Citations

Background The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unique challenges to healthcare systems, particularly in relation to patient safety and adverse events during hospitalization. There is limited understanding of COVID-19’s association with some patient safety indicators (PSIs). Objectives This study aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 infection on the rate of PSI-3 events and its implications on quality metrics. We compared PSI-3 event rates between COVID-19–infected and uninfected patients and examined the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients experiencing PSI-3 events. Methods This is a retrospective study at Mayo Clinic hospitals between January 2020 and February 2022, analyzing patients meeting PSI-3 denominator eligibility criteria. PSI-3 events were identified using AHRQ WinQI software. Patients were categorized based on COVID-19 status. Patient demographics, characteristics, and PSI-3 rates were compared. A case series analysis described clinical details of COVID-19 patients with PSI-3 events. Results Of 126,781 encounters meeting PSI-3 criteria, 8674 (6.8%) had acute COVID-19 infection. COVID-19–infected patients were older, more likely to be male, non-white, and had private insurance. PSI-3 rates were significantly higher in COVID-19 patients (0.21% versus 0.06%, P < 0.0001), even after risk adjustment (adjusted risk ratio, 3.24, P < 0.0001). The case series of 17 COVID-19 patients with PSI-3 events showed distinctive clinical characteristics, including higher medical device–related pressure injuries, and greater predisposition for head, face, and neck region. Conclusions Acute COVID-19 infection correlates with higher PSI-3 event rates. Current quality indicators may require adaptation to address the pandemic’s complexities and impact on patient safety. Further research is needed to comprehensively understand the intricate relationship between COVID-19 and patient outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundPrevious literature on cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) suggests that the incidence, rate of metastasis, and tumour severity of cSCC are higher in immunosuppressed patients than in immunocompetent patients. However, current literature lacks an extensive comparison of cSCC clinical characteristics and outcomes in immunosuppressed patients.ObjectivesWe compared cSCC tumour characteristics and disease‐related outcomes to help guide the clinical management of immunosuppressed patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of histopathologic and clinical data from 935 cSCC cases (19.5% immunosuppressed) from the Mayo Clinic.ResultsImmunosuppression was associated with younger age (69.3 vs. 74.8 years old, p < 0.0001), male gender (78.6% vs. 67.2%, p = 0.003), and higher grade cSCC tumour characterized by moderate or poor differentiation (25.7% vs. 15.8%, p = 0.009; 9.2% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.009, respectively). No significant differences were found in other tumour characteristics, including clinical tumour dimension, Brigham and Women's Hospital tumour staging or cumulative risk of metastasis and recurrence. Immunosuppressed patients had an increased risk of disease‐specific death on univariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval, CI] 2.05 [1.13–3.74], p = 0.0128). Overall survival in the immunosuppressed population was worse (adjusted HR [95% CI] 1.83 [1.42–2.35], p < 0.001) and, notably, solid organ transplant recipients had the lowest overall survival when stratifying immunosuppressed patients by immunosuppression type (HR [95% CI] 1.62 [1.17–2.24], p < 0.0001).ConclusionsIn our study, immunosuppression status was predictive of poor differentiation of tumours and a reduction in overall and cSCC‐specific survival. Current staging systems for cSCC do not include immunosuppression as a risk factor and incorporating immune status may be beneficial for accurate risk stratification.

This cohort study examines factors that may contribute to whether patients address physicians differently through electronic messaging

AbstractBackgroundA new trend includes taking a dedicated year away from medical school to complete a research fellowship. There is minimal data on the benefit of a gap year. We aimed to identify if a gap year makes a dermatology applicant more successful in The Match.MethodsDermatology applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic Arizona for the 2018–2019 application cycle and Mayo Clinic Rochester, Arizona, and Florida for the 2019–2020 application cycle were surveyed.ResultsIn total, 291 dermatology applicants completed the initial survey, and 236 completed the follow‐up survey. Ninety applicants took a gap year, 198 applicants did not. There was no significant difference in match rates. When comparing match rates at top dermatology residency programs, 40.6% of gap‐year applicants matched to these residencies versus 19.0% of no gap‐year applicants (P < 0.01).ConclusionApplicants should weigh the opportunity costs before pursuing research gap years as they may not be universally helpful. Applicants who want to match at a top dermatology program may benefit from a research gap year. This data may have limited generalizability outside of the United States.

BACKGROUND Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCC) have upstage rates of approximately 10.3% to 11.1%. Data are currently limited on the rate of upstaging for metastatic cSCC. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine the rates of upstaging, between diagnosis and surgery, and differences in management for metastatic and non-metastatic high-risk cSCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a retrospective, case–control, single institution, multi-center study. Univariate analysis was used. RESULTS Sixty-eight subjects (34 metastatic & 34 non-metastatic) with 69 tumors were included. The overall rate of upstaging was 46.4%. The most common reasons for upstage were undocumented tumor size and under-diagnosis of poor differentiation. There were no differences in rates of upstaging. Preoperative imaging was performed in 43.6% of wide local excisions (WLE) versus 3.3% of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS; p < .001). The median days from surgery to sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), or nodal dissection was shorter for WLE versus MMS (0 vs 221 days, p < .001). CONCLUSION Improved clinical documentation, including documenting tumor size, and the identification of pathologic risk factors, including poor differentiation and depth of invasion, are needed for proper staging. Preoperative imaging and discussion of SLNB may be beneficial for high-risk T2b and T3 tumors.