Rivera-Chiauzzi, Enid Y

Abstract Patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDPs) are recommended to attend an early postpartum follow-up visit for blood pressure monitoring. Follow-up frequency for patients with HDPs can vary widely, with some patients requiring multiple office visits. We sought to determine factors associated with multiple postpartum blood pressure visits among patients with HDPs. We retrospectively identified patients with HDPs who delivered at our maternity center in 2019 and compared factors between patients who attended a single blood pressure follow-up appointment without requiring further clinical evaluation for hypertension and patients who required multiple postpartum clinical evaluations for persistent hypertension. Univariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with increased odds of having multiple clinically indicated postpartum visits for blood pressure monitoring. We identified 328 patients with HDPs, of whom 260 (79.3%) attended an initial postpartum blood pressure follow-up appointment and were included in further analyses. Of the 260 patients, 70 (26.9%) had multiple blood pressure visits. Factors associated with multiple blood pressure visits included delivery between 34 and less than 37 weeks of gestation (odds ratio [OR], 3.62; 95% CI, 1.07–12.30), systolic blood pressure before discharge of 140 mm Hg or higher (OR, 5.02; 95% CI, 2.57–9.82), and discharge with blood pressure medication (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.82–6.41). Patients with HDPs who deliver preterm, have persistent hypertension before discharge, or are discharged with antihypertensive medication require continued close postpartum observation and continuity of care.

Abstract Objective To develop a comprehensive risk stratification model to identify patients at high risk of cesarean surgical site infection (cSSI) based on information available at the time of hospital discharge. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study based on datasets from two independent level IV academic medical centers to improve generalizability. The first study includes 2336 cesarean deliveries for analysis with 109 instances of cSSI (4.7%). The second study includes 2936 cesarean deliveries with 72 instances of cSSI (2.5%). The first study cohort was utilized for both model training and internal validation, using the 15 shared features present in both datasets. Random search with cross‐validation was used to choose the type of machine learning (ML) model and its hyperparameters, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as the validation metric. The second study cohort was then used to evaluate testing accuracy (external validation) and generalization capability of this model. The predictive importance of each feature was evaluated using permutation importance applied to the second cohort. Risk stratification cutoff scores were defined based on centiles over the first patient cohort and evaluated on the second cohort. Results The ML model with the highest validation AUC was an XGBoost classifier. This trained model achieved an AUC of 0.78 on the training data and a 0.72 cross‐validated AUC. When tested on data from the second study cohort, it achieved an AUC of 0.69. The features showing the strongest predictive generalization, as measured by permutation importance, were length of hospital stay, primary indication for cesarean delivery, and estimated blood loss. Using the second cohort to test our model, the model shows a 22.7% positive predictive value (PPV) of cSSI among women in the highest risk group, and a 0.8% PPV among women in the bottom risk group, compared with 2.5% cSSI incidence for the study population at large. Conclusion We developed and validated a predictive ML model for cSSI with information available to healthcare professionals at the time of hospital discharge. This model suggests that the most predictive risk factors for cSSI include length of hospital stay, primary indication for cesarean delivery, and estimated blood loss. Additionally, the model provides reasonable risk stratifications for individual patients. This tool may be used for identifying subgroups at higher risk of cSSI and identifying those who may require closer surveillance or clinical intervention.

Objectives This study identified the prevalence of second victim experience (SVE) in a multidisciplinary sample of healthcare learners and explored personal experiences of trauma and desired forms of support following traumatic patient care events or situations. Method We used the validated SVE Support Tool-Revised and the Physician Well-Being Index (PWBI) to query healthcare learners at a large academic health system across the institution's medical, graduate medical education, and health sciences schools. The survey was open to all healthcare learners from April 8th, 2022 to May 30th, 2022. Here, we report on an analysis of respondents’ fixed responses describing the prevalence and characteristics of SVE. Results Of 2298 potential respondents, 206 answered at least one question (9.0% response rate). Of the 206 respondents, 205 answered questions inquiring if they had been a part of a stressful or traumatic patient care event or situation and 54.1% (111/205) answered in the affirmative. Of this group, 49.5% (51/103) reported feeling like a second victim (SV). The average PWBI of the exposed group was significantly higher (worse well-being) than the nonexposed group (3.4 vs 2.6, P = .0009). The most common forms of desired support for those exposed to a traumatic event and felt like an SV was conversation with peers 95.3% (41/43), family 81.4% (35/43), and a supervisor or manager 67.4% (29/43). Conclusion Findings suggest that many healthcare learners experience SVE and would benefit from connection to desired support strategies. Strategies to mitigate the impact of SVE on professional self-efficacy should be considered by education administrators. We present strategies from the literature and our institution that may be replicated for early identification and support of learners with SVE.

Objectives In 2018, the Healing Emotional Lives of Peers (HELP) Program was implemented at Mayo Clinic Rochester to guide healthcare professionals (HCPs) after a second victim experience, such as adverse patient events or medical errors. The HELP program was expanded to all HCPs in response to the anticipated stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic. This article aims to describe the rapid expansion of the peer support program and evaluate the effectiveness of peer support provided to affected colleagues (ACs). Methods Quantitative data collected from workshop evaluations, activations, and associated metrics (TPS Self-Assessment, Encounter Form, and AC Self-Assessment) were summarized through standard descriptive statistics using SAS version 9.4 software. Open-ended responses were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes about the HELP program and associated workshops. Results Between April 2020 and December 2021, 22 virtual workshops to train peer supporters were conducted with 827 attendees. Of these, 464 employees completed the workshop evaluation. A total of 94.2% rated the workshop as excellent or very good. Participants perceived the workshop to be highly effective and felt more prepared to support ACs. Between May 2020 and December 2021, 247 activations were submitted through the HELP Program’s intranet Web site and peer support was requested for 649 employees. Of the 268 TPS Self-Assessments, 226 (84.3%) felt that they provided helpful support to an AC. One hundred ACs evaluated support received, with 93% being “extremely” or “very satisfied.” Affected colleagues appreciated having a TPS provide judgment-free support. Conclusions The HELP Program promotes a culture of safety by helping HCPs process traumatic events. To effectively meet the needs of patients, healthcare organizations need to prioritize the well-being of their employees through interpersonal support.

There is growing recognition that clinical and nonclinical healthcare professionals may become “second victims” following adverse patient events, medical errors, or patient-related injuries. In addition to the trauma-associated symptoms experienced by second victims, unprocessed second victim experience (SVE) can lead to burnout and leaving the healthcare workforce. To better understand the risk factors and support needs of affected healthcare professionals after a SVE, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with twelve staff in obstetrics & gynecology and pediatrics at a large academic medical institution in the upper Midwest of the U.S. Several participants indicated that it was not the patient outcome itself that precipitated the SVE, but associated factors such as moral distress or communication challenges. Participants discussed the role of their work unit culture in post-SVE processing, expressing that units perceived as blame-seeking or where adverse events were not openly discussed, hindered their recovery. While desired support mechanisms were individualized, participants stressed the importance of immediate and proactive support, such as through a peer support program, and long-term support mechanisms for lingering symptoms. As attrition of the healthcare workforce continues to be a significant concern, it is essential that we understand and meet the post-SVE support needs of affected staff, to promote holistic care following adverse patient events.

AbstractBackgroundIt has yet to be fully elucidated how differing populations of obstetric patients adapted to the disruptions in perinatal care and postpartum support from the COVID‐19 pandemic. We surveyed an enriched sample of socioeconomically advantaged patients to understand the influence of COVID‐19 on their perinatal care experience, well‐being, and coping.MethodsWe surveyed pregnant and postpartum patients (n = 6140) at a large academic medical center in the Midwest of the United States using the Coronavirus and Perinatal Experiences instrument in Spring 2021.ResultsThe survey was sent to 6141 pregnant and postpartum patients; 1180 (17.8%) respondents completed the survey, including 256 who were pregnant and 834 postpartum. Most pregnant patients experienced no changes in their prenatal care with 16.5% indicating somewhat worsened care. In the postpartum cohort, 37.5% stated their care had somewhat worsened. In describing influences on stress and mental health, 58.1% of postpartum respondents stated it was moderately, and 17.4% significantly, worse. The pandemic had a somewhat or moderately negative influence for 72.7% of respondents, with 11.0% stating these effects were extremely negative. Both cohorts characterized a range of coping strategies, most commonly, talking with friends and family (76.3%).Conclusion(s)Even among this sample of socioeconomically advantaged patients, respondents indicated that the pandemic disrupted many facets of their medical care and daily life, especially social activities and postpartum support. Our findings suggest that counseling on coping and adaptation strategies for stressors and increased health systems support be part of perinatal care during public health emergencies for all demographic groups.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory therapists (RTs) work alongside allied health staff, nurses, and physicians during stressful and traumatic events that can be associated with emotional and physiological implications known as second victim (SV) experiences (SVEs). This study aimed to evaluate SVEs of RTs, including both positive and negative implications. METHODS: RTs within a large academic health care organization across Minnesota, Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona were asked to participate in an anonymous survey that included the validated Second Victim Experience and Support Tool-Revised to assess SVEs as well as desired support services. RESULTS: Of the RTs invited to participate, 30.8% (171/555) completed the survey. Of the 171 survey respondents, 91.2% (156) reported that they had been part of a stressful or traumatic work-related event as an RT, student, or department support staff member. Emotional or physiologic implications experienced by respondents as SVs included anxiety 39.1% (61/156), reliving of the event 36.5% (57/156), sleeplessness 32.1% (50/156), and guilt 28.2% (44/156). Following a stressful clinical event, 14.8% (22/149) experienced psychological distress, 14.2% (21/148) experienced physical distress, 17.7% (26/147) indicated lack of institutional support, and 15.6% (23/147) indicated turnover intentions. Enhanced resilience and growth were reported by 9.5% (14/147). Clinical and non-clinical events were reported as possible triggers for SVEs. Nearly half of respondents 49.4% (77/156) indicated feeling like an SV due to events related to COVID-19. Peer support was the highest ranked form of desired support following an SVE by 57.7% (90/156). CONCLUSIONS: RTs are involved in stressful or traumatic clinical events, resulting in psychological/physical distress and turnover intentions. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on RTs’ SVEs, highlighting the importance of addressing the SV phenomenon among this population.

Objective: A retrospective cohort study was performed to evaluate whether birthweight was less among infants of women taking amphetamine–dextroamphetamine during pregnancy at our academic institution. Method: We identified mother–infant pairs with documented exposure to amphetamine–dextroamphetamine in pregnancy from 2005 through 2015. Patients were matched 2:1 with unexposed controls. Charts were reviewed for known causes of intrauterine growth restriction. Analysis of birthweight used generalized estimating equation blocking on matching. Medical histories were analyzed with χ 2 test or Fisher’s exact test. Results: We identified 53 exposed mother–infant pairs. The difference in mean birthweight of infants exposed to amphetamine–dextroamphetamine versus those not exposed was 26.9 g, which is not significant (95% confidence interval [CI] = [−141, 195 g]; p = .75). A significant difference was noted for exposed versus unexposed mothers for comorbid psychiatric illness and history of substance abuse ( p < .001). Conclusion: With a limited sample size, our study suggests no significant difference in birthweight.