Philpot, Lindsey M.

Background: Nonpharmacologic interventions have known benefits for managing chronic pain, particularly for conditions such as fibromyalgia, and are included in clinical guidelines. However, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) has not been established as a routine clinical practice for pain management. Objective: To systematically review the efficacy of EMDR for managing chronic pain. Methods: A search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies by using the keywords “EMDR” and “chronic pain.” Information was collected on the study population, EMDR protocol, methods for pain assessment, and outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated, and intervention effect sizes were determined by calculating Hedges g values for long-term follow-up data in RCTs. Results: A total of nine studies, including seven RCTs, were reviewed. The studies used various diverse pain measurement tools and EMDR protocols. All reported significant improvements in pain symptoms with EMDR. Most of the studies reported statistically significant improvements in associated mental health issues, notably in psychological distress (four out of four studies), anxiety (three out of three studies), and depression (three out of four studies). Effect sizes varied among the studies, with three RCTs reporting large effects, two RCTs reporting moderate effects, and one RCT reporting small or nonsignificant effects. Conclusion: EMDR shows promise for managing chronic pain and addressing associated mental health symptoms. Despite study differences and limitations, the findings of this systematic review support the potential use of EMDR for chronic pain management.

Introduction/Objectives: House call programs provide care for homebound patients. We conducted a case-control study to compare hospitalization and/or emergency department (ED) use by patients enrolled in a primary care house call program versus ambulatory (community-dwelling) patients. Methods: Program enrollees (cases) were matched by age and self-reported gender to community-dwelling patients (controls). The primary exposure was the combination of hospitalization and/or ED visits for 1 year before the index date (October 1, 2024). We used unadjusted and adjusted conditional logistic regression to determine differences in health care use. Results: We identified 26 cases (median [range] age, 84 [66-98] years; 16 [62%] female) and 130 controls. All cases had 4 or more chronic diseases, as compared with 87 (67%) of controls ( P = .003). A higher proportion of cases than controls had previous hospitalization and/or ED visits (84.6% vs 27.7%; P < .001). After adjusting for the number of chronic illnesses, no differences in previous hospitalization and/or ED use were identified between groups. Conclusions: Cases had more chronic illnesses and more hospitalizations and/or ED visits than community-dwelling controls. The comorbid health burden of participants in the house call program drove greater health care use and justifies a higher level of care for this medically complex patient population.

Video-based care has become a routine part of outpatient care delivery, yet older adults continue to face barriers in accessing and engaging with this modality. This study analyzed the comments provided within 7155 patient experience surveys from adults aged ≥65 years across a large, multi-specialty medical practice to identify challenges experienced with video-based visits. Thematic analysis revealed the highest proportion of positive comments were related to experience with people (71%), while barriers were often related to technical issues with video tools (73%). Most comments related to processes were positive, often highlighting convenience (67%). Using design thinking, we mapped the patient journey and proposed both immediate solutions, such as testing environments and clearer instructions, and long-term innovations like voice-guided support and emotionally intelligent interfaces. Our findings suggest that while video visits offer convenience, they must be redesigned with older adults in mind to ensure equitable, effective, and human-centered care.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal bloating is a difficult symptom to treat. Hypnotherapy and diaphragmatic intervention have separately shown benefit on bloating in prior work but have not been united into a single intervention. We aimed to obtain data on the potential therapeutic impact of a novel audio-recorded bloating treatment for bloating integrating hypnosis and diaphragmatic breathing, with proposed synergistic effect. METHODS: Patients with nonorganic bowel disorders with predominant bloating symptoms completed a digitally delivered 7-session audio-recorded hypnotherapy program without clinician involvement. The intervention combined bloating-targeted hypnotic suggestions and guided diaphragmatic breathing delivered under hypnosis, and was supplemented with interval self-guided breathing exercises. Participants completed online REDCap assessments at baseline, midtreatment, at end of treatment, and 3-month follow-up, evaluating symptom severity, gastrointestinal symptom-specific anxiety, overall anxiety/depression, and quality of life. Outcomes were assessed in an intention-to-treat manner with repeated measures analysis of variances (ANOVAs) with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise post hoc tests. RESULTS: Of 23 patients who started treatment, 22 (95.6%) completed follow-up. Bloating severity on Irritable Bowel Syndrome-Symptom Severity Scale and Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index showed reduction in bloating with large effect sizes (Cohen d of ∼0.8) at the end of treatment, as did Visceral Sensitivity Index bloating-related anxiety. At the end of treatment, 16 patients (69.6%) were Irritable Bowel Syndrome-Symptom Severity Scale treatment responders (≥30% symptom reduction) on bloating and 17 (73.9%) on overall bowel symptom severity. Anxiety, depression, and quality-of-life scores were unchanged. Outcome measures were fully maintained at the 3-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: Results suggest the therapeutic utility of a new cost-effective self-administered bloating intervention. A randomized controlled trial is planned to confirm these therapeutic effects.

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 Digital and mobile (mHealth) solutions are online or application-based services intended to support individuals with health needs. Despite evidence supporting the use of mHealth for patients with chronic pain, and the increasing desire of these types of solutions by both patients and providers, adoption of mHealth solutions remains limited. Implementation mapping can serve as a practical method to facilitate implementation and adoption of mHealth solutions within healthcare settings. Methods Implementation mapping was used to develop implementation strategies based on contextual determinants organized within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for mHealth eLearning solutions across an integrated, multi-site healthcare system. We describe our experience identifying stakeholders, delineating implementation facilitators and barriers, defining implementation outcomes using RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, outlining initial implementation strategies, and iterating on implementation strategies. Results A total of 30 implementation strategies were identified and implemented. Over the first year, primary and specialty care providers across all the clinical sites ( n = 70) placed 2559 orders for the mHealth solution. Most patients reported receiving the mHealth eLearning module (74%), and most patients felt that the tool improved their knowledge regarding their condition (82%) and their ability to provide self-care related to the condition (73%). Conclusion Practical applications of implementation science methods can help enable change within healthcare settings. Implementation mapping is an exercise that can engage stakeholders to facilitate the incorporation of new methods of care delivery, including mHealth solutions.

Abstract Background Remdesivir is FDA-approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Many patients improve clinically to allow for hospital dismissal before completing the 5-day course. In prior work, those who continued remdesivir in an outpatient setting had better outcomes. Here, we assessed patients’ perspectives and the economic impact of this outpatient practice. Methods During a one-year period, 3,029 patients received remdesivir for COVID-19 in the hospital; of them, 542 were dismissed to continue remdesivir in the outpatient setting and were surveyed. The cost of care was compared between those who remained in the hospital vs. those who were dismissed. Results 470 of 542 patients were surveyed, and 93 (19.8%) responded. Responders were older than non-responders (median, 63 vs. 58 years). The majority (70.5%) had symptoms resolved by the time of the survey. Ten patients (11.4%) had persistent symptoms attributed to long COVID-19, including fatigue (30.1%), brain fog (23.7%), and insomnia (18.3%). 73.8% were excited to learn about the outpatient remdesivir program. The majority (81.0%) felt that receiving therapy at home was the right decision; 79.5% had support and felt the benefits of completing treatment at home. The majority were satisfied with communication before (75.6%) and during (80.5%) the outpatient appointment, information on benefits (80.3%) and risks (58.5%), time spent at the infusion center (88.6%), quality of care (82.3%) and overall experience (76.0%). The benefits of treatment were high-value (82.6%), while the infusions' cost, inconvenience, and discomfort were unimportant for most responders. After adjusting for gender, comorbidity score, and WHO scale, the predicted costs for the groups were $16,544 (inpatient) and $9,097 (outpatient) per patient (difference of $7,447; p&lt; .01). During this study, we estimated a total of 1,077 hospital room-days were made available to other patients. Conclusion An outpatient remdesivir program that allowed for early dismissal was perceived favorably by patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The program resulted in significant cost and resource savings, the latter in terms of the availability of hospital rooms for other patients needing critical services. Disclosures Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria Bijan J. Borah, Ph.D., Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisor/Consultant|Exact Sciences: Advisor/Consultant Ravindra Ganesh, M.B.B.S., M.D., Alpaca Health: Advisor/Consultant Raymund R. Razonable, MD, Allovir: Endpoint Adjudication Committee|American Society of Transplantation: Board Member|Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Novartis: DSMB|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support|Roche: Grant/Research Support

Acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors have a dynamic posthospital course which warrants close monitoring. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) could be used to improve quality and efficiency of AKI survivor care. Objective: The objective of this report was to describe the development and preliminary feasibility of an AKI RPM program launched in October 2021. Setting: Academic medical center. Patients: Patients enrolled in the AKI RPM program were those who experienced AKI during a hospitalization and underwent nephrology consultation. Measurements/Methods: At enrollment, patients were provided with home monitoring technology and underwent weekly laboratory assessments. Nurses evaluated the data daily and adhered to prespecified protocols for management and escalation of care if needed. Results: Twenty patients were enrolled in AKI RPM in the first 5 months. Median duration of program participation was 36 (31, 40) days. Eight patients (40%) experienced an unplanned readmission, or an emergency department visit, half (N = 4) of which were attributed to AKI and related circumstances. Of the 9 postgraduation survey respondents, all were satisfied with the RPM program and 89% would recommend RPM to other patients with similar health conditions. Limitations: Acute kidney injury RPM was made possible by the existing infrastructure in our integrated health system and the robust resources available in the Mayo Clinic Center for Digital Health. Such infrastructure may not be universally available which could limit scale and generalizability of such a program. Conclusions: Remote patient monitoring can offer a unique opportunity to bridge the care transition from hospital to home and increase access to quality care for the AKI survivors.

Abstract Background and Aims At least 30% of acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors lack appropriate follow up after hospital discharge. AKI survivors have highly dynamic posthospital course which warrants close monitoring to prevent adverse outcomes. Digital health solutions like remote patient monitoring (RPM) could be used to improve quality and efficiency of AKI survivor care. The purpose for this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the Mayo Clinic AKI RPM program, launched in October 2021. Method The Mayo Clinic AKI RPM program enrolled individuals who experienced AKI during a hospitalization and underwent nephrology consultation (Figure 1). Feasibility was assessed as the proportion of individuals approached for AKI RPM enrollment during the first year of the program who submitted at least one set of vital signs after discharge. An effectiveness analysis compared stage 3 AKI survivors enrolled in AKI RPM with at least 30-days of follow-up to matched historical controls (3:1) sampled from before RPM was available (2018-2021). The primary endpoint was hospital readmission or emergency department (ED) visit within 30-days, assessed with the Chi-square test. Secondarily we explored time to first readmission or ED visit with a Kaplan-Meier survival curve with a non-parametric comparison between groups, as well as readmission length of stay with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test due to right skewed data distribution. Results Of the 50 individuals approached for AKI RPM participation, 45 (90%) submitted at least one set of vitals. Among AKI RPM patients, 34 patients with stage 3 AKI were matched to 102 controls based on baseline characteristics and demographics. Dialysis during hospitalization (liberated by discharge) was used in 36 (27%) of patients. Sixty (44%) individuals required ICU level of care. Median (IQR) discharge estimated glomerular filtration rate was 15 (11, 27) mL/min/1.73m2. Through matching, groups were well balanced with respect to pertinent baseline demographics. Hospital readmission or ED visit occurred in 17 (50%) of AKI RPM patients within 30-days compared to 39 (38%) of controls within 30-days (P = .23). The endpoint appeared driven by ED visits within 30-days, not readmissions [At least one ED visit: 13 (38%) vs 21 (21%), respectively (P = .04); At least one hospital readmission: 7 (21%) vs 26 (26%), respectively (P = .56)]. Time to first readmission or ED visit within 30-days was similar between groups (P = .35; Figure 2). Among the 33 patients who were readmitted to the hospital within 30-days, readmission length of stay was similar in the AKI RPM group compared to controls [Median (IQR) 76 (10.6, 121) hours vs 108 (70, 165) hours); P = 0.33]. Conclusion In conclusion, AKI RPM was a feasible program when used to bridge the care continuum (hospital to home) in non-dialysis dependent AKI survivors. Incidence of at least one hospital readmission or ED visit within 30-days was statistically similar between AKI RPM patients and controls. More AKI RPM patients experienced ED encounters in the 30-days after discharge, but frequency of hospital readmission was similar. Digital health solutions such as RPM offer a unique opportunity to address the important gap in AKI care after discharging from the hospital. Additional research is needed to explore the impact of AKI RPM on patient outcomes.