Lin, Michelle

Importance The emergency department (ED) offers an opportunity to initiate palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Objective To assess the effect of a multicomponent intervention to initiate palliative care in the ED on hospital admission, subsequent health care use, and survival in older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Design, Setting, and Participants Cluster randomized, stepped-wedge, clinical trial including patients aged 66 years or older who visited 1 of 29 EDs across the US between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, had 12 months of prior Medicare enrollment, and a Gagne comorbidity score greater than 6, representing a risk of short-term mortality greater than 30%. Nursing home patients were excluded. Intervention A multicomponent intervention (the Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine intervention) included (1) evidence-based multidisciplinary education; (2) simulation-based workshops on serious illness communication; (3) clinical decision support; and (4) audit and feedback for ED clinical staff. Main Outcome and Measures The primary outcome was hospital admission. The secondary outcomes included subsequent health care use and survival at 6 months. Results There were 98 922 initial ED visits during the study period (median age, 77 years [IQR, 71-84 years]; 50% were female; 13% were Black and 78% were White; and the median Gagne comorbidity score was 8 [IQR, 7-10]). The rate of hospital admission was 64.4% during the preintervention period vs 61.3% during the postintervention period (absolute difference, −3.1% [95% CI, −3.7% to −2.5%]; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.14]). There was no difference in the secondary outcomes before vs after the intervention. The rate of admission to an intensive care unit was 7.8% during the preintervention period vs 6.7% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.15]). The rate of at least 1 revisit to the ED was 34.2% during the preintervention period vs 32.2% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.09]). The rate of hospice use was 17.7% during the preintervention period vs 17.2% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16]). The rate of home health use was 42.0% during the preintervention period vs 38.1% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]). The rate of at least 1 hospital readmission was 41.0% during the preintervention period vs 36.6% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]). The rate of death was 28.1% during the preintervention period vs 28.7% during the postintervention period (adjusted OR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.18]). Conclusions and Relevance This multicomponent intervention to initiate palliative care in the ED did not have an effect on hospital admission, subsequent health care use, or short-term mortality in older adults with serious, life-limiting illness. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03424109

Background: Migraine is associated with neuroimaging differences in cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL). However, it is unknown if migraine-related disability (MRD) or if calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a vasoactive peptide important in migraine pathology, have radiographic implications. The aims of this study were to identify whether MRD or interictal serum CGRP levels impacted neuroimaging findings for those with CADASIL. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were neuroimaging differences associated with MRD among those with migraine or interictal serum CGRP levels of those with and without migraine. MRD was defined by 2 migraine disability scales (Migraine Disability Assessment, Headache Impact Test-6). Retrospective brain magnetic resonance imaging was reviewed (average 1.7 ± 2.0 y before enrollment). Rank-sum and χ2 tests were used. Results: Those with migraine (n=25, vs. n=14 without) were younger [median 49 (25 to 82) y vs. 60 (31 to 82) y, P<0.007], had fewer cerebral microbleeds (0 to 31 vs. 0 to 50, P=0.02) and less frequently had anterior temporal lobe T2 hyperintensities [68% (17/25) vs 100% (14/14), P=0.02]. MRD scale outcomes had no significant radiographic associations. Interictal serum CGRP did not differ (migraine: n=18, 27.0±9.6 pg/mL vs. no migraine: n=10, 26.8±15.7 pg/mL, P=0.965). Conclusions: Migraine may forestall microangiopathy in CADASIL, though possibly independent of severity as measured by MRD. Interictal serum CGRP did not differ in our cohort suggesting CGRP may not be vital to migraine pathophysiology in CADASIL. Larger studies are needed to account for age differences.

AbstractObjectiveCareer paths leading to department chair positions are elusive. Women represent only 11% of academic emergency department (ED) chairs. It is unclear whether the pathway to chair is different for men and women; the characteristics, achievements, and qualifications among those who become ED chairs is unknown.MethodsThis study is a cross‐sectional analysis of curriculum vitae (CV) of current ED chairs in departments with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)‐accredited residency programs. Former women chairs were included due to paucity of current women chairs. Statistics were calculated using bivariate and multivariate analysis.ResultsOf 163 eligible chairs, 88 CV (54%) were obtained, including six former women chairs. A majority (86.4%) self‐identified as White/Caucasian, 21.5% were women, 46% were chief residents, 28.4% completed additional postgraduate degrees, and 21.8% were fellowship trained. At time of chair appointment, 58% were professor rank, 53.5% held ED operations roles, and 32% served as vice chair. Women were more likely to be in educational (53% vs. 22%) versus operational (26% vs. 61%, p = 0.02) roles. Women obtained more advanced degrees (47% vs. 25%, p = 0.02), were awarded more nonfederal grants (median = 7 vs. 3, p = 0.04), and achieved more national committee leadership (median = 4 vs. 1, p = 0.02). There were no gender differences in fellowship training, awards, leadership training programs, publications, federal grants, or national/international lectures after adjusting for years in practice.ConclusionWhile the majority of chairs held prior leadership roles in ED operations, only one in five women chairs did, suggesting gender differences in the path to chair attainment. These differences in paths may contribute to persistent gender disparities in ED chairs and may be influenced by career path choices, implicit bias, and structural barriers.

ABSTRACT Background Physician well-being is garnering increasing attention. In 2016, the Journal of Graduate Medical Education (JGME) published a review by Kristin Raj, MD, entitled “Well-Being in Residency: A Systematic Review.” There is benefit in contextualizing the literature on resident well-being through an academic journal club. Objective We summarized an asynchronous, online journal club discussion about this systematic review and highlighted themes that were identified in the review. Methods In January 2017, JGME and the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) blog facilitated an open-access, online, weeklong journal club on the featured JGME article. Online discussions and interactions were facilitated via blog posts and comments, a video discussion on Google Hangouts on Air, and Twitter. We performed a thematic analysis of the discussion and captured web analytics. Results Over the first 14 days, the blog post was viewed 1070 unique times across 52 different countries. A total of 130 unique participants on Twitter posted 480 tweets using the hashtag #JGMEscholar. Thematic analysis revealed 5 major domains: the multidimensional nature of well-being, measurement of well-being, description of wellness programs and interventions, creation of a culture of wellness, and critique of the methodology of the review. Conclusions Our online journal club highlighted several gaps in the current understanding of resident well-being, including the need for consensus on the operational definition, the need for effective instruments to evaluate wellness programs and identify residents in distress, and a national research collaboration to assess wellness programs and their impact on resident well-being.