Search

PROBLEM: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic presented numerous challenges to inpatient care, including overtaxed inpatient medicine services, surges in patient censuses, disrupted patient care and educational activities for trainees, underused providers in certain specialties, and personal protective equipment shortages and new requirements for physical distancing. In March 2020, as the COVID-19 surge began, an interdisciplinary group of administrators, providers, and trainees at Brigham and Women's Hospital created an inpatient virtual staffing model called the Virtual Team Rounding Program (VTRP). APPROACH: The conceptual framework guiding VTRP development was rapid-cycle innovation. The VTRP was designed iteratively using feedback from residents, physician assistants, attendings, and administrators from March to June 2020. The VTRP trained and deployed a diverse set of providers across specialties as "virtual rounders" to support inpatient teams by joining and participating in rounds via videoconference and completing documentation tasks during and after rounds. The program was rapidly scaled up from March to June 2020. OUTCOMES: In a survey of inpatient providers at the end of the pilot phase, 10/10 (100%) respondents reported they were getting either "a lot" or "a little" benefit from the VTRP and did not find the addition of the virtual rounder burdensome. During the scaling phase, the program grew to support 24 teams. In a survey at the end of the contraction phase, 117/187 (62.6%) inpatient providers who worked with a virtual rounder felt the rounder saved them time. VTRP leadership collaboratively and iteratively developed best practices for challenges encountered during implementation. NEXT STEPS: Virtual rounding provides a valuable extension of inpatient teams to manage COVID-19 surges. Future work will quantitatively and qualitatively assess the impact of the VTRP on inpatient provider satisfaction and well-being, virtual rounders' experiences, and patient care outcomes.

Background Older patients with brain metastases (BrM) commonly experience symptoms that prompt acute medical evaluation. We characterized emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient hospitalizations in this population. Methods We identified 17 789 and 361 Medicare enrollees diagnosed with BrM using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (2010-2016) and an institutional database (2007-2016), respectively. Predictors of ED visits and hospitalizations were assessed using Poisson regression. Results The institutional cohort averaged 3.3 ED visits/1.9 hospitalizations per person-year, with intracranial disease being the most common reason for presentation/admission. SEER-Medicare patients averaged 2.8 ED visits/2.0 hospitalizations per person-year. For patients with synchronous BrM (N = 7834), adjusted risk factors for ED utilization and hospitalization, respectively, included: male sex (rate ratio [RR] = 1.15 [95% CI = 1.09-1.22], P < .001; RR = 1.21 [95% CI = 1.13-1.29], P < .001); African American vs white race (RR = 1.30 [95% CI = 1.18-1.42], P < .001; RR = 1.25 [95% CI = 1.13-1.39], P < .001); unmarried status (RR = 1.07 [95% CI = 1.01-1.14], P = .02; RR = 1.09 [95% CI = 1.02-1.17], P = .01); Charlson comorbidity score >2 (RR = 1.27 [95% CI = 1.17-1.37], P < .001; RR = 1.36 [95% CI = 1.24-1.49], P < .001); and receipt of non-stereotactic vs stereotactic radiation (RR = 1.44 [95% CI = 1.34-1.55, P < .001; RR = 1.49 [95% CI = 1.37-1.62, P < .001). For patients with metachronous BrM (N = 9955), ED visits and hospitalizations were more common after vs before BrM diagnosis (2.6 vs 1.2 ED visits per person-year; 1.8 vs 0.9 hospitalizations per person-year, respectively; RR = 2.24 [95% CI = 2.15-2.33], P < .001; RR = 2.06 [95% CI = 1.98-2.15], P < .001, respectively). Conclusions Older patients with BrM commonly receive hospital-level care secondary to intracranial disease, especially in select subpopulations. Enhanced care coordination, closer outpatient follow-up, and patient navigator programs seem warranted for this population.

BACKGROUND Prior literature has suggested synergy between immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrM), but to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of therapy to maximize this synergy is unclear. METHODS A total of 199 patients with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer with BrM received ICT and RT between 2007 and 2016 at the study institution. To reduce selection biases, individual metastases were included only if they were treated with RT within 90 days of ICT. Concurrent treatment was defined as RT delivered on the same day as or in between doses of an ICT course; all other treatment was considered to be nonconcurrent. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to response and local disease recurrence on a per-metastasis basis, using a sandwich estimator to account for intrapatient correlation. RESULTS The final cohort included 110 patients with 340 BrM, with 102 BrM treated concurrently and 238 BrM treated nonconcurrently. Response rates were higher with the use of concurrent treatment (70% vs 47%; P

To investigate safety and visual-field changes in people with epilepsy undergoing multifocal Pupillographic Objective Perimetry (mfPOP).15 people with epilepsy and 15 controls underwent mfPOP in the context of routine clinical EEG testing. Safety measures comprised the proportion of participants developing an aura or seizure, a photoparoxysmal response, or increased epileptiform activity on their EEG during mfPOP. Pupil responses were obtained concurrently from 44 regions/field of each eye. Changes in standardised amplitude of constriction and time-to-peak were compared between people with generalised and focal epilepsy, and controls.No participant developed an epileptic aura or clinical seizure during (or after) testing. One participant demonstrated EEG evidence of a focal subclinical seizure which began before mfPOP testing and continued unchanged during testing. Regional field sensitivities were increased in people with generalised epilepsy (+3.80 ± 1.43 dB compared to controls) but were reduced in individuals taking antiepileptic medication (-4.04 ± 1.74 dB). An extra delay of 24.9 ± 10.2 ms was seen in the time-to-peak of the responses in people with focal epilepsy. Based on receiver-operating characteristic analyses, discrimination of people with epilepsy from controls was greatest when using the 4 to 10 most abnormal visual field regions of each eye (%AUC 77.3 ± 9.70).In the absence of any safety signal, mfPOP appears harmless in people with epilepsy. The observed abnormalities in per-region sensitives and delays suggest that mfPOP may provide significant new insights into the study of epilepsy.

BackgroundNew inpatient virtual care models have proliferated in response to the challenges presented by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, few of these programs have yet been evaluated for acceptability and feasibility.ObjectiveAssess feasibility and provider experience with the Virtual Team Rounding Program (VTRP), a quality improvement project developed and rapidly scaled at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, MA, in response to the surge of COVID-19 patients in the spring of 2020.MethodsWe surveyed 777 inpatient providers and 41 providers who served as ‘virtual rounders’ regarding their experience with the program. Inpatient providers were asked about their overall satisfaction with the program, whether the program saved them time, and if so, how much and their interest in working with a similar program in the future. Providers who had worked as virtual rounders were asked about their overall satisfaction with the program, the overall difficulty of the work and their interest in participating in a similar program in the future.ResultsWe find that among both groups the program was well-received, with 72.5% of inpatient providers and 85.7% of virtual rounders reporting that they were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their experience with the program. Among inpatient providers who worked with the program, two-thirds reported the program saved them time on a daily basis. Inpatient respondents who had worked with virtual rounders were more likely to say that they would be interested in working with the VTRP in the future compared with respondents who never worked with a virtual rounder (75.3 vs 52.5%, P ConclusionAs the pandemic continues, rapidly implementing and studying virtual care delivery programs is crucial for hospitals and health systems. We demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a ‘virtual rounding’ program assisting inpatient providers. Future work should examine the impact of these programs on patient outcomes.

Determination of intrafraction motion in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) usually involves generating an internal target volume (ITV) based on target segmentation in every one of the 10 phases of a 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) dataset which increases dosimetry work load substantially. This study explores the feasibility of using a smaller number of phases to compile an ITV to get equivalent results. Twenty-five lung cancer patients treated with SBRT were retrospectively assessed. Patients were categorized by the anatomic location of the GTV within different lobes of the lungs, 5 in each lobe. Ten GTVs were contoured by the radiation oncologist in 10 different phases of one complete respiratory cycle. Five samples (Sample 1-5) were created using (0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% i.e. taking every other phase), (0%, 30%, 60%, 90% i.e. skipping two successive phases), (0%, 20%, 30%, 50% i.e. essentially taking inhale, exhale & a phase in between), (0%, 30%, 60%), (0%, 50% i.e. using completely inhale and exhale phase only) phase GTVs, 0% is designated as the most inhaled phase and 50% as the most exhaled phase. Appropriate sample ITVs and PTVs were created in the same manner as the clinical plan which was then adapted to each sample set with minimal modification. Sample plans were compared for equivalent dose coverage, center of mass, and ITV/PTV volume differences against the clinical treatment plan. The average % ITV underestimation against the clinical ITV increased from a minimum of 7.3% in sample 1 (0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%) to a maximum of 24.5% in sample 5 (0% & 50%) under the conditions of controlled breathing. A similar trend was seen in other samples with the underestimation in the ITV/PTV volume increasing with the decrease in the number of phases irrespective of the tumor location. The average variation in the center of mass of the ITV was minimal (0.43 ± 0.11 mm). Use of ITV/PTV combination derived from using less than all 10 phases resulted in the maximum clinical PTV under-dosage of 5.9% for sample 1 and 12.3% for sample 5, respectively. If fewer phases in the generation of ITV are used, a larger ITV-to-PTV margin might be necessary to get equivalent PTV coverage.

Purpose The report highlights utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in an academic radiation oncology center and how their role benefits patient care and departmental workflow. Methods and Materials A self-reported workflow analysis of department APPs was conducted across 5 disease sites. A review of electronic medical records was performed to determine the percent of APP follow-ups completed independently versus in a shared capacity with the radiation oncologist. A review of the APP's didactic and clinical training program was performed. Results Across all disease sites, approximately 40% of the APP's time was spent on direct patient care, predominantly composed of independent follow-up visits (9%-35%) and telehealth (2%-30%). The breast malignancies group was an outlier with a higher focus on consults or shared visits (25%). Indirect patient care accounts for 30% to 50% of workflow with the focus on visit preparation or care coordination (13%-35%) and dictation (8%-13%). Administrative responsibilities including process improvement, research, education, and leadership account for the remainder (5%-26%) and are varied across disease sites. The central nervous system malignancies group and genitourinary malignancies group reported a greater percentage of their time (23%-26%) on administration compared with other groups (5%-9%). On average APPs see most of their visits independently from the physicians (86.41%) with 13.59% of visits being seen in a shared capacity. Conclusions APPs can positively affect the field of radiation oncology by augmenting clinical capacity, optimizing workflow and increasing department efficiency via both direct and indirect patient care and through involvement in administrative and leadership duties. By implementing an independent-to practice model, simultaneous APP and physician clinics run parallel to each other, limiting shared visits for complex cases. This promotes APP job satisfaction and provides greater access to patient care without compromising quality. This article highlights a model for the utilization of APPs, which can be implemented by other radiation oncology departments or practices.

With an increasing older population and need for institutionalization care, the demand for group work in long-term care (LTC) is increasing. Group therapy can be utilized as a strength-based model, providing socialization and cognitive stimulation with the goal of increasing overall psychological well being for LTC residents. The present article provides a step-by-step outline for setting up and implementing a current events group with older adults in an LTC setting. Additional attention is given to the importance for outcome measures evaluating the impact of the group. A comprehensive list of geriatric-sensitive assessment instruments is presented.

Purpose: Involuntary motion of the tumor during the treatment of NSCLC using stereotactic body radiosurgery presents its own unique challenges. In this study, we quantify the impact of abdominal compression technique to minimize tumor motion as a function of location of tumor in a patient. Methods: 25 patients (5 in each lung lobe viz. RUL, RML, RLL, LUL and LLL) were retrospectively analyzed. A 4DCT study encompassing the tumor was used on a 16 slice GECT scanner along with Varian RPM gating system. The images were retrospectively binned in 10 phases. The motion of tumor was analyzed phase by phase in transverse, sagittal & coronal projections of the 3D image. This gave us 2 values for anterior‐posterior, superior‐inferior and lateral‐medial motions each and was averaged out. Results:Analysis of data reveals that the motion (mean ± 1SD) in the superior‐inferior direction was 1.8 ± 0.9, 4.2±2.8, 7.4±2.3, 1.5±0.8, 3.1±2.8 mm for tumors located in RUL, RML, RLL, LUL and LLL, respectively. Along the anterior‐posterior direction the respective values were 2.5 ± 1.9, 2.4 ± 1.1, 2.7 ± 1.3, 1.4 ± 0.2 and 1.8 ± 1 mm. Similarly, along the lateral direction, the respective values were 2.1 ± 1.1, 1.9 ± 1.1, 1.6 ± 1.3, 1.1 ± 0.3 and 1.8 ± 0.7 mm. When the data was analyzed removing the location of the tumor in the thorax, the median displacement along the superior‐inferior, anterior‐posterior, lateral direction was 2.3, 1.6 and 1.5 mm, respectively while the respective maximum value were 9.2, 5 & 3.8 mm. Conclusions: The use of abdominal compression provides a simple inexpensive yet easily tolerable device to control the motion of the tumor in the management of NSCLC for SBRT treatments. This will allows the treatment of the tumor without resorting to complex and time consuming gated treatments.