Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract When the fourth edition of the Brain Trauma Foundation's Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury were finalized in late 2016, it was known that the results of the RESCUEicp (Trial of Decompressive Craniectomy for Traumatic Intracranial Hypertension) randomized controlled trial of decompressive craniectomy would be public after the guidelines were released. The guideline authors decided to proceed with publication but to update the decompressive craniectomy recommendations later in the spirit of “living guidelines,” whereby topics are updated more frequently, and between new editions, when important new evidence is published. The update to the decompressive craniectomy chapter presented here integrates the findings of the RESCUEicp study as well as the recently published 12-mo outcome data from the DECRA (Decompressive Craniectomy in Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury) trial. Incorporation of these publications into the body of evidence led to the generation of 3 new level-IIA recommendations; a fourth previously presented level-IIA recommendation remains valid and has been restated. To increase the utility of the recommendations, we added a new section entitled Incorporating the Evidence into Practice. This summary of expert opinion provides important context and addresses key issues for practitioners, which are intended to help the clinician utilize the available evidence and these recommendations. The full guideline can be found at: https://braintrauma.org/guidelines/guidelines-for-the-management-of-severe-tbi-4th-ed#/.

Abstract The scope and purpose of this work is 2-fold: to synthesize the available evidence and to translate it into recommendations. This document provides recommendations only when there is evidence to support them. As such, they do not constitute a complete protocol for clinical use. Our intention is that these recommendations be used by others to develop treatment protocols, which necessarily need to incorporate consensus and clinical judgment in areas where current evidence is lacking or insufficient. We think it is important to have evidence-based recommendations to clarify what aspects of practice currently can and cannot be supported by evidence, to encourage use of evidence-based treatments that exist, and to encourage creativity in treatment and research in areas where evidence does not exist. The communities of neurosurgery and neuro-intensive care have been early pioneers and supporters of evidence-based medicine and plan to continue in this endeavor. The complete guideline document, which summarizes and evaluates the literature for each topic, and supplemental appendices (A-I) are available online at https://www.braintrauma.org/coma/guidelines.

Cluster randomized trials (cRTs) on the effectiveness of training programs face complex challenges when conducted in real-world settings. Process evaluations embedded within cRTs can help explain their results by exploring possible causal mechanisms impacting training effectiveness. To conduct a process evaluation embedded within a cRT by comparing the impact of team-based vs. individual clinician-focused SICP training on primary healthcare professionals' (PHCPs) intention to have serious illness conversations with patients. The cRT involved 45 primary care practices randomized into a team-based (intervention) or individual clinician-focused (comparator) training program and measured primary outcomes at the patient level: days at home and goals of care. To perform this theory-informed mixed-methods process evaluation embedded within the cRT, a different outcome was measured at the level of the PHCPs, namely, PHCPs' intention to have serious illness conversations with patients as measured with CPD-Reaction. Barriers and facilitators to implementing the conversations were identified through open-ended questions and analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. The COM-B framework was used to triangulate data. Results were reported using the CONSORT and GRAMMS reporting guidelines. Of 535 PHCPs from 45 practices, 373 (69.7%) fully completed CPD-Reaction (30.8% between 25-34 years old; 78.0% women; 54.2% had a doctoral degree; 50.1% were primary care physicians). Mean intention scores for the team-based (n = 223) and individual clinician-focused arms (n = 150) were 5.97 (standard error (SE): 0.11) and 6.42 (SE: 0.13), respectively. Mean difference between arms was 0.0 (95% CI -0.29; 0.30; p = 0.99) after adjusting for age, education and profession. The team-based arm reported barriers with communication, workflow, and more discomfort in having serious illness conversations with patients. Team-based training did not outperform individual clinician-focused in influencing PHCPs' intention to have serious illness conversations. This process evaluation suggests that team-based training could improve intervention effectiveness by focusing on interprofessional communication, better organized workflows, and better support and training for non-clinician team members. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03577002).

Background Obstructive sleep apnea is common among rural Veterans, however, access to diagnostic sleep testing, sleep specialists, and treatment devices is limited. To improve access to sleep care, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented a national sleep telemedicine program. The TeleSleep program components included: 1) virtual clinical encounters; 2) home sleep apnea testing; and 3) web application for Veterans and providers to remotely monitor symptoms, sleep quality and use of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. This study aimed to identify factors impacting Veteran’s participation, satisfaction and experience with the TeleSleep program as part of a quality improvement initiative. Methods Semi-structured interview questions elicited patient perspectives and preferences regarding accessing and engaging with TeleSleep care. Rapid qualitative and matrix analysis methods for health services research were used to organize and describe the qualitative data. Results Thirty Veterans with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) recruited from 6 VA telehealth “hubs” participated in interviews. Veterans reported positive experiences with sleep telemedicine, including improvements in sleep quality, other health conditions, and quality of life. Access to care improved as a result of decreased travel burden and ability of both clinicians and Veterans to remotely monitor and track personal sleep data. Overall experiences with telehealth technology were positive. Veterans indicated a strong preference for VA over non-VA community-based sleep care. Patient recommendations for change included improving scheduling, continuity and timeliness of communication, and the equipment refill process. Conclusions The VA TeleSleep program improved patient experiences across multiple aspects of care including a reduction in travel burden, increased access to clinicians and remote monitoring, and patient-reported health and quality of life outcomes, though some communication and continuity challenges remain. Implementing telehealth services may also improve the experiences of patients served by other subspecialties or healthcare systems.

Advance care planning (ACP) improves patient-provider communication and aligns care to patient values, preferences, and goals. Within a multisite Meta-network Learning and Research Center ACP study, one health system deployed an electronic health record (EHR) notification and algorithm to alert providers about patients potentially appropriate for ACP and the clinical study. The aim of the study is to describe the implementation and usage of an EHR notification for referring patients to an ACP study, evaluate the association of notifications with study referrals and engagement in ACP, and assess provider interactions with and perspectives on the notifications. A secondary analysis assessed provider usage and their response to the notification (eg, acknowledge, dismiss, or engage patient in ACP conversation and refer patient to the clinical study). We evaluated all patients identified by the EHR algorithm during the Meta-network Learning and Research Center ACP study. Descriptive statistics compared patients referred to the study to those who were not referred to the study. Health care utilization, hospice referrals, and mortality as well as documentation and billing for ACP and related legal documents are reported. We evaluated associations between notifications with provider actions (ie, referral to study, ACP not documentation, and ACP billing). Provider free-text comments in the notifications were summarized qualitatively. Providers were surveyed on their satisfaction with the notification. Among the 2877 patients identified by the EHR algorithm over 20 months, 17,047 unique notifications were presented to 45 providers in 6 clinics, who then referred 290 (10%) patients. Providers had a median of 269 (IQR 65-552) total notifications, and patients had a median of 4 (IQR 2-8). Patients with more (over 5) notifications were less likely to be referred to the study than those with fewer notifications (57/1092, 5.2% vs 233/1785, 13.1%; P<.001). The most common free-text comment on the notification was lack of time. Providers who referred patients to the study were more likely to document ACP and submit ACP billing codes (P<.001). In the survey, 11 providers would recommend the notification (n=7, 64%); however, the notification impacted clinical workflow (n=9, 82%) and was difficult to navigate (n=6, 55%). An EHR notification can be implemented to remind providers to both perform ACP conversations and refer patients to a clinical study. There were diminishing returns after the fifth EHR notification where additional notifications did not lead to more trial referrals, ACP documentation, or ACP billing. Creation and optimization of EHR notifications for study referrals and ACP should consider the provider user, their workflow, and alert fatigue to improve implementation and adoption. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03577002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03577002.

Care partners (CPs) are informal or family caregivers who help family or friends manage health care and provide a wide range of assistance. Advance care planning (ACP) supports CPs by clarifying patients' goals and values. The Meta-LARC Advance Care Planning trial randomized primary care practices to team-based or individual clinician-focused versions of an ACP program to determine if team-based approaches would increase ACP and improve patient outcomes. CPs were included, but not required, in ACP conversations and follow-up; CP outcomes were secondary and exploratory. CPs completed initial, 6-, and 12-month questionnaires, including the Zarit Burden Interview-12, PROMIS-29, and assessed if care matched patient preferences. 171 CPs participated and completed initial and 6- or 12-month follow-up questionnaires. The PROMIS-29 scale scores were different only for the depression scale at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups: the mean score for CPs in the individual clinician-focused arm was better than the team-based CPs (50.3 vs 49.2,  = .023), though this difference is not considered clinically meaningful. In both team and clinician practices, CPs who rated care more in line with patient's goals were less likely to report moderate or higher levels of burden (39.4% vs 59.5%,  = .0001) and reported significantly lower levels of anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, and pain. We found no significant differences in most CP outcomes when serious illness conversations with patients in primary care are implemented using a team-based versus individual clinician-focused approach. However, when care matched what was important to patients, CP outcomes were better.

Background Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a very common and serious health condition which is highly prevalent among U.S. military Veterans. Because the demand for sleep medicine services often overwhelms the availability of such services, it is necessary to streamline diagnosis and treatment protocols. The goals of this study are to, (1) assess the efficacy of de-implementing the initial provider encounter for diagnosis and treatment of OSA; (2) determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of home sleep apnea testing (HSAT); (3) develop HSAT usage recommendations for various at-risk patient populations. Methods This is a large, pragmatic study that will take place in 3 VA sleep medicine programs: San Francisco, CA; Portland, OR; and Pittsburgh, PA. All Veterans referred for new sleep apnea evaluations at these sites will be included in this four-year study. Outcomes will include time from referral for OSA to sleep testing and treatment; positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment adherence measures; patient-reported clinical outcomes and measures of satisfaction; determination of the NPV of HSAT; HSAT usage recommendations for at-risk patient populations. Discussion The DREAM (Direct Referral for Apnea Monitoring) Project will inform sleep medicine providers and clinical organizations regarding strategies to streamline diagnosis and treatment protocols for OSA. Results of this study should have significant impact on clinical practices and professional guidelines. Trial registration The majority of this project is an observational study of clinical procedures. Therefore, clinical trial registration is not required.

Abstract The purpose of this work is to identify and synthesize research produced since the second edition of these Guidelines was published and incorporate new results into revised evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury in pediatric patients. This document provides an overview of our process, lists the new research added, and includes the revised recommendations. Recommendations are only provided when there is supporting evidence. This update includes 22 recommendations, 9 are new or revised from previous editions. New recommendations on neuroimaging, hyperosmolar therapy, analgesics and sedatives, seizure prophylaxis, temperature control/hypothermia, and nutrition are provided. None are level I, 3 are level II, and 19 are level III. The Clinical Investigators responsible for these Guidelines also created a companion algorithm that supplements the recommendations with expert consensus where evidence is not available and organizes possible interventions into first and second tier utilization. The complete guideline document and supplemental appendices are available electronically (https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000001735). The online documents contain summaries and evaluations of all the studies considered, including those from prior editions, and more detailed information on our methodology. New level II and level III evidence-based recommendations and an algorithm provide additional guidance for the development of local protocols to treat pediatric patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Our intention is to identify and institute a sustainable process to update these Guidelines as new evidence becomes available.

We aimed to measure the sustainability of health professionals' intention to have serious illness conversations with patients using the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) after individual-focused training versus team-based training. In a cluster randomised trial, we trained healthcare professionals in 40 primary care clinics and measured their intention to hold serious illness conversations immediately (T1), after 1 year (T2) and after 2 years (T3). Primary care clinics (  = 40) were randomly assigned to individual-focused training (comparator) or team-based training (intervention). Average age of the 373 participants was 35-44 years, 79% were women. On a scale of 1 to 7, at T1, the mean intention was 5.33 (SD 0.20) in the individual-focused group and 5.36 (SD 0.18) in the team-based group; at T2, these scores were 4.94 (SD 0.23) and 4.87 (SD 0.21) and at T3, 5.14 (SD 0.24) and 4.59 (SD 0.21), respectively. At T3, the difference in mean intention between study groups had a significant p-value of 0.01. Intention to have serious illness conversations was lower at T2 and T3 after team-based training than after individual-focused training, with a significant difference at 2 years in favour of individual-focused training. Health professionals reported not enough time during consultations for serious illness conversations as a major barrier. ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT03577002) for the parent clinical trial.

Study Objectives: The Veterans Health Administration cares for many veterans with sleep disorders who live in rural areas. The Veterans Health Administration’s Office of Rural Health funded the TeleSleep Enterprise-Wide Initiative (EWI) to improve access to sleep care for rural veterans through creation of national telehealth networks. Methods: The TeleSleep EWI consists of (1) virtual synchronous care, (2) home sleep apnea testing, and (3) REVAMP (Remote Veterans Apnea Management Platform), a patient- and provider-facing web application that enabled veterans to actively engage with their sleep care and sleep care team. The TeleSleep EWI was designed as a hub-and-spoke model, where larger sites with established sleep centers care for smaller, rural sites with a shortage of providers. Structured formative evaluation for the TeleSleep EWI is supported by the Veterans Health Administration’s Quality Enhancement Research Initiative and was critical in assessing outcomes and effectiveness of the program. Results: The TeleSleep EWI launched with 7 hubs and 34 spokes (2017) and rapidly expanded to 13 hubs and 63 spokes (2020). The TeleSleep EWI resulted in a significant increase in rural veterans accessing sleep care by utilizing home sleep apnea testing to establish a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea and virtual care for follow-up. Rates of virtual care utilization were greater in hubs and spokes participating in the TeleSleep EWI compared with non-EWI sleep programs. Additionally, veterans expressed satisfaction with their virtual care TeleSleep experiences. Conclusions: The TeleSleep EWI successfully increased sleep care access for rural veterans, promoted adoption of virtual care services, and resulted in high patient satisfaction. Citation: Chun VS, Whooley MA, Williams K, et al. Veterans Health Administration TeleSleep Enterprise-Wide Initiative 2017–2020:bringing sleep care to our nation’s veterans. J Clin Sleep Med . 2023;19(5):913–923.