-related self-triage diagnoses with national ED diagnoses and the low hospitalization risk for these diagnoses suggests that there is an opportunity for self-triage of ear/hearing concerns to decrease ED visits for these symptoms.

Background Self-triage is becoming more widespread, but little is known about the people who are using online self-triage tools and their outcomes. For self-triage researchers, there are significant barriers to capturing subsequent healthcare outcomes. Our integrated healthcare system was able to capture subsequent healthcare utilization of individuals who used self-triage integrated with self-scheduling of provider visits. Methods We retrospectively examined healthcare utilization and diagnoses after patients had used self-triage and self-scheduling for ear or hearing symptoms. Outcomes and counts of office visits, telemedicine interactions, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were captured. Diagnosis codes associated with subsequent provider visits were dichotomously categorized as being associated with ear or hearing concerns or not. Nonvisit care encounters of patient-initiated messages, nurse triage calls, and clinical communications were also captured. Results For 2168 self-triage uses, we were able to capture subsequent healthcare encounters within 7 days of the self-triage for 80.5% (1745/2168). In subsequent 1092 office visits with diagnoses, 83.1% (891/1092) of the uses were associated with relevant ear, nose and throat diagnoses. Only 0.24% (4/1662) of patients with captured outcomes were associated with a hospitalization within 7 days. Self-triage resulted in a self-scheduled office visit in 7.2% (126/1745). Office visits resulting from a self-scheduled visit had significantly fewer combined non-visit care encounters per office visit (fewer combined nurse triage calls, patient messages, and clinical communication messages) than office visits that were not self-scheduled (−0.51; 95% CI, −0.72 to −0.29; P < .0001). Conclusion In an appropriate healthcare setting, self-triage outcomes can be captured in a high percentage of uses to examine for safety, patient adherence to recommendations, and efficiency of self-triage. With the ear or hearing self-triage, most uses had subsequent visit diagnoses relevant to ear or hearing, so most patients appeared to be selecting the appropriate self-triage pathway for their symptoms.

Introduction The COVID 19 pandemic increased the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic testing for COVID. When testing became available, a systems response was needed to efficiently accommodate the high-volume flow of patients who needed testing. Self-scheduling of COVID testing was developed to help patients safely and efficiently schedule their COVID testing online or with a mobile app. Methods We captured the counts of COVID test appointments, time patients spent in scheduling COVID test appointments, appointment lead times, and no-shows for COVID test appointments. For 17 months of self-scheduling, we retrospectively compared self-scheduling with the concurrent staff scheduling of COVID tests. Results From November 2020 through March 2022 there were 619 104 scheduled appointments for COVID testing with 22% (136 252) being self-scheduled. For asymptomatic self-scheduled COVID tests, accounting for 10.3% (63 605/619 104) of total COVID tests scheduled, median time to self-schedule was 3.1 min, interquartile range (IQR) [2.4,4.7]. For symptomatic self-schedulers accounting for 11.7% (72 647/619 104) of total COVID tests scheduled, the median time to self-triage and self-schedule was 5.8 min, IQR[4.3,8.9]. Self-scheduled COVID appointments increased to 44% (42 387/97 086) of the total COVID appointments during the peak month of January 2022. Median appointment lead time for symptomatic self-scheduled COVID test appointments was 6.6 h compared to 2.9 h ( P < .0001) for symptomatic staff scheduled appointments. However, adjusting for the 24% (32 194/135 252) that self-scheduled during hours when testing was unavailable, the median appointment lead time for symptomatic self-scheduled patients dropped to 3.6 h. No-shows were 2.5% for self-scheduled appointments compared to 3.0% no-shows that were staff scheduled (odds ratio 0.83, P < .0001). Conclusion COVID testing was self-scheduled for a large percent of scheduled COVID tests, taking patients only a few minutes to complete. Self-scheduling use increased over time, associated with a decreasing use of staff scheduled appointments and lower no-shows.

Abstract Objectives: The objective of the study is to distinguish the mechanisms of disease for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN), which we believe to be fundamentally different. However, distinguishing the mechanisms is more difficult when the presentation of CIDP is motor-predominant, focal, or asymmetric. Methods: We describe 3 focal, motor-predominant, representative cases that could be interpreted on clinical and/or electrophysiological grounds as either MMN or focal CIDP, and present pathological findings. Results: We highlight pathological differences in these cases, and provide an argument that CIDP and MMN are distinct entities with different pathophysiological mechanisms—chronic demyelination for CIDP, and an immune-mediated attack on paranodal motor axons for MMN. Conclusions: Based on clinical evaluation, electrophysiology, and nerve biopsy pathology, we can divide the conditions into inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy (focal CIDP) versus chronic axonal neuropathy (MMN). The divergent pathological findings provide further evidence that CIDP and MMN are fundamentally different disorders.

ABSTRACT Introduction : A randomized trial demonstrated benefit from thymectomy in nonthymomatous acetylcholine receptor (AChR)‐antibody positive myasthenia gravis (MG). Uncontrolled observational and histologic studies suggest thymectomy may not be efficacious in anti–muscle‐specific kinase (MuSK)‐MG. Methods : The therapeutic impact of thymectomy was evaluated from data collected for a multicenter, retrospective blinded review of rituximab in MuSK‐MG. Results : Baseline characteristics were similar between thymectomy ( n = 26) and nonthymectomy ( n = 29) groups, including treatment with rituximab (42% vs. 45%). At last visit, 35% of thymectomy subjects reached the primary endpoint, a Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) post‐intervention status (PIS) score of minimal manifestations (MM) or better, compared with 55% of controls ( P = 0.17). After controlling for age at onset of MG, rituximab, prednisone, and intravenous immunoglobulin/plasma exchange treatment, thymectomy was not associated with greater likelihood of favorable clinical outcome (odds ratio = 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.12–1.53, P = 0.19). Discussion : Thymectomy was not associated with additional clinical improvement in this multicenter cohort of MuSK‐MG patients. Muscle Nerve 59:404–410, 2019

Abstract Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is a neurodegenerative disorder, which is characterized by progressive upper and lower motor neuron signs and symptoms, resulting in progressive muscle weakness. There are very rare reports of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities within the nerve roots or plexus reported in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Here, we report a patient who presented with progressive left arm weakness and was found to have bilateral MRI plexus abnormalities. This report illustrates that MRI plexus abnormalities can be seen in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, possibly before symptoms, and may have clinical value in the diagnostic process.