Search

In this randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial of Cerebellar Stimulation for Aphasia Rehabilitation (CeSAR), we will determine the effectiveness of cathodal tDCS (transcranial direct current stimulation) to the right cerebellum for the treatment of chronic aphasia (>6 months post stroke). We will test the hypothesis that cerebellar tDCS in combination with an evidenced-based anomia treatment (semantic feature analysis, SFA) will be associated with greater improvement in naming untrained pictures (as measured by the change in Philadelphia Picture Naming Test), 1-week post-treatment, compared to sham plus SFA. We will also evaluate the effects of cerebellar tDCS on naming trained items as well as the effects on functional communication, content, efficiency, and word-retrieval of picture description, and quality of life. Finally, we will identify imaging and linguistic biomarkers to determine the characteristics of stroke patients that benefit from cerebellar tDCS and SFA treatment. We expect to enroll 60 participants over five years. Participants will receive 15, 25-minute sessions of cerebellar tDCS (3-5 sessions per week) or sham tDCS combined with 1 hour of SFA treatment. Participants will be evaluated prior to the start of treatment, one-week post-treatment, 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-treatment on primary and secondary outcome variables. The long-term aim of this study is to provide the basis for a Phase III randomized controlled trial of cerebellar tDCS vs sham with concurrent language therapy for treatment of chronic aphasia. Trial registration: The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05093673., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Lammers et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: There is limited data to assess, track, or quantify accessibility and disability inclusion across universities., Objective: This cross-sectional study assessed disability inclusion and accessibility at the top 50 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded undergraduate programs in the United States. We hypothesized that there is no association between NIH funding and the University Disability Inclusion Score., Methods: A novel tool, the University Disability Inclusion Score assessed disability inclusion and accessibility using 10 indicators spanning 4 categories: (1) accessibility of built and virtual environment, (2) public image of disability inclusion, (3) accommodations processes and procedures, and (4) grievance policy. Based upon the total points (out of a total score of 100), each university was assigned a letter grade (A-F)., Results: Of the top 50 NIH-funded institutions, 6% received an A grade on the Score, while 60% received D or F. The mean scores were 15.2 (SD = 5) for accessibility of built and virtual environment (20 points), 10 (SD = 3) for public image of disability inclusion (20 points), 30.6 (SD = 10) for accommodations processes and procedures (50 points), and 8.1 (SD = 3) for grievance policy (10 points)., Conclusions: Our findings suggest room for improvement in disability inclusion and accessibility among top university recipients of NIH funding. To provide an equitable academic experience, universities must prioritize disability inclusion., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Campanile et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Racial disparities are common in healthcare. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable harm, and disparities observed in prevention practices. We examined the impact of a patient-centered VTE education bundle on the non-administration of preventive prophylaxis by race., Methods: A post-hoc, subset analysis (stratified by race) of a larger nonrandomized trial. Pre-post comparisons analysis were conducted on 16 inpatient units; study periods were October 2014 through March 2015 (baseline) and April through December 2015 (post-intervention). Patients on 4 intervention units received the patient-centered, nurse educator-led intervention if the electronic health record alerted a non-administered dose of VTE prophylaxis. Patients on 12 control units received no intervention. We compared the conditional odds of non-administered doses of VTE prophylaxis when patient refusal was a reason for non-administration, stratified by race., Results: Of 272 patient interventions, 123 (45.2%) were white, 126 (46.3%) were black, and 23 (8.5%) were other races. A significant reduction was observed in the odds of non-administration of prophylaxis on intervention units compared to control units among patients who were black (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.81, p<0.001), white (OR 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75, p<0.001), and other races (OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.88, p = 0.015)., Conclusion: Our finding suggests that the patient education materials, developed collaboratively with a diverse group of patients, improved patient's understanding and the importance of VTE prevention through prophylaxis. Quality improvement interventions should examine any differential effects by patient characteristics to ensure disparities are addressed and all patients experience the same benefits., Competing Interests: Mr. Lau, and Drs. Streiff and Haut are supported by a grant from the AHRQ (1R01HS024547) entitled “Individualized Performance Feedback on Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Practice,” a contract from PCORI entitled “Preventing Venous Thromboembolism (VTE): Engaging Patients to Reduce Preventable Harm from Missed/Refused Doses of VTE Prophylaxis,” and a grant from the NIH/NHLBI (R21HL129028) entitled “Analysis of the Impact of Missed Doses of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis.” Mr. Lau is supported by the Institute for Excellence in Education Berkheimer Faculty Education Scholar Grant and a contract (AD-1306-03980) from PCORI entitled “Patient Centered Approaches to Collect Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity Information in the Emergency Department.” Ms. Hobson has given expert witness testimony in various medical malpractice cases. Dr. Streiff has received research funding from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Portola and Roche and consulted for Janssen and Portola and has given expert witness testimony in various medical malpractice cases. Dr. Haut is a paid consultant and speaker for the “Preventing Avoidable Venous Thromboembolism— Every Patient, Every Time” VHA/Vizient IMPERATIV® Advantage Performance Improvement Collaborative. Dr. Haut receives royalties from Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins for a book - “Avoiding Common ICU Errors.” Dr. Haut was the paid author of a paper commissioned by the National Academies of Medicine titled “Military Trauma Care’s Learning Health System: The Importance of Data Driven Decision Making” which was used to support the report titled “A National Trauma Care System: Integrating Military and Civilian Trauma Systems to Achieve Zero Preventable Deaths After Injury.” All remaining authors report no disclosures. All other authors report no disclosures. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of preventable harm in hospitalized patients. While numerous successful interventions have been implemented to improve prescription of VTE prophylaxis, a substantial proportion of doses of prescribed preventive medications are not administered to hospitalized patients. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of nurse education on medication administration practice., Methods: This was a double-blinded, cluster randomized trial in 21 medical or surgical floors of 933 nurses at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, an academic medical center, from April 1, 2014 -March 31, 2015. Nurses were cluster-randomized by hospital floor to receive either a linear static education (Static) module with voiceover or an interactive learner-centric dynamic scenario-based education (Dynamic) module. The primary and secondary outcomes were non-administration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis medication and nurse-reported satisfaction with education modules, respectively., Results: Overall, non-administration improved significantly following education (12.4% vs. 11.1%, conditional OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80-0.95, p = 0.002) achieving our primary objective. The reduction in non-administration was greater for those randomized to the Dynamic arm (10.8% vs. 9.2%, conditional OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.72-0.95) versus the Static arm (14.5% vs. 13.5%, conditional OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.81-1.03), although the difference between arms was not statistically significant (p = 0.26). Satisfaction scores were significantly higher (p<0.05) for all survey items for nurses in the Dynamic arm., Conclusions: Education for nurses significantly improves medication administration practice. Dynamic learner-centered education is more effective at engaging nurses. These findings suggest that education should be tailored to the learner., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02301793.