Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction: Increasing demand for emergency department (ED) services and strained specialty- care access requires referral precision and was the impetus for a collaborative redesign of referrals between the Department of Emergency Medicine and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery. Methods: Guided by root cause analysis of delays in post-emergency department (ED) specialty follow-up in our academic health system, the intervention targeted the finding that all ED referrals were marked “urgent” without differentiation by acuity of orthopedic issues. After implementation, referrals were triaged into three tiers—immediate, urgent, and routine—with stipulated follow-up timeframes. We evaluated differences in completion of scheduling and realized visits, across five calendar months (July–November) pre- and post-implementation (2021 vs 2022). Logistic regression assessed the relationship between patient demographics and outcomes. We report medians and interquartile ranges. Results: Compared to the 393 urgent referrals to the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery pre-implementation, there were 463 total referrals post-implementation as follows: 11/463 (2.4%) marked as immediate; 123/463 (26.6%) urgent; and 329/463 (71.1%) routine. Similar proportions successfully scheduled pre- and post-implementation (41.5% vs 45.1%; P = .28). On average, immediate referrals completed scheduling within 1.0 (0.0 - 1.0) day and were seen in 4.0 (2.0 - 8.0) days, urgent referrals completed scheduling within 2.0 (1.0 – 4.0) and 7.0 (5.0 - 15.0) days, and routine within 3.0 (1.0 - 6.0) and 12.0 (6.0 - 19.5) days. Race/ethnicity and insurance were related to odds of successful scheduling; Black patients had lower odds than all other groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.3 - 0.4). All insurance categories had higher odds of successful scheduling relative to Medicaid out-of-network (OR 3.5 - 7.2). Conclusion: A three-tier ED-to-orthopedics referral triage system was quickly adopted and differentiated referrals by urgency but did not impact time to follow-up or loss to follow-up. Structural inequities in access to follow-up care remain

Background and aim: Effective and safe behavioral health interventions in primary care are critical during pandemic and other disaster situations. California shelter-in-place orders necessitated rapid transition of an effective mindfulness-based medical group visit (MGV) program from in-person to videoconferenced sessions (VCSs). Aim: to Describe procedures, acceptability, and feasibility of converting from in-person to VCS. Patients and methods: Methods: qualitative. Dataset: primary care. Intervention: a six-session 2-h MGV program with educational and mindfulness components was converted. Four in-person sessions and two VCSs were held. General Anxiety Disorder and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 were administered at first and last sessions. A semi-structured focus group was conducted after session six. Population studied: six primary care patients (42 ± 11 years) with stress, anxiety, or depression participated. Results: Procedural changes included remote material distribution, scheduling, hosting, and facilitation functions using the Zoom platform. The focus group revealed that patients preferred in-person sessions during initial visits, but appreciated transitioning to VCS, which provided continued support during a challenging time. Instruction on technical (e.g. logging on) and social (e.g. signaling next speaker) aspects of VCS was suggested. Building relationships through conversations was an important part before and after in-person sessions missing from VCS. Patients suggested combining in-person and VCS to allow relationship building while also improving access. Conclusion: While many procedural changes were needed to facilitate conversion to VCS, primary care patients seeking stress, anxiety, and depression interventions found VCS acceptable during COVID-19. Future iterations of this program are proposed which incorporate procedural changes and facilitate relationship building between patients in VCS.

BackgroundIncident reporting systems (IRS) can improve care quality and patient safety, yet their impact is limited by clinician engagement. Our objective was to assess barriers to reporting in a hospital-wide IRS and use data to inform ongoing improvement of a specialty-specific IRS embedded in the electronic health record targeting anaesthesiologists.MethodsThis quality improvement (QI) evaluation used mixed methods, including qualitative interviews, faculty surveys and user data from the specialty-specific IRS. We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews from January to May 2023 in a large academic health system in Northern California. Participants included adult and paediatric anaesthesiologists, operating room nurses, surgeons and QI operators, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. We identified key themes and factors influencing engagement, which were classified using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework. We surveyed hospital anaesthesiologists in January and May 2023, and characterised the quantity and type of reports submitted to the new system.ResultsParticipants shared organisation and technology-related barriers to engagement in traditional system-wide IRSs, many of which the specialty-specific IRS addressed-specifically those related to technological access to the system. Barriers related to building psychological safety for those who report remain. Survey results showed that most barriers to reporting improved following the specialty-specific IRS launch, but limited time remained an ongoing barrier (25 respondents out of 44, 56.8%). A total of 964 reports with quality/safety concerns were submitted over the first 8 months of implementation; 47–76 unique anaesthesiologists engaged per month. The top safety quality categories of concern were equipment and technology (25.9%), clinical complications (25.3%) and communication and scheduling (19.9%).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that a specialty-specific IRS can facilitate increased physician engagement in quality and safety reporting and complement existing system-wide IRSs.

Introduction Many healthcare delivery systems have developed clinician‐led quality improvement (QI) initiatives but fewer have also developed in‐house evaluation units. Engagement between the two entities creates unique opportunities. Stanford Medicine funded a collaboration between their Improvement Capability Development Program (ICDP), which coordinates and incentivizes clinician‐led QI efforts, and the Evaluation Sciences Unit (ESU), a multidisciplinary group of embedded researchers with expertise in implementation and evaluation sciences. Aim To describe the ICDP‐ESU partnership and report key learnings from the first 2 y of operation September 2019 to August 2021. Methods Department‐level physician and operational QI leaders were offered an ESU consultation to workshop design, methods, and overall scope of their annual QI projects. A steering committee of high‐level stakeholders from operational, clinical, and research perspectives subsequently selected three projects for in‐depth partnered evaluation with the ESU based on evaluability, importance to the health system, and broader relevance. Selected project teams met regularly with the ESU to develop mixed methods evaluations informed by relevant implementation science frameworks, while aligning the evaluation approach with the clinical teams' QI goals. Results Sixty and 62 ICDP projects were initiated during the 2 cycles, respectively, across 18 departments, of which ESU consulted with 15 (83%). Within each annual cycle, evaluators made actionable, summative findings rapidly available to partners to inform ongoing improvement. Other reported benefits of the partnership included rapid adaptation to COVID‐19 needs, expanded clinician evaluation skills, external knowledge dissemination through scholarship, and health system‐wide knowledge exchange. Ongoing considerations for improving the collaboration included the need for multi‐year support to enable nimble response to dynamic health system needs and timely data access. Conclusion Presence of embedded evaluation partners in the enterprise‐wide QI program supported identification of analogous endeavors (eg, telemedicine adoption) and cross‐cutting lessons across QI efforts, clinician capacity building, and knowledge dissemination through scholarship.

The prevalence of obesity and eating disorders varies by sex, but the extent to which sex influences eating behaviors, especially in childhood, has received less attention. The purpose of this paper is to critically discuss the literature on sex differences in eating behavior in children and present new findings supporting the role of sex in child appetitive traits and neural responses to food cues. In children, the literature shows sex differences in food acceptance, food intake, appetitive traits, eating-related compensation, and eating speed. New analyses demonstrate that sex interacts with child weight status to differentially influence appetitive traits. Further, results from neuroimaging suggest that obesity in female children is positively related to neural reactivity to higher-energy-dense food cues in regions involved with contextual processing and object recognition, while the opposite was found in males. In addition to differences in how the brain processes information about food, other factors that may contribute to sex differences include parental feeding practices, societal emphasis on dieting, and peer influences. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings, as they may have implications for the development of effective intervention programs to improve dietary behaviors and prevent obesity.

Telemedicine has been used for decades. Despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology's ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care systems worldwide to reconsider traditional health care delivery. To safeguard health care workers and patients, many health care systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care. To evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability. Video visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semistructured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020. Video visits were adopted rapidly; overall, 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted their satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient's technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination. Video visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.

Telemedicine has been deployed by health care systems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to enable health care workers to provide remote care for both outpatients and inpatients. Although it is reasonable to suspect telemedicine visits limit unnecessary personal contact and thus decrease the risk of infection transmission, the impact of the use of such technology on clinician workflows in the emergency department is unknown. This study aimed to use a real-time locating system (RTLS) to evaluate the impact of a new telemedicine platform, which permitted clinicians located outside patient rooms to interact with patients who were under isolation precautions in the emergency department, on in-person interaction between health care workers and patients. A pre-post analysis was conducted using a badge-based RTLS platform to collect movement data including entrances and duration of stay within patient rooms of the emergency department for nursing and physician staff. Movement data was captured between March 2, 2020, the date of the first patient screened for COVID-19 in the emergency department, and April 20, 2020. A new telemedicine platform was deployed on March 29, 2020. The number of entrances and duration of in-person interactions per patient encounter, adjusted for patient length of stay, were obtained for pre- and postimplementation phases and compared with t tests to determine statistical significance. There were 15,741 RTLS events linked to 2662 encounters for patients screened for COVID-19. There was no significant change in the number of in-person interactions between the pre- and postimplementation phases for both nurses (5.7 vs 7.0 entrances per patient, P=.07) and physicians (1.3 vs 1.5 entrances per patient, P=.12). Total duration of in-person interactions did not change (56.4 vs 55.2 minutes per patient, P=.74) despite significant increases in telemedicine videoconference frequency (0.6 vs 1.3 videoconferences per patient, P<.001 for change in daily average) and duration (4.3 vs 12.3 minutes per patient, P<.001 for change in daily average). Telemedicine was rapidly adopted with the intent of minimizing pathogen exposure to health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet RTLS movement data did not reveal significant changes for in-person interactions between staff and patients under investigation for COVID-19 infection. Additional research is needed to better understand how telemedicine technology may be better incorporated into emergency departments to improve workflows for frontline health care clinicians.

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread implementation of telehealth, including in the inpatient setting with the goals to reduce potential pathogen exposure events and personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization. Nursing workflow adaptations in these novel environments is of particular interest given the association between nursing time at the bedside and patient safety. Understanding the frequency and duration of nurse-patient encounters following the introduction of a novel telehealth platform in the context of COVID-19 may therefore provide insight into downstream impacts on patient safety, pathogen exposure, and PPE utilization. To evaluate changes in nursing workflow relative to pre-pandemic levels using real-time locating system (RTLS) following the deployment of inpatient telehealth on a COVID-19 unit. In March 2020, telehealth was installed in patient rooms in a COVID-19 unit and on movable carts in 3 comparison units. Existing RTLS captured nurse movement during 1 pre- and 5 post-pandemic stages (January-December 2020). Change in direct nurse-patient encounters, time spent in patient rooms per encounter, and total time spent with patients per shift relative to baseline were calculated. Generalized linear models assessed difference-in-differences in outcomes between COVID-19 and comparison units. Telehealth adoption was captured and reported at the unit level. Change in frequency of encounters and time spent per encounter from baseline differed between the COVID-19 and comparison units at all stages of the pandemic (all P's<0.0001). Frequency of encounters decreased (difference-in-differences range: -6.6 to -14.1 encounters) and duration of encounters increased (difference-in-differences range: 1.8 to 6.2 minutes) from baseline to a greater extent in the COVID-19 units compared to the comparison units. At most stages of the pandemic, the change in total time nurses spent in patient rooms per patient per shift from baseline did not differ between the COVID-19 and comparison units (p's>0.17). The primary COVID-19 unit quickly adopted telehealth technology during the observation period, initiating 15,088 encounters that averaged 6.6 minutes (standard deviation = 13.6) each. RTLS movement data suggests total nursing time at the bedside remained unchanged following the deployment of inpatient telehealth in a COVID-19 unit. Compared to other units with shared mobile telehealth units, frequency of nurse-patient in-person encounters decreased and duration lengthened on a COVID-19 unit with in-room telehealth availability, indicating \"batched\" redistribution of work to maintain total time at bedside relative to pre-pandemic periods. The simultaneous adoption of telehealth suggests virtual care was a complement to, rather than a replacement for, in-person care. Study limitations, however, preclude our ability to draw a causal link between nursing workflow change and telehealth adoption, and further evaluation is needed to determine potential downstream implications on disease transmission, PPE utilization, and patient safety.

Both clinicians and patients have increasingly turned to telemedicine to improve care access, even in physical examination–dependent specialties such as dermatology. However, little is known about whether teledermatology supports effective and timely transitions from inpatient to outpatient care, which is a common care coordination gap. Using mixed methods, this study sought to retrospectively evaluate how teledermatology affected clinic capacity, scheduling efficiency, and timeliness of follow-up care for patients transitioning from inpatient to outpatient dermatology care. Patient-level encounter scheduling data were used to compare the number and proportion of patients who were scheduled and received in-clinic or video dermatology follow-ups within 14 and 90 days after discharge across 3 phases: June to September 2019 (before teledermatology), June to September 2020 (early teledermatology), and February to May 2021 (sustained teledermatology). The time from discharge to scheduling and completion of patient follow-up visits for each care modality was also compared. Dermatology clinicians and schedulers were also interviewed between April and May 2021 to assess their perceptions of teledermatology for postdischarge patients. More patients completed follow-up within 90 days after discharge during early (n=101) and sustained (n=100) teledermatology use than at baseline (n=74). Thus, the clinic’s capacity to provide follow-up to patients transitioning from inpatient increased from baseline by 36% in the early (101 from 74) and sustained (100 from 74) teledermatology periods. During early teledermatology use, 61.4% (62/101) of the follow-ups were conducted via video. This decreased significantly to 47% (47/100) in the following year, when COVID-19–related restrictions started to lift (P=.04), indicating more targeted but still substantial use. The proportion of patients who were followed up within the recommended 14 days after discharge did not differ significantly between video and in-clinic visits during the early (33/62, 53% vs 15/39, 38%; P=.15) or sustained (26/53, 60% vs 28/47, 49%; P=.29) teledermatology periods. Interviewees agreed that teledermatology would continue to be offered. Most considered postdischarge follow-up patients to be ideal candidates for teledermatology as they had undergone a recent in-person assessment and might have difficulty attending in-clinic visits because of competing health priorities. Some reported patients needing technological support. Ultimately, most agreed that the choice of follow-up care modality should be the patient’s own. Teledermatology could be an important tool for maintaining accessible, flexible, and convenient care for recently discharged patients needing follow-up care. Teledermatology increased clinic capacity, even during the pandemic, although the timeliness of care transitions did not improve. Ultimately, the care modality should be determined through communication with patients to incorporate their and their caregivers’ preferences.

Background: Rapid weight gain during infancy is associated with risk for later obesity, yet little research to date has examined the effect of a responsive parenting (RP) intervention with care coordination between pediatric primary care providers and Women, Infants, and Children nutritionists on infant weight. Methods: The Women, Infants, and Children Enhancements to Early Healthy Lifestyles for Baby (WEE Baby) Care study is a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial for mothers and infants ( n  = 288) designed to examine the effect of a patient-centered RP intervention that used advanced health information technology strategies to coordinate care to reduce rapid infant weight gain compared with standard care. General linear models examined intervention effects on infant conditional weight gain scores, weight-for-age z scores, BMI, and overweight status (BMI-for-age ≥85th percentile) from birth to age 6 months, and mothers' use of food to soothe from age 2 to 6 months. Results: There were no intervention effects on infant conditional weight gain scores or overweight status at 6 months. Infants in the RP intervention had lower mean weight-for-age z scores [ M  = −0.04, standard error (SE) = 0.04 vs. M  = 0.05, SE = 0.04; p  = 0.008] and lower mean BMI ( M  = 16.05, SE = 0.09 vs. M  = 16.24, SE = 0.09; p  = 0.03) compared with standard care. Mothers' use of emotion-based food to soothe was lower in the RP intervention compared with standard care from age 2 to 6 months [ M difference = −0.32, standard deviation (SD) = 0.81 vs. 0.00, SD = 0.90; p  = 0.01]. Conclusions: This pragmatic, patient-centered RP intervention did not reduce rapid infant weight gain or overweight but was associated with modestly lower infant BMI and reduced mothers' use of emotion-based food to soothe. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03482908