Citations

Objective. To examine the efficacy of interdisciplinary rehabilitation for improving function in people with chronic pain. Design. Retrospective Chart Review. Setting. The Pain Rehabilitation Center (PRC) at a medical center. Participants. Individuals admitted to the PRC. Interventions. The PRC operates a 3-week outpatient program that utilizes an interdisciplinary approach to treat people with chronic pain. The main treatment elements include physical therapy, occupational therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and medication management. Physical therapy groups focus on moderate exercise despite symptoms. Occupational therapists teach moderation, time management, and activity modification. CBT groups, led by a pain psychologist, address the psychosocial comorbidities of chronic pain. Medical staff oversee the tapering of opiate analgesics and other symptom targeted treatments. This integrated approach is indicated when conventional treatments have been ineffective. Outcome Measures. The objective outcome was the 6-minute walk test (6 mWT) distance. The subjective outcomes were performance (COPM-PER) and satisfaction (COPM-SAT) as measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Results. Average 6 mWT distances improved by 39% from 375 m to 523 m. Average COPM-PER scores increased from 3.4 to 7.5. Average COPM-SAT scores increased from 2.4 to 7.5. Conclusions. Comprehensive interdisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation can significantly improve function in people with chronic pain.

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal treatment for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in adult immunocompromised patients is unknown. We assessed the management of RSV and other non‐influenza respiratory viruses in Midwestern transplant centers.MethodsA survey assessing strategies for RSV and other non‐influenza respiratory viral infections was sent to 13 centers.ResultsMultiplex polymerase chain reaction assay was used for diagnosis in 11/12 centers. Eight of 12 centers used inhaled ribavirin (RBV) in some patient populations. Barriers included cost, safety, lack of evidence, and inconvenience. Six of 12 used intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), mostly in combination with RBV. Inhaled RBV was used more than oral, and in the post‐stem cell transplant population, patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), graft‐versus‐host disease, and more recent transplantation were treated at higher rates. Ten centers had experience with lung transplant patients; all used either oral or inhaled RBV for LRTI, 6/10 treated upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). No center treated non‐lung solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with URTI; 7/11 would use oral or inhaled RBV in the same group with LRTI. Patients with hematologic malignancy without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were treated with RBV at a similar frequency to non‐lung SOT recipients. Three of 12 centers, in severe cases, treated parainfluenza and metapneumovirus, and 1/12 treated coronavirus.ConclusionsTreatment of RSV in immunocompromised patients varied greatly. While most centers treat LRTI, treatment of URTI was variable. No consensus was found regarding the use of oral versus inhaled RBV, or the use of IVIG. The presence of such heterogeneity demonstrates the need for further studies defining optimal treatment of RSV in immunocompromised hosts.

AbstractBackgroundGlobally, an estimated 2 billion people lack access to surgical and anesthesia care. We sought to pool results of anesthesia care capacity assessments in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) to identify patterns of deficits and provide useful targets for advocacy and intervention.MethodsA systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar identified reports that documented anesthesia care capacity from LMICs. When multiple assessments from one country were identified, only the study with the most facilities assessed was included. Patterns of availability or deficit were described.ResultsWe identified 22 LMICs (15 low‐ and 8 middle‐income countries) with anesthesia care capacity assessments (614 facilities assessed). Anesthesia care resources were often unavailable, including relatively low‐cost ones (e.g., oxygen and airway supplies). Capacity varied markedly between and within countries, regardless of the national income. The availability of fundamental resources for safe anesthesia, such as airway supplies and functional pulse oximeters, was often not reported (72 and 36 % of hospitals assessed, respectively). Anesthesia machines and the capability to perform general anesthesia were unavailable in 43 % (132/307 hospitals) and 56 % (202/361) of hospitals, respectively.ConclusionWe identified a pattern of critical deficiencies in anesthesia care capacity in LMICs, including some low‐cost, high‐value added resources. The global health community should advocate for improvements in anesthesia care capacity and the potential benefits of doing so to health system planners. In addition, better quality data on anesthesia care capacity can improve advocacy, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of changes over time and the impact of capacity improvement interventions.

AbstractBackgroundOne in nine US infants is born before 37 weeks' gestation, incurring medical costs 10 times higher than full‐term infants. One in three infants is born by cesarean; cesarean births cost twice as much as vaginal births. We compared rates of preterm and cesarean birth among Medicaid recipients with prenatal access to doula care (nonmedical maternal support) with similar women regionally. We used data on this association to mathematically model the potential cost‐effectiveness of Medicaid coverage of doula services.MethodsData came from two sources: all Medicaid‐funded, singleton births at hospitals in the West North Central and East North Central US (n = 65,147) in the 2012 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, and all Medicaid‐funded singleton births (n = 1,935) supported by a community‐based doula organization in the Upper Midwest from 2010 to 2014. We analyzed routinely collected, de‐identified administrative data. Multivariable regression analysis was used to estimate associations between doula care and outcomes. A probabilistic decision‐analytic model was used for cost‐effectiveness estimates.ResultsWomen who received doula support had lower preterm and cesarean birth rates than Medicaid beneficiaries regionally (4.7 vs 6.3%, and 20.4 vs 34.2%). After adjustment for covariates, women with doula care had 22 percent lower odds of preterm birth (AOR 0.77 [95% CI 0.61–0.96]). Cost‐effectiveness analyses indicate potential savings associated with doula support reimbursed at an average of $986 (ranging from $929 to $1,047 across states).ConclusionsBased on associations between doula care and preterm and cesarean birth, coverage reimbursement for doula services would likely be cost saving or cost‐effective for state Medicaid programs.

Purpose To summarize characteristics and validity evidence of tools that assess teamwork in undergraduate medical education (UME), and provide recommendations for addressing the interprofessional collaboration competencies of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Method The authors conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from January 1, 1979, through April 1, 2014; they searched reference lists and national meeting abstracts. They included original research reports that described a quantitative tool used to assess teamwork in UME. They abstracted characteristics and validity evidence for the tools, plus study quality, according to established frameworks. Two authors independently abstracted 25% of articles and calculated agreement. Authors then applied predefined criteria to identify tools best suited to address the AAMC’s teamwork competencies. Results Of 13,549 citations, 70 articles describing 64 teamwork assessment tools were included. Of these 64 tools, 27 (42%) assessed teamwork in classroom, 31 (48%) in simulation, and only 7 (11%) in actual clinical settings. The majority (47; 73%) of tools assessed medical students’ teamwork in interprofessional teams. On the basis of content concordance, strength of validity evidence, generalizability of scores, and level of outcomes, four published tools were recommended to assess the AAMC’s teamwork competencies: the Collaborative Healthcare Interdisciplinary Relationship Planning Scale, Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale, Communication and Teamwork Skills assessment, and Teamwork Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise. Conclusions Substantial validity evidence supports the use of several UME teamwork assessments. Four tools have been appropriately designed and sufficiently studied to constitute appropriate assessments of the AAMC’s teamwork competencies.