Thorsteinsdottir, Bjorg

Background: Diagnostic delay and error represent pervasive problems in healthcare with grave implications for treatment and prognosis. Though characteristic of human cognition, cognitive biases commonly contribute to delays in the physician decision-making process, particularly in atypical or complex presentations in youth. Methods: We present a case series of three adolescent athletes with varied clinical presentations whose diagnostic conceptualization and treatment were delayed in part due to cognitive biases with consequences for overall health and development, as well as return to sport. Results: The first case depicts how an atypical presentation of celiac disease was attributed to growing pains, illustrating the contribution of anchoring bias and confirmation bias in medical decision making. The second case represents the misattribution of chronic exertional compartment syndrome pain to growing pains and post-exercise soreness, highlighting the influence of ascertainment bias on the initial misdiagnosis. The third case describes how a vertebral mass was misdiagnosed as a left shoulder strain from weightlifting, depicting the contribution of anchoring bias and ascertainment bias in medical decision making. Conclusions: Early recognition of cognitive biases, including confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and ascertainment bias, is crucial for improving medical decision making, particularly in cases of rare or atypical presentations, reducing unnecessary diagnostic delays, and setting more realistic patient expectations. Through discussion of these cases, we highlight concrete steps to manage bias to facilitate timely diagnosis within the primary care and sports medicine setting.

Introduction/Objectives: To describe health outcomes of older adults enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions (MCCT) program before and during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to unenrolled patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (age >60 years) in the MCCT program compared to a usual care control group from January 1, 2019, to September 20, 2022. The MCCT program involved a home, telephonic, or telemedicine visit by an advanced care provider. Outcomes were 30- and 180-day hospital readmissions, emergency department (ED) visit, and mortality. We performed a subgroup analysis after March 1, 2020 (during the pandemic). We analyzed data with Cox proportional hazards regression models and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. Results: Of the 1,012 patients total, 354 were in the MCCT program and 658 were in the usual care group with a mean (SD) age of 81.1 (9.1) years overall. Thirty-day readmission was 16.9% (60 of 354) for MCCT patients and 14.7% (97 of 658) for usual care patients (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88-1.75). During the pandemic, the 30-day readmission rate was 15.1% (28 of 186) for MCCT patients and 14.9% (68 of 455) for usual care patients (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.75-1.91). There was no difference between groups for 180-day hospitalization, 30- or 180-day ED visit, and 30- or 180-day mortality. Conclusions: Numerous factors involving patients, providers, and health care delivery systems during the pandemic most likely contributed to these findings.

Background and objectives Despite the dramatic increase in the provision of virtual nephrology care, only anecdotal reports of outcomes without comparators to usual care exist in the literature. This study aimed to provide objective determination of clinical noninferiority of hybrid (telenephrology plus face-to-face) versus standard (face-to-face) inpatient nephrology care. Design, setting, participants, & measurements This retrospective study compares objective outcomes in patients who received inpatient hybrid care versus standard nephrology care at two Mayo Clinic Health System community hospitals. Outcomes were then additionally compared with those patients receiving care at another Mayo Clinic Health System site where only standard care is available. Hospitalized adults who had nephrology consults from March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 were considered. Regression was used to assess 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, readmissions, odds of being prescribed dialysis, and hospital transfers. Sensitivity analysis was performed using patients who had ≥50% of their care encounters via telenephrology. Structured surveys were used to understand the perspectives of non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists. Results In total, 850 patients were included. Measured outcomes that included the number of hospital transfers (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 3.82) and 30-day readmissions (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.06), among others, did not differ significantly between controls and patients in the general cohort. Telenephrologists ( n =11) preferred video consults (82%) to phone for communication. More than half (64%) of telenephrologists spent less time on telenephrology compared with standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers ( n =21) were very satisfied (48%) and satisfied (29%) with telenephrology response time and felt telenephrology was as safe as standard care (67%), while providing them enough information to make patient care decisions (76%). Conclusions Outcomes for in-hospital nephrology consults were not significantly different comparing hybrid care versus standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists had favorable opinions of telenephrology and most perceived it is as safe and effective as standard care. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2022_04_11_CJN13441021.mp3

Although Chronic Kidney Disease is common, only a relatively small proportion of individuals will reach kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplantation. Validated risk equations using routine laboratory tests have been developed that can easily be used at the bedside to help clinicians accurately predict the risk of kidney failure in their patient population, in turn informing patient-centered conversations, guiding appropriate nephrology referrals, improving the timing of dialysis treatment planning, and identifying individuals who are most likely to benefit from interventions. In this article, individuals living with kidney disease share why access to individualized prediction of kidney failure risk can help patients manage their disease and why it should be considered an essential component of kidney care.

Background Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work. Design A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. Results A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. Limitations Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. Conclusions Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients’ values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.

CSCW has previously investigated the "information work" that patients do in relation to their health, illnesses, and treatments. Our study contributes to this ongoing stream of work by investigating the information work that chronically ill patients do in relation to their physical bodily experiences. We use an interpretivist approach and qualitative methods (semi-structured interviews and observations) to examine how patients in a midwestern U.S. city carry out information work related to their bodily experiences of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Our findings highlight four themes related to such work: bodily experiences of CKD; making meaning of bodily experiences through experiential learning; communicating bodily experiences; and attuning daily life around bodily experiences. In so doing, we show how patients continuously engage in information work in relation to their bodily experiences. For example, we found participants experienced physical sensations such as pain, cramping, and extreme fatigue, which elicited complex labor, yet most patients received little education from health care professionals about what bodily sensations they might have and what these physical experiences might mean. While patients and clinicians worked collaboratively to adjust treatment based on bodily information, such collaborative adjustment often did not occur until patients learned to interpret and communicate bodily experiences through a difficult and physically painful "trial and error" learning process. Our empirical insights extend on the literature of information work that chronically ill patients do and inform design of information technologies and care processes for patients with chronic disease.

AbstractRegenerative, cell-based therapy is a promising treatment option for diabetic kidney disease (DKD), which has no cure. To prepare for clinical translation, this systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the effect of cell-based interventions in DKD animal models and treatment-related factors modifying outcomes. Electronic databases were searched for original investigations applying cell-based therapy in diabetic animals with kidney endpoints (January 1998-May 2019). Weighted or standardized mean differences were estimated for kidney outcomes and pooled using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses tested treatment-related factor effects for outcomes (creatinine, urea, urine protein, fibrosis, and inflammation). In 40 studies (992 diabetic rodents), therapy included mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSC; 61%), umbilical cord/amniotic fluid cells (UC/AF; 15%), non-MSC (15%), and cell-derived products (13%). Tissue sources included bone marrow (BM; 65%), UC/AF (15%), adipose (9%), and others (11%). Cell-based therapy significantly improved kidney function while reducing injury markers (proteinuria, histology, fibrosis, inflammation, apoptosis, epithelial-mesenchymal-transition, oxidative stress). Preconditioning, xenotransplantation, and disease-source approaches were effective. MSC and UC/AF cells had greater effect on kidney function while cell products improved fibrosis. BM and UC/AF tissue sources more effectively improved kidney function and proteinuria vs adipose or other tissues. Cell dose, frequency, and administration route also imparted different benefits. In conclusion, cell-based interventions in diabetic animals improved kidney function and reduced injury with treatment-related factors modifying these effects. These findings may aid in development of optimal repair strategies through selective use of cells/products, tissue sources, and dose administrations to allow for successful adaptation of this novel therapeutic in human DKD.