Relationship of Patient Self-Administered COPD Assessment Test (CAT) to Physician Standard Assessment of COPD in a Family Medicine Residency Training Program

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. COPD is of particular concern in certain sectors of the country, including Central Appalachia where our clinic is located. Assessing patients with COPD presents many challenges as symptoms range from those considered typical such as shortness of breath and sputum production to those less often identified like anxiety and social isolation. We conducted a pilot study comparing physician standard assessment of COPD to patient self-assessment using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT). The CAT is an eight-item questionnaire that measures the impact COPD has on an individual patient’s well-being and daily life. Based on our small sample size, physicians tend to underestimate the impact of COPD on a patient’s daily life. This discrepancy did not differ significantly by year of residency. Potential clinical impact of these findings include the need for more formalized and frequent patient self-assessment of disease burden as well as increased COPD assessment training within the residency curriculum

Relationship of Patient Self-Administered COPD Assessment Test to Physician Standard Assessment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Family Medicine Residency Training Program

Assessing the global impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on a patient’s life can be difficult to perform in the clinical setting due to time constraints and workflow challenges. The primary objective of this study was to compare disease impact ratings between patient selfadministered COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and physician standard office assessment. This prospective study was conducted at a family medicine residency clinic in northeast Tennessee. The study included two study groups: 1) adult patients seen at the clinic during the 3-month study period with an active diagnosis of COPD, and 2) their physicians. Physicians’ assessment of the impact of COPD on their patients’ daily lives was compared to patients’ self-administered CAT assessments. Physician assessment of COPD impact and patient ssessment of CAT categories significantly differed (χ2 =11.0, P=0.012). There was very poor agreement between patient and physician ratings (κ=0.003), with 42.9% of physician ratings underestimating the impact, 28.6% overestimating the impact, and 28.6% orrectly estimating the impact COPD had on their patients’ lives. These findings support the use of validated assessment tools to help providers understand the symptom burden for patients with COPD

Using Mock Interviews to Evaluate an Interprofessional Education (IPE) Curriculum

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of targeted team care training in our institution’s interprofessional practice and education (IPE) program on medical and pharmacy students\u27 expression of knowledge and attitudes about team care as measured in a mock interview. Medical and Pharmacy students were recruited to participate in a 20-minute mock interview for an advanced placement position

Comparison of Postoperative Bleeding in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban, Enoxaparin, or Aspirin for Thromboprophylaxis

Background: Guidelines recommend the use of multiple pharmacologic agents and/or mechanical compressive devices for prevention of venous thromboembolism, but preference for any specific agent is no longer given in regard to safety or efficacy. Objective: To compare postoperative bleeding rates in patients receiving enoxaparin, rivaroxaban, or aspirin for thromboprophylaxis after undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty. Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis evaluated patients who received thromboprophylaxis with either enoxaparin, rivaroxaban, or aspirin. All data were collected from the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was any postoperative bleeding. Results: A total of 1244 patients were included with 366 in the aspirin, 438 in the enoxaparin, and 440 in the rivaroxaban arms. Those who received aspirin or enoxaparin were less likely to experience any bleeding compared to those patients who received rivaroxaban (P \u3c.05). There was also a lower rate of major bleeding in these groups, but the differences were not significant. Conclusions: Aspirin and enoxaparin conferred similar bleeding risks, and both exhibited less bleeding than patients who received rivaroxaban

Preventing Hospitalizations From Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Chronic obstructive lung disease is among the leading causes of adult hospital admissions and readmissions in the United States. Preventing acute exacerbations is the primary approach in therapy. Combinations of smoking cessation, pulmonary rehabilitation, vaccinations and inhaled and oral medications may all reduce the overall risk of acute exacerbations. When prevention is unsuccessful, treatment of exacerbations often does not require hospitalization but can be safely executed in the outpatient setting. In the patient who does not require mechanical ventilation or who manifests respiratory acidosis, oxygen supplementation, frequent short-acting inhaled bronchodilators, oral corticosteroids and often antibiotics can abort the decompensation and sometimes return the patient to his or her pre-attack baseline lung function. Several models exist for delivering this care in the ambulatory setting. Follow-up care after an exacerbation has resolved is important, though there are few hard data suggesting which approach is best in this setting

Evaluation of a Trough-Only Extrapolated Area Under the Curve Vancomycin Dosing Method on Clinical Outcomes

Background Vancomycin dosing strategies targeting trough concentrations of 15–20 mg/L are no longer supported due to lack of efficacy evidence and increased risk of nephrotoxicity. Area-under-the-curve (AUC24) nomograms have demonstrated adequate attainment of AUC24 goals ≥ 400 mg h/L with more conservative troughs (10–15 mg/L). Objective The purpose of this study is to clinically validate a vancomycin AUC24 dosing nomogram compared to conventional dosing methods with regards to therapeutic failure and rates of acute kidney injury. Setting This study was conducted at a tertiary, community, teaching hospital in the United States. Method This retrospective, cohort study compared the rates of therapeutic failures between AUC24-extrapolated dosing and conventional dosing methods. Main outcome measure Primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as all-cause mortality within 30 days, persistent positive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus blood culture, or clinical failure. Rates of acute kidney injury in non-dialysis patients was a secondary endpoint. Results There were 96 participants in the extrapolated-AUC24 cohort and 60 participants in the conventional cohort. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts. Failure rates were 11.5% (11/96) in the extrapolated-AUC24 group compared to 18.3% (11/60) in the conventional group (p = 0.245). Reasons for failure were 6 deaths and 5 clinical failures in the extrapolated-AUC24 cohort and 10 deaths and 1 clinical failure in the conventional group. Acute kidney injury rates were 2.7% (2/73) and 16.4% (9/55) in the extrapolated-AUC24 and conventional cohorts, respectively (p = 0.009). Conclusion Extrapolated-AUC24 dosing was associated with less nephrotoxicity without an increase in treatment failures for bloodstream infections compared to conventional dosing. Further investigation is warranted to determine the relationship between extrapolated-AUC24 dosing and clinical failures

A Mock Job Interview to Assess an Interprofessional Education Program

Background Evaluation of interprofessional education (IPE) has been limited to students’ self-report and rarely assessed content validity using real-world input. Purpose This study compared students who did and did not complete an IPE curriculum using a mock interview. Aims were to compare them: 1) in terms of competencies around team based care, and 2) as rated by clinicians providing team based care. Method Students participated in a mock field placement interview. Study staff rated transcripts on IPE competencies. Clinicians rated and ranked students in terms of their knowledge/values and preference for hiring. Discussion. IPE students had higher ratings on seven of eleven competences than non-IPE students. Clinical experts rated IPE students higher and ranked them as more preferable. Conclusions This study demonstrates the efficacy and validity of foundational IPE beyond self-report. IPE impacted students’ responses in a real-world scenario in a way that discriminated them from their peers