Citations

Background Documentation burden contributes significantly to psychiatric clinician burnout, with psychiatrists spending an average of three hours per workday on administrative tasks rather than direct patient care. While quantitative studies demonstrate that ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribes reduce workload and improve documentation quality, the experiential perspectives of clinicians and standardized patients (SPs) remain unexplored, particularly in psychiatry where the therapeutic relationship is central to practice. Our aims were to explore clinician and standardized simulated patient perspectives on ambient AI scribes in psychiatric consultations, examining experiences, concerns, and conditions for successful implementation. Methods This study was part of a cross-sectional quantitative simulation study, where qualitative part was planned a-priori. We conducted focus groups with psychiatrists and SPs following a simulation-based crossover study comparing traditional versus AI-assisted documentation. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis framework. Results In this focus group session with eight psychiatrists and four SPs, total six themes were identified: (1) Clinical Presence, whereby reduced documentation barriers were perceived to allow more authentic human connection; (2) Liberation from documentation burden, with clinicians describing cognitive and emotional relief beneficial for their mental health; (3) Clinical Competence Amplified, in which clinicians perceived the AI scribe as enhancing practice through intelligent translation to psychiatric terminology and prompting for missed assessments; (4) Calibrating Trust, where participants navigated initial uncertainty while recognizing the importance of human oversight; (5) Privacy, stigma, and psychiatric exceptionalism, highlighting unique consent and confidentiality considerations for psychiatric populations; and (6) Perceptions of an enhanced standard of care, with both groups expressing strong preference for AI-assisted consultations with conditions for adoption. Conclusion In this exploratory simulation-based qualitative study, AI scribes were perceived as having potential to support more present, patient-centered psychiatric consultations by reducing documentation burden. Implementation should be cautious and requires transparent consent processes, clinician training in behavioral adaptations, robust human oversight, specialty-specific templates, and real-world evaluation with patients receiving psychiatric care.

Objectives: In the United States, training for physicians who manage critically ill adult patients (intensivists) evolved through parallel subspecialty critical care medicine (CCM) pathways with significant commonality. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force aimed to delineate the common core knowledge and skills required of all intensivists. Design: A master list of content areas and procedural skills was compiled from all CCM subspecialty program requirements and blueprints of the certification examinations. Using a modified Delphi approach, participants were asked to categorize the knowledge items as “advanced knowledge is essential,” “general, but not advanced, knowledge is essential,” or “knowledge is not essential.” Procedures were categorized as “intensivist performs routinely,” “intensivist only performs in an emergency,” or “intensivist knows” about the procedure. Setting: Representatives from CCM stakeholder organizations, including accreditation and certification organizations, critical care societies, and program directors’ societies, were invited to participate. SUBJECTS: Members of the Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Interventions: For the first two rounds of the modified Delphi process, Research Electronic Data Capture was used. For the third and fourth rounds, the process was completed through online meetings with Zoom (Zoom Video Corporations, San Jose, CA) utilizing Zoom’s polling feature. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 541 items were determined to be essential, with 145 requiring advanced knowledge and 323 requiring general knowledge. For 73 items, consensus regarding advanced vs. general could not be achieved, but they remained essential. Only eight items were felt to be nonessential. Of the 16 procedures, most were categorized as “intensivist performs.” Conclusions: The large number of items included in the list of essential knowledge and skills demonstrates the complexity of modern CCM. Utilization of a common framework across the subspecialties of CCM could lead to greater harmonization among the fellowship program requirements and certification examinations.

Background Adherence to evidence-based care processes and patient outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) can be influenced by staffing and resource availability. We aimed to evaluate if there is a weekend effect on adherence to evidence-based care processes, and hospitalization outcomes and whether a checklist implementation could mitigate potential differences. Methods Post hoc analysis of the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury (CERTAIN) study dataset collected before and after checklist implementation in 34 ICUs across 15 countries (2013-2017). Admission days were classified as ‘weekend/holidays’ or ‘weekdays’ according to local work schedules and public holidays. The primary outcome was the omission of 10 evidence-based care processes addressed in the checklist. Mortality and length of stay differences between weekend/holiday and weekday admissions were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results 4256 patients contributed 1141 weekend versus 3501 weekday observation days pre-intervention, and 2014 versus 6507 post-intervention. Pre-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than weekdays (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 0.58 [95%–confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.88), whereas head-of-bed elevation was omitted more often on weekdays than on weekends/holidays (aRR, 3.17 [1.14-8.86]). Post-intervention, peptic ulcer prophylaxis omission rates became similar (aRR, 1.03 [0.68-1.56], but head-of-bed elevation became omitted more often on weekends than on weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.88]). Post-intervention, oral care was omitted more frequently on weekends/holidays than in weekdays (aRR, 0.63 [0.45-0.9]), and central catheter removal was more frequent on weekdays than in weekends/holidays (aRR, 1.11 [1.02-1.21]). No significant differences in mortality or length of stay were found. Conclusion A weekend effect influenced adherence to some care processes. While checklist implementation improved overall adherence, some disparities diminished, while new ones emerged. Organizational, cultural, and temporal factors should be further studied to optimize care delivery across all times and settings. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT01973829

Background/Objectives: Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have demonstrated a reduction in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in HF patients and decreased recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF), including in those who have undergone catheter ablation (CA). The effects of SGLT2i are likely due to suppression of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, reduction in oxidative stress with subsequent improvement in myocardial efficiency, and attenuation of cardiac remodeling. We aim to present the effects of SGLT2i on AF recurrence in patients who have undergone CA for AF. Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies evaluating the effect of SGLT2i on AF recurrence following CA compared with non-SGLT2i. The primary outcome was the recurrence of AF by the final follow-up reported in each study. Secondary outcomes include AF recurrence by the first follow-up within 12 to 24 months and follow-up intervals (6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 to 42 months) post-ablation, multivariate risk of AF recurrence, and the effect on left atrial diameter (LAD) (less than 45 mm vs. greater than or equal to 45 mm). For risk of bias (ROB) analysis, the NIH ROB and Cochrane ROB2 tool were used. All statistical, heterogeneity, and sensitivity analyses were conducted using Cochrane Review Manager. A random-effect model was employed for all pooled statistical analyses. Results: A total of nine studies, two RCTs and seven retrospective studies, were included (N = 6874) for the primary outcome. Compared to non-SGLT2i (N = 3693), SGLT2i (N = 3181) significantly decreased AF recurrence by the final follow-up (OR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.45–0.85; p = 0.008). For secondary outcomes, SGLT2i significantly reduced AF recurrence by the first follow-up within 12 to 24 months post-ablation (OR = 0.58; p = 0.0001) and by the different follow-up periods, 6-month (OR = 0.53; p = 0.02), 12-month (OR = 0.56; p = 0.0001), 18-month (OR = 0.55; p = 0.01), and 24-month (OR = 0.60; p = 0.12) follow-up periods. On the other hand, by 36 to 42 months, SGLT2i was associated with increased risk of AF recurrence (OR = 1.41; p = 0.004). Conclusions: We conclude that SGLT2i demonstrated a reduction in AF recurrence following CA, particularly by 12 to 18 months post-ablation.

Introduction: Life-support limits (i.e., code status), the first step in the continuum of palliation and end-of-life (EoL) care, stem from decisions made by patients and their providers to align care near the EoL with patients’ wishes. The pandemic created health care strain that may have influenced life-support limitation practices among patients with serious COVID-19. In this study, we examine variations in life-support limitations (do-not-resuscitate, DNR; do-not-intubate, DNI) depending on the hospital and period of hospitalization. Methods: We included all adults admitted to a hospital in the United States with COVID-19 from January 2020 to December 2021 using the VIRUS registry. Our outcome was any life-support limitation on admission (DNR, DNI, or both) using regression modeling. Main exposures were hospital and period of hospitalization (early vs. late pandemic). Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, and hospitalization diagnoses. Results: There were 42,383 patients from 75 hospitals in the US. The median age was 63 (interquartile range: 50–75), 46.5% were female, and 37.5% were non-Hispanic White. The life-support limitation rate was 7.9%, and the palliative care consultation rate was 2.3%. The odds of life-support limitation were 1.86 (95% CI: 1.6–2.1) depending on the hospital, but the period of hospitalization was not associated with odds of life-support limitation. Older age was associated with the greatest increased odds (4.1 per standard deviation ∼ 17.9 years, 95% CI: 3.9–4.4), followed by comorbidities including paralysis (2.4, 95% CI: 1.8–3.0) and dementia (2.3, 95% CI: 2.0–2.6). Conclusions: After adjusting for patient-level factors, we report significant inter-hospital but no temporal variation in life-support limitation upon admission with COVID-19. Future studies should investigate specific practices that led to health care resilience to temporal practice variations in life-support limitation during the pandemic.

INTRODUCTION A retrospective cohort study on patients aged < 18 years included in the Society of Critical Care Medicine: Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study registry from March 2020 to April 2024 with an objective of calculating the prevalence of sepsis as defined by the Phoenix Sepsis Score (PSS) and to validate the PSS with respect to outcomes in children with COVID-19. METHODS Linear mixed-effects regression was used to examine the relationship between the PSS and hospital length of stay after controlling for confounding factors. The performance of the PSS was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and the precision-recall curve (PRC). Cross-validation was performed using leave-one-out cross-validation. RESULTS Out of 1731 patients (58 hospitals), 326 (18.8%) met criteria for sepsis and 167 (9.7%) for septic shock. The overall mortality was 1.4% (25/1731), with significant differences between nonseptic (10/1405, 0.7%) and both sepsis (15/326, 4.6%) and septic shock (9/167, 5.4%) groups. After adjusting for confounders, the septic group was associated with a longer hospital length of stay than the nonseptic group. One unit increase in the numeric PSS led to a 70% increase in risk of mortality (odds ratio 1.70; P < .001). The area under the ROC curve was 0.80 and the area under the PRC curve was 0.13. The threshold of ≥ 2 for detection of mortality had a sensitivity of 0.63, specificity of 0.82, and positive predictive value of 0.05. CONCLUSION Phoenix Sepsis Criteria retain its validity in identifying sepsis in children with COVID-19 and can be used in further epidemiological studies in this population

e20041 Background: Paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS) are caused by underlying malignancy but not due to metastasis, or treatment related side effects. Studies are lacking which target PNS seen in non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) Methods: Systematic search of PubMed & Scopus was conducted to include all case reports & case series of adult NSCLC patients with PNS, published globally from inception upto July 7, 2024. Patient demographics, geographical distribution, NSCLC histology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment was extracted. Quality was assessed by JBI's critical appraisal checklist. Results: 138 publications (136 case reports, 2 case series) describing 142 patients published in 30 countries were included. Majority patients were male (69.7%) with mean age 57 years. Top publishing countries were USA (28.2%), Japan (13%), China (6.5%), Germany (5%), with publications (n=16) peak seen in 2020. Histological type of NSCLC with PNS was adenocarcinoma (39.8%), SCC (26.8%), unspecified histology (13%) & large cell (8.6%). Most common PNS seen in NSCLC were hypertrophic osteoarthropathy (7.2%), bilateral diffuse uveal melanocytic proliferation (5.7%), leukemoid reaction (4.3%) & limbic encephalitis (4.3%). Conclusions: Study provides bird’s eye view of all PNS found in NSCLC, aiding in timely diagnosis & treatment of NSCLC. Organ system PNS Cases Neurology Limbic encephalitisOpsoclonus myoclonus syndromeGBSSensorimotor peripheral neuropathyCerebellar degenerationEncephalomyelitisPerson in barrel syndromeMyoclonusPandysautonomiaNeuromyelitis opticaOpsoclonusAntiHu Ab neuropathyMononeuritis multiplexMorvan syndrome 63221111111111 Cardiology & haematology Leukemoid reactionLeukocytoclastic vasculitisHSPDICITPMyelofibrosisAcral vascular cyanosisHyper eosinophiliaHeart blockTrousseau syndromeHaemophilia ASVC syndromeChurg Strauss syndrome 6332211111111 Endocrinology SIADHCushing syndromeHypercalcemia of malignancyGynaecomastiaβ HCG secretionErectile dysfunction 433221 Rheumatology Hypertrophic osteoarthropathyPolyarthritisPolymyositisDermatomyositisMyasthenia gravisLambert Eaton syndromePolymyalgia rheumaticaSclerodermaRaynaud phenomenonAnti synthetase syndrome 10433311111 Dermatology Bazex syndromeBullous pemphigoidErythema gyratumLeser Trélat Tripe palmsErythrodermaIchthyosisAcanthosis nigricansRhinophymaGranuloma annularePityriasis rubria pilarisEczemaErythema induratumHyperhidrosis 42212111111111 Ophthalmology Bilateral diffuse uveal melanocytic proliferationCancer associated retinopathyCicatrizing conjunctivitisRetinal detachmentOrbital inflammationOcular flutterProptosis 8311111 Nephrology Nephrotic syndrome 3 Gastroenterology Pseudo achalasiaVerner Morrison syndromeGranulomatous visceral neuronopathy 111 Musculoskeletal Necrotizing myopathy 2

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs), are potential tools for enhancing healthcare delivery and clinical research. Presently, there is a scarcity of research regarding the viewpoints of medical students toward LLMs. This study aims to explore the perceptions of LLMs and their applications among this demographic. Methods A cross-sectional study was done using an online survey. It was designed using Google Forms and circulated from July 2023 to August 2023. The target population included medical students from Ecuador, Ethiopia, India, Mauritius, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the United States (USA). Results A total of 1180 responses were collected from 10 medical colleges across 7 countries. The UAE had the largest number of responses (31.7%), followed by Ecuador (17.6%), and Mauritius (13.7%). And 77.4% respondents were already aware about LLMs before attempting the survey, most popularly, ChatGPT. Participants were most familiar with the specific use of LLMs in research (46%), and the lowest familiarity was seen in the use of LLMs in healthcare (37%). More than half of the participants (52%) support the use of LLMs healthcare, yet a significant number of them remained neutral (37%) or disagreed (31%) on LLMs being safe in this context. Conclusion While most of the medical students are aware of LLMs and their applications, the multinational survey demonstrated hesitancy among medical students in fully adopting LLMs into healthcare practice and clinical research. This study prompts further exploration of medical students’ attitudes and acceptance concerning the integration of LLMs for research methodologies, ethical considerations, and healthcare practice.