Search

Learning Objective: The goal of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the personal and professional impact inter-physician conflict has on physicians’ well-being.Background: Despite the recognized importance of collaboration and communication, interpersonal conflict amongst healthcare providers in different specialties remains a pervasive issue. Recent work elucidated some of the social conditions and processes that contribute to conflict between EM and IM physicians at the time of admission. However, little is known about the consequences that inter-physician conflict has on providers’ well-being.Objective: The goal of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the personal and professional impact inter-physician conflict has on physicians’ well-being.Methods: In this study, the authors used constructivist grounded theory to explore themes related to the impact of conflict on individual providers. A purposive sampling approach was used to recruit participants (n=18), which included EM residents and attending physicians as well as IM attending physicians. Two authors conducted hour-long, semi-structured interviews and then coded the transcripts following Charmaz’s three stages of coding. The authors used constant comparative analysis until thematic sufficiency was reached.Results: Participants described personal impacts of inter-physician conflict including emotional and moral distress which occurs in the context of feeling demoralized by colleagues. Conflict further impacted participants professionally by promoting cynicism, job dissatisfaction, and a negative view of their professional identity and professional accomplishments. Finally, participants described the ‘emotional residue’ that remained after conflict, which tended to perpetuate future conflict.Conclusions: Physicians attributed emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced sense of personal accomplishment to conflicts arising during conversations around admission. In this way, inter-physician conflict is an under-recognized contributor to physician burnout that should be explored to support the well-being of trainees and attending physicians.

BackgroundThere are currently no evidence-based guidelines that provide standardized criteria for the discharge of COVID-19 patients from the hospital.ObjectiveTo address this gap in practice guidance, we reviewed published guidance and collected discharge protocols and procedures to identify and synthesize common practices.DesignRapid review of existing guidance from US and non-US public health organizations and professional societies and qualitative review using content analysis of discharge documents collected from a national sample of US academic medical centers with follow-up survey of hospital leaders SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 65 websites for major professional societies and public health organizations and collected documents from 22 Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the US participating in the HOspital MEdicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN).ResultsWe synthesized data regarding common practices around 5 major domains: (1) isolation and transmission mitigation; (2) criteria for discharge to non-home settings including skilled nursing, assisted living, or homeless; (3) clinical criteria for discharge including oxygenation levels, fever, and symptom improvement; (4) social support and ability to perform activities of daily living; (5) post-discharge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.LimitationsWe used streamlined methods for rapid review of published guidance and collected discharge documents only in a focused sample of US academic medical centers.ConclusionAMCs studied showed strong consensus on discharge practices for COVID-19 patients related to post-discharge isolation and transmission mitigation for home and non-home settings. There was high concordance among AMCs that discharge practices should address COVID-19-specific factors in clinical, functional, and post-discharge monitoring domains although definitions and details varied.

The article presents a study which explored the extent to which anaphylaxis events are missed by algorithms that require the presence of an anaphylaxis diagnosis code. Topics include indicators based on procedure codes and concepts extracted from unstructured clinical notes using natural language processing, findings on uncoded anaphylaxis events, and characteristics of emergency department encounters in the electronic health records of a midsized healthcare system in the Pacific Northwest.

We sought to determine whether machine learning and natural language processing (NLP) applied to electronic medical records could improve performance of automated health-care claims-based algorithms to identify anaphylaxis events using data on 516 patients with outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient anaphylaxis diagnosis codes during 2015–2019 in 2 integrated health-care institutions in the Northwest United States. We used one site's manually reviewed gold-standard outcomes data for model development and the other's for external validation based on cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), positive predictive value (PPV), and sensitivity. In the development site 154 (64%) of 239 potential events met adjudication criteria for anaphylaxis compared with 180 (65%) of 277 in the validation site. Logistic regression models using only structured claims data achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.63). Machine learning improved cross-validated AUC to 0.62 (0.58, 0.66); incorporating NLP-derived covariates further increased cross-validated AUCs to 0.70 (0.66, 0.75) in development and 0.67 (0.63, 0.71) in external validation data. A classification threshold with cross-validated PPV of 79% and cross-validated sensitivity of 66% in development data had cross-validated PPV of 78% and cross-validated sensitivity of 56% in external data. Machine learning and NLP-derived data improved identification of validated anaphylaxis events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Selective lowering of Aβ42 levels (the 42-residue isoform of the amyloid-β peptide) with small-molecule γ-secretase modulators (GSMs), such as some non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, is a promising therapeutic approach for Alzheimer's [...]

Background: There are currently no evidence-based guidelines that provide standardized criteria for the discharge of COVID-19 patients from the hospital.Objective: To address this gap in practice guidance, we reviewed published guidance and collected discharge protocols and procedures to identify and synthesize common practices.Design: Rapid review of existing guidance from US and non-US public health organizations and professional societies and qualitative review using content analysis of discharge documents collected from a national sample of US academic medical centers with follow-up survey of hospital leaders SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 65 websites for major professional societies and public health organizations and collected documents from 22 Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the US participating in the HOspital MEdicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN).Results: We synthesized data regarding common practices around 5 major domains: (1) isolation and transmission mitigation; (2) criteria for discharge to non-home settings including skilled nursing, assisted living, or homeless; (3) clinical criteria for discharge including oxygenation levels, fever, and symptom improvement; (4) social support and ability to perform activities of daily living; (5) post-discharge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.Limitations: We used streamlined methods for rapid review of published guidance and collected discharge documents only in a focused sample of US academic medical centers.Conclusion: AMCs studied showed strong consensus on discharge practices for COVID-19 patients related to post-discharge isolation and transmission mitigation for home and non-home settings. There was high concordance among AMCs that discharge practices should address COVID-19-specific factors in clinical, functional, and post-discharge monitoring domains although definitions and details varied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyses of the biologic effects of mutations in the BRI2 (ITM2b) and the amyloid β precursor protein (APP) genes support the hypothesis that cerebral accumulation of amyloidogenic peptides in familial British and familial Danish dementias and Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with neurodegeneration. We have used somatic brain transgenic technology to express the BRI2 and BRI2-Aβ1- 40 transgenes in APP mouse models. Expression of BRI2-Aβ1- 40 mimics the suppressive effect previously observed using conventional transgenic methods, further validating the somatic brain transgenic methodology. Unexpectedly, we also find that expression of wild-type human BRI2 reduces cerebral Aβ deposition in an AD mouse model. Additional data indicate that the 23 aa peptide, Bri23, released from BRI2 by normal processing, is present in human CSF, inhibits Aβ aggregation in vitro and mediates its anti-amyloidogenic effect in vivo. These studies demonstrate that BRI2 is a novel mediator of Aβ deposition in vivo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]