Citations

ABSTRACT Background Hospital at home (HaH) provides hospital‐level care at home as a substitute for brick‐and‐mortar hospital care. Multiple HaH studies demonstrate HaH provides safe, high‐quality, cost‐effective care. However, practices have varied approaches to delivering care and no HaH‐specific national standards exist. We aimed to develop national practice standards for HaH and assess practice performance against the standards. Methods The HaH Users Group (HaHUG), the national convener of HaH practices, assembled the Practice Standards Council in 2019 to develop evidence‐based standards for HaH. We reviewed existing international standards and the requirements of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Acute Hospital Care at Home Waiver. We engaged in multiple iterative rounds to develop domains and standards within each domain and then held an open comment period. We distributed an online survey for all HaHUG practices to self‐assess whether they did not meet (score, −1), met (score, 0), or exceeded (score, +1) each standard. The American Hospital Association's Annual Survey was used to describe practices that did and did not complete the practice standards survey. Results Final practice standards included 31 standards in 7 domains: leadership; education and training; human resources management; quality and quality improvement; safe practice and environment; and clinical standards and protocols. The majority of HaH practices self‐rated that they met or exceeded standards: scores ranged from −5 to 31; mean score of 9.75 (SD, 12.60). Forty‐nine of 213 eligible HaH practices completed the survey (response rate, 23.0%). Most hospitals were large (65% > 299 beds), nonprofit (85%), teaching (90%) centers that cared for a large proportion of patients with Medicaid. Conclusion We present the first national practice standards for HaH. The vast majority of HaH practices met or exceeded these standards by their own assessment. There was a range of performance across standards, demonstrating strengths and opportunities for ongoing development and quality improvement.

Background: Breast cancer survivors face a risk of significant psychological distress, which can persist for years after their initial diagnosis. Although numerous guidelines and tools exist to help screen for and measure distress in patients with cancer, additional longitudinal studies are needed to better characterize the trajectory of distress over time. Patients and Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study to evaluate distress and health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer. Annual assessments included global mental and physical health scores using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10 (PROMIS-10), posttraumatic stress symptoms using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). Eligible participants had stage 0–III breast cancer, with baseline surveys administered within 1 year of diagnosis. Annual follow-up surveys were conducted through year 4 after the baseline survey. Only patients who completed the baseline survey and at least one follow-up survey were included in this analysis. Individuals with stage IV or recurrent breast cancer were excluded. Results: A total of 2,140 individuals were included. Over time, global mental health scores declined slightly, with differences in T-scores from baseline ranging from 0.4 to 0.9. In contrast, global physical health scores improved, with differences in T-scores ranging from 0.3 to 0.6. Mean scores remained in the normative range. Depressive symptoms remained stable throughout the study period, while posttraumatic stress symptoms showed improvement over time. Conclusions: This study provides important longitudinal data on distress subtypes in breast cancer survivors with nonmetastatic disease. Although global mental health declined slightly, depression symptoms remained stable, and posttraumatic stress symptoms improved. Investigation of distress subtypes over time merits further study to advance detection of significant distress across the cancer continuum.

ABSTRACTBackgroundAs a component of goal‐oriented care, goal‐setting is an important strategy to improve self‐management and reduce the economic and personal burden of chronic illness. Primary care nurses, as integral members of the healthcare team, play a pivotal role in providing self‐management support to patients with multiple chronic illnesses. Yet, little is known about their perspectives on partnering with patients to set meaningful goals within self‐management support programmes.AimTo explore perspectives of primary care nurses about their practice of goal‐setting with patients to improve self‐management.MethodsFor this qualitative exploratory study, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with 28 primary care nurses who provided self‐management support to patients with multiple chronic illnesses. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. This research was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board.ResultsKey themes from interviews focused on: (1) goal‐setting practices; (2) challenges encountered in goal‐setting; and (3) the perceived value‐add of using a patient‐centred goal‐setting approach. Nurses described practices that empower patients to take charge of goal‐setting, emphasising that the opportunity to create personal goals enhances motivation and enables the development of realistic action plans. Key challenges faced were patients' lack of familiarity with personal goal‐setting, competing life stressors and patients' reluctance to change.ConclusionOur findings contribute valuable insights about how primary care nurses approach goal‐setting within a self‐management support program. Notably, unlike previous studies where clinicians reported that time‐limited appointments and institutional expectations hindered patient‐centred goal‐setting, our participants practicing in an institutionally supported goal‐oriented patient‐centred model of care did not report time constraints or pressures to prioritise clinical goals over patient goals. Instead, they described patient‐centred goal‐setting practices that are associated with positive patient and clinical outcomes. To potentially corroborate and expand upon our findings and inform practice and training, future research should include qualitative and survey studies to explore primary care RNs perspectives about goal‐setting and observational research to evaluate nurse–patient goal‐setting interactions.

Abstract Excessively restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical trials are one of many barriers to clinical trial enrollment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs). Many organizations are developing efforts to increase clinical trial eligibility; yet, several recent publications focused on patients with MDS suggest that many patients with this disease may be excluded from clinical trials unnecessarily. Clinical trial eligibility should reflect the phase of the study and risks of the agent being studied. Phase 3 trials should be less restrictive than early-phase trials to represent the real-world population as closely as possible. We hypothesize that many clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, have unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria. This study aims to evaluate the most common eligibility criteria according to phase of trial and to determine whether criteria correspond with drug safety signals. We identified MDS clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 2000 to 1 September 2023 and analyzed the eligibility criteria of 191 therapeutic MDS trials. We found that categorical inclusion and exclusion criteria are remarkably similar in representation across trial phases. Additionally, only 13% of trials are concordant with drug safety signals, suggesting that the eligibility criteria are often arbitrary. On behalf of the icMDS (International Consortium for Myelodysplastic Syndromes), an association of international MDS experts, we provide a position statement on restrictive eligibility criteria for MDS clinical trials that should be avoided with the aim of removing barriers to clinical trial enrollment.