Lawson, Donna K.

Introduction Optimal hospital bed utilization requires innovative patient care models. We studied a novel hospitalist model utilizing telemedicine to facilitate collaboration with affiliated emergency departments (EDs) and support medical triage and care of ED patients with high likelihood of hospital admission. Methods Telehospitalists based at a tertiary care facility collaborated with four community EDs in the same healthcare network between January 1, 2022, and April 30, 2023. Telehospitalists supported ED clinicians in medical care decisions and facilitated patient disposition. Emergency department length of stay (LOS) and disposition were evaluated, as were hospital LOS, 30-day readmission, and in-hospital mortality. For patients discharged from the ED, 7-day ED readmission and subsequent hospitalization were evaluated. Results Telehospitalists discussed 550 “admit-likely” patients with ED clinicians: 105 patients (19.1%) discharged from the ED and avoided admission; 322 patients (58.5%) were admitted to local or nearby community hospitals; 123 patients (22.4%) transferred to the tertiary care facility. Emergency department LOS differed significantly among disposition groups, including patients discharged home (10.2 h), admitted to local hospitals (12.6 h), and transferred to tertiary care hospitalist services (14.9 h; p < 0.001). Hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality were not significantly different among disposition groups. Patients admitted locally had lower 30-day readmission compared to those transferred to tertiary care facility (odds ratio = 0.59 [0.36, 0.99], p = 0.048). Discussion Telehospitalists as triage clinicians is an innovative approach to support local ED clinicians and patients. Telehospitalists optimized hospital bed utilization and healthcare system resources by facilitating safe discharges to home and expediting tertiary care transfers when necessary.

Objectives: To identify patient characteristics, health concerns, and barriers to care based on overweight or obesity. Methods: A 50-question anonymous survey was administered to patients. Data were compared by body mass index (BMI). Results: Among 3976 distributed surveys, 899 were returned and 682 were analyzed. Most respondents were women (60%), White (94%), and married/partnered (65%) and had some college education (80%). Younger and unmarried persons had higher BMI ( P < .001). Concern for quality of life ( P < .001) and importance of lifestyle changes ( P = .006) increased with BMI, but confidence in making changes decreased as BMI increased ( P < .001). Perceived good health decreased with increasing BMI ( P < .001), whereas depression and other comorbid conditions increased. Self-esteem decreased and stigma increased with higher BMI (both P < .001). Weight discussions with clinicians ( P < .001) and belief that clinicians should be involved in weight management ( P = .002) increased with BMI, yet self-perception of being judged by clinicians also increased ( P < .001). As BMI increased, delays in seeking health care increased ( P < .001). Conclusions: This survey study highlights perceived health concerns and barriers to care among persons with overweight and obesity. With higher BMI, self-esteem decreased, and stigma, self-perception of poor health, perception of being judged by clinicians, and delay in seeking medical care increased.

Background: In addition to the morbidity and mortality associated with acute infection, COVID-19 has been associated with persistent symptoms (>30 days), often referred to as Long COVID (LC). LC symptoms often cluster into phenotypes, resembling conditions such as fibromyalgia, postural orthostatic tachycardiac syndrome (POTS), and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). LC clinics have been established to best address the needs of LC patients and continuity of care. We developed a cross-sectional survey to assess treatment response through our LC Clinic (LCC). Methods: A 25-question survey (1-10 Likert scale) was expert- and content-validated by LCC clinicians, patients, and patient advocates. The survey assessed LC symptoms and the helpfulness of different interventions, including medications and supplements. A total of 852 LCC patients were asked to complete the survey, with 536 (62.9%) responding. Results: The mean time from associated COVID-19 infection to survey completion was 23.2 ± 6.4 months. The mean age of responders was 52.3 ± 14.1 (63% females). Self-reported symptoms were all significantly improved ( P < .001) from the initial visit to the LCC (baseline) to the time of the follow-up survey. However, only 4.5% (24/536) of patients rated all symptoms low (1-2) at the time of the survey, indicating low levels of full recovery in our cohort. The patients rated numerous interventions as being helpful, including low-dose naltrexone (45/77; 58%), vagal nerve stimulation (18/34; 53%), and fisetin (28/44; 64%). Conclusions: Patients report general improvements in symptoms following the initial LCC visit, but complete recovery rates remain low at 23.2 ± 6.4 months.

AbstractBackgroundMany hospitalized patients do not understand or agree with their clinicians about their discharge plan. However, the effect of disagreement on discharge outcomes is unknown.ObjectiveTo measure the correlation between patient‐clinician care agreement and discharge outcomes.DesignA prospective cohort study was performed from September 2019 to March 2020 (Rochester, MN, USA).Setting and ParticipantsInternal medicine patients and their primary clinician (resident, advanced practice clinician or attending) hospitalized from September 2019‐March 2020 at Mayo Clinic Hospital. Participants were independently surveyed following hospital day #3 ward rounds regarding the goals of the hospitalization and discharge planning.Main Outcome and MeasuresPatient–clinician agreement for main diagnosis, patient's main concern, and four domains of discharge planning was assessed. Readiness for hospital discharge, delayed discharge, and 30‐day readmission was measured. Then, associations between patient‐clinician agreement, delayed discharge, and 30‐day readmissions were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf the 436 patients and clinicians, 17.7% completely agreed about what needs to be accomplished before dismissal, 40.8% agreed regarding discharge date, and 71.1% agreed regarding discharge location. In the multivariable model, patient–clinician agreement scores were not significantly correlated with discharge outcomes. Patient–clinician agreement on discharge location was higher for those discharged to home (81.5%) versus skilled nursing facility (48.5%) or assisted living (42.9%) (p < .0001). The agreement on the expected length of stay was highest for home‐goers (45.9%) compared to skilled nursing (32.0%) or assisted living (21.4%) (p = .004).ConclusionsPatients and their clinicians frequently disagree about when and where a patient will go after hospitalization, particularly for those discharged to a skilled nursing facility. While disagreement did not predict discharge outcomes, our findings suggest opportunities to improve effective communication and promote shared mental models regarding discharge earlier in the hospital stay.

Background Music therapy (MT) programs have been used in various health care settings to reduce patients’ pain, anxiety, and stress. However, few studies have investigated its effects on patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), a frequently serious event requiring extensive rehabilitation. Objective This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of offering music-assisted relaxation (MAR) during rehabilitation for patients with SCI. We also measured the effect of MAR on the patients’ pain, anxiety, and stress levels. Methods Patients were hospitalized at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) from September 2015 through September 2017 for rehabilitation of an SCI. Eligible patients received 2, 20-minute, personalized MAR sessions. Interventions were facilitated by a board-certified music therapist (MT-BC) and included diaphragmatic breathing, guided imagery, and passive muscle relaxation with live guitar accompaniment and spoken, improvised, or singing voice. Two surveys (Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD-7] and Perceived Stress Scale [PSS-10]) were used at the time of study consent and again upon hospital dismissal. Pain, anxiety, and relaxation were assessed before and after both MT sessions with visual analog scales (VASs), scored from 0 to 10. Participants completed a 7-question satisfaction survey after the second MAR session. Results Twenty patients were enrolled (12 men, 8 women); 13 (65%) completed the MAR interventions. The mean (SD) age was 53.7 (17.7) years. VAS scores for pain significantly improved after both sessions (P ≤ .02). VAS scores for anxiety also significantly improved after both sessions (P ≤ .02), as did VAS scores for relaxation (P ≤ .02 for both). The satisfaction survey indicated that patients generally believed that they benefited from MT. Rehabilitation staff indicated that MT did not interfere with routine clinical care. Conclusion MT with live MAR is a feasible treatment for patients with SCI and may be effective for reducing their pain and anxiety.

Hospital medicine ward rounds are often conducted away from patients’ bedsides, but it is unknown if more time-at-bedside is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objective is to measure the association between “time-at-bedside,” patient experience, and patient–clinician care agreement during ward rounds. Research assistants directly observed medicine services to quantify the amount of time spent discussing each patient’s care inside versus outside the patient’s room. “Time-at-bedside” was defined as the proportion of time spent discussing a patient’s care in his or her room. Patient experience and patient–clinician care agreement both were measured immediately after ward rounds. Results demonstrated that the majority of patient and physicians completely agreement on planned tests (66.3%), planned procedures (79.7%), medication changes (50.6%), and discharge location (66.9%), but had no agreement on the patient’s main concern (74.4%) and discharge date (50.6%). Time-at-bedside was not correlated with care agreement or patient experience ( P > .05 for all comparisons). This study demonstrates that spending more time at the bedside during ward rounds, alone, is insufficient to improve patient experience.