Southern Resident killer whales: from captivity to conservation

The endangered Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) (SRKW) population remains the only killer whale population listed under the United States Endangered Species Act in U.S. waters since it was listed in 2005. In the 1960s and 70s, the population was reduced by approximately 40% following intensive efforts to capture individuals for a growing marine park captivity industry. The first Northwest killer whale census (1974) found just 70 remaining individuals in the SRKW community. This population has struggled to return to pre-capture numbers, and in the face of new threats including prey depletion, toxic contamination, and vessel effects, fewer than 80 individuals remain today. Over the last 40 years, this unique killer whale community has transitioned from targets of the captivity industry to one of the most iconic wild species of the Pacific Northwest, but is now desperately in need of meaningful and effective conservation efforts. As threats to this population have changed, environmental and advocacy groups have revised their strategies from a focus on separate issues to a recognition of the need for an ecosystem approach to ensure the long-term recovery and survival of these iconic killer whales. Recent research indicates that ecosystem-based efforts drive quicker recovery of ecosystems and endangered species. This innovative method has led to new partnerships with groups from disparate backgrounds working together to address multiple issues in the Pacific Northwest to recover the SRKWs and their habitat - in particular addressing the threat of prey depletion for the SRKWs by working for salmon restoration. By focusing on the role of whales in the ecosystem and their needs, we can increase conservation efforts for the SRKWs and demonstrate the potential of ecosystem-based management

Audit of Early Mortality among Patients Admitted to the General Medical Ward at a District Hospital in Botswana

Background: Mortality among adult general medical admissions has been reported to be high across sub-Saharan Africa, yet there is a paucity of literature on causes of general medical inpatient mortality and quality-related factors that may contribute to the high incidence of deaths. Based on a prior study at our hospital as well as our clinical experience, death early in the hospitalization is common among patients admitted to the adult medical wards. Objective: Quantify early inpatient mortality and identify factors contributing to early in-hospital mortality of medical patients in a resource-limited hospital setting in Botswana. Methods: Twenty-seven cases of patients who died within 48 hours of admission to the general medical wards at Scottish Livingstone Hospital in Molepolole, Botswana from December 1, 2015–April 25, 2016 were retrospectively reviewed through a modified root cause analysis. Findings: Early in-hospital mortality was most frequently attributed to septic shock, identified in 20 (74%) of 27 cases. The most common care management problems were delay in administration of antibiotics (15, 56%), inappropriate fluid management (15, 56%), and deficient coordination of care (15, 56%). The most common contributing factors were inadequate provider knowledge and skills in 25 cases (93%), high complexity of presenting condition in 20 (74%), and inadequate communication between team members in 18 (67%). Conclusions: Poor patient outcomes in low-and middle-income countries like Botswana are often attributed to resource limitations. Our findings suggest that while early in-hospital mortality in such settings is associated with severe presenting conditions like septic shock, primary contributors to lack of better outcomes may be healthcare-provider and system-factors rather than lack of diagnostic and therapeutic resources. Low-cost interventions to improve knowledge, skills and communication through a focus on provider education and process improvement may provide the key to reducing early in-hospital mortality and improving hospitalization outcomes in this setting

“I know my body better than anyone else” Perspectives of people who inject drugs on antimicrobial treatment decision making for serious infections

Introduction: • Few studies have examined the perspectives of patients with lived experience regarding outpatient treatment options for injection drug use (IDU) associated infections. • We sought to better understand the perspectives of both community partners with lived experience who work with people who inject drugs (PWID) and hospitalized patients with IDU-associated infections on shared treatment decision making.https://knowledgeconnection.mainehealth.org/lambrew-retreat-2023/1009/thumbnail.jp

Occam’s razor need not apply: Advanced HIV infection presenting with five simultaneous opportunistic infections and central nervous system lymphoma

Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) are at risk for multiple infectious and oncologic complications. In such cases, Occam’s razor need not apply: multiple infections and malignancies are often present concurrently upon presentation to care. A patient off anti-retroviral therapy (ART) for several years developed advanced HIV infection (CD4 count 19 cells/uL) and presented with five simultaneous opportunistic infections including Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PJP), cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis, Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) bloodstream infection, chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV), and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viremia. Simultaneously, he was found to have primary central nervous system (CNS) B-cell lymphoma.Treatment decisions for such patients are often complex, as ideal therapy for one disease may directly counter or interact with therapy for another. For instance, methotrexate for primary CNS lymphoma and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for PJP is a strictly contraindicated medication combination. It is important to understand not just the management of any single opportunistic disease in patients with advanced HIV, but how to balance management for patients with a variety of concurrent processes. In an era when HIV care is becoming increasingly simplified, patients presenting with advanced infection highlight the lack of data on how best to manage patients with multiple concurrent disease processes. Significant further research is needed to clarify ideal comparative therapy. Keywords: Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Acquired Immunodeficiency Disorder, Opportunistic infectio

Use of an electronic medical record reminder improves HIV screening

Abstract Background More than 1 in 7 patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States are unaware of their serostatus despite recommendations of US agencies that all adults through age 65 be screened for HIV at least once. To facilitate universal screening, an electronic medical record (EMR) reminder was created for our primary care practice. Screening rates before and after implementation were assessed to determine the impact of the reminder on screening rates. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was performed for patients age 18–65 with visits between January 1, 2012-October 30, 2014. EMR databases were examined for HIV testing and selected patient characteristics. We evaluated the probability of HIV screening in unscreened patients before and after the reminder and used a multivariable generalized linear model to test the association between likelihood of HIV testing and specific patient characteristics. Results Prior to the reminder, the probability of receiving an HIV test for previously unscreened patients was 15.3%. This increased to 30.7% after the reminder (RR 2.02, CI 1.95–2.09, p < 0.0001). The impact was most significant in patients age 45–65. White race, English as primary language, and higher median household income were associated with lower likelihoods of screening both before and after implementation (RR 0.68, CI 0.65–0.72; RR 0.74, CI 0.67–0.82; RR 0.84, CI 0.80–0.88, respectively). Conclusions The EMR reminder increased rates of HIV screening twofold in our practice. It was most effective in increasing screening rates in older patients. Patients who were white, English-speaking, and had higher incomes were less likely to be screened for HIV both before and after the reminder

Health care professional perspectives on discharging hospitalized patients with injection drug use-associated infections

Background: Patients with injection drug use (IDU)-associated infections traditionally experience prolonged hospitalizations, which often result in negative experiences and bad outcomes. Harm reduction approaches that value patient autonomy and shared decision-making regarding outpatient treatment options may improve outcomes. We sought to identify health care professionals (HCPs) perspectives on the barriers to offering four different options to hospitalized people who use drugs (PWUD): long-term hospitalization, oral antibiotics, long-acting antibiotics at an infusion center, and outpatient parenteral antibiotics. Methods: We recruited HCPs ( = 19) from a single tertiary care center in Portland, Maine. We interviewed HCPs involved with discharge decision-making and other HCPs involved in the specialized care of PWUD. Semi-structured interviews elicited lead HCP values, preferences, and concerns about presenting outpatient antimicrobial treatment options to PWUD, while support HCPs provided contextual information. We used the iterative categorization approach to code and thematically analyze transcripts. Results: HCPs were willing to present outpatient treatment options for patients with IDU-associated infections, yet several factors contributed to reluctance. First, insufficient resources, such as transportation, may make these options impractical. However, HCPs may be unaware of existing community resources or viable treatment options. They also may believe the hospital protects patients, and that discharging patients into the community exposes them to structural harms. Some HCPs are concerned that patients with substance use disorder will not make \u27good\u27 decisions regarding outpatient antimicrobial options. Finally, there is uncertainty about how responsibility for offering outpatient treatment is shared across changing care teams. Conclusion: HCPs perceive many barriers to offering outpatient care for people with IDU-associated infections, but with appropriate interventions to address their concerns, may be open to considering more options. This study provides important insights and contextual information that can help inform specific harm reduction interventions aimed at improving care of people with IDU-associated infections

Improving care for individuals with serious infections who inject drugs

Background: Hospitalizations for serious infections requiring long-term intravenous (IV) antimicrobials related to injection drug use have risen sharply over the last decade. At our rural tertiary care center, opportunities for treatment of underlying substance use disorders were often missed during these hospital admissions. Once medically stable, home IV antimicrobial therapy has not traditionally been offered to this patient population due to theoretical concerns about misuse of long-term IV catheters, leading to discharges with suboptimal treatment regimens, lengthy hospital stays, or care that is incongruent with patient goals and preferences. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of clinicians and patients set out to redesign and improve care for this patient population through a health care innovation process, with a focus on increasing the proportion of patients who may be discharged on home IV therapy. Baseline assessment of current experience was established through retrospective chart review and extensive stakeholder analysis. The innovation process was based in design thinking and facilitated by a health care delivery improvement incubator. Results: The components of the resulting intervention included early identification of hospitalized people who inject drugs with serious infections, a proactive psychiatry consultation service for addiction management for all patients, a multidisciplinary care conference to support decision making around treatment options for infection and substance use, and care coordination/navigation in the outpatient setting with a substance use peer recovery coach and infectious disease nurse for patients discharged on home IV antimicrobials. Patients discharged on home IV therapy followed routine outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) protocols and treatment protocols for addiction with their chosen provider. Conclusion: An intervention developed through a design-thinking-based health care redesign process improved patient-centered care for people with serious infections who inject drugs

I know my body better than anyone else : a qualitative study of perspectives of people with lived experience on antimicrobial treatment decisions for injection drug use-associated infections

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for severe bacterial and fungal infections including skin and soft tissue infections, endocarditis, and osteomyelitis. PWID have high rates of self-directed discharge and are often not offered outpatient antimicrobial therapies, despite studies showing their efficacy and safety in PWID. This study fills a gap in knowledge of patient and community partner perspectives on treatment and discharge decision making for injection drug use (IDU)-associated infections. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients ( = 10) hospitalized with IDU-associated infections and community partners ( = 6) in the Portland, Maine region. Community partners include peer support workers at syringe services programs (SSPs) and outreach specialists working with PWID. We transcribed and thematically analyzed interviews to explore perspectives on three domains: perspectives on long-term hospitalization, outpatient treatment options, and patient involvement in decision making. RESULTS: Participants noted that stigma and inadequate pain management created poor hospitalization experiences that contributed to self-directed discharge. On the other hand, patients reported hospitalization provided opportunities to connect to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and protect them from outside substance use triggers. Many patients expressed interest in outpatient antimicrobial treatment options conditional upon perceived efficacy of the treatment, perceived ability to complete treatment, and available resources and social support. Finally, both patients and community partners emphasized the importance of autonomy and inclusion in medical decision making. Although some participants acknowledged their SUD, withdrawal symptoms, or undertreated pain might interfere with decision making, they felt these medical conditions were not justification for health care professionals withholding treatment options. They recommended open communication to build trust and reduce harms. CONCLUSION: Patients with IDU-associated infections desire autonomy, respect, and patient-centered care from healthcare workers, and may self-discharge when needs or preferences are not met. Involving patients in treatment decisions and offering outpatient antimicrobial options may result in better outcomes. However, patient involvement in decision making may be complicated by many contextual factors unique to each patient, suggesting a need for shared decision making to meet the needs of hospitalized patients with IDU-associated infections