A 56-year-old with diarrhea and weakness

A 56-YEAR-OLD MAN presents to the emergency department with nausea, weakness, and exertional dyspnea, which have been going on for 1 week. He is sent by his primary care physician after being noted to be hypotensive with a weak, thready pulse. He has had diarrhea with intermittent abdominal pain over the past year, with 10 stools daily, including 3 or 4 at night. The stools are described as large, nonbloody, sticky, greasy, and occasionally watery. Stools are fewer when he curtails his food intake. The diarrhea is associated with occasional diffuse abdominal pain he describes as a burning sensation. He has no incontinence or tenesmus. He reports that he has unintentionally lost 137 lb (62 kg) over the past year. He has not taken over-the-counter antidiarrheal agents

Balancing patient-centered and safe pain care for non-surgical inpatients: clinical and managerial perspectives

Background: Hospitals and clinicians aim to deliver care that is safe. Simultaneously, they are ensuring that care is patient-centered, meaning that it is respectful of patients’ values, preferences, and experiences. However, little is known about delivering care in cases where these goals may not align. For example, hospitals and clinicians are facing the daunting challenge of balancing safe and patient-centered pain care for nonsurgical patients, due to lack of comprehensive care guidelines and complexity of this patient population. Methods: To gather clinical and managerial perspectives on the importance, feasibility, and strategies used to balance patient-centered care (PCC) and safe pain care for nonsurgical inpatients, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with hospitalists (n=10), registered nurses (n=10), and health care managers (n=10) from one healthcare system in the Midwestern United States. We systematically examined transcribed interviews and identified major themes using a thematic analysis approach. Results: Participants acknowledged the importance of balancing PCC and safe pain care. They envisioned this balance as a continuum, with certain patients for whom it is easier (e.g., opioid-naïve patient with a fracture), versus more difficult (e.g., patient with opioid use disorder). Participants also reported several strategies they use to balance PCC and safe pain care, including offering alternatives to opioids, setting realistic pain goals and expectations, and using a team approach. Conclusions: Clinicians and health care managers use various strategies to balance PCC and safe pain care for nonsurgical patients. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of these strategies on patient outcomes

Clinical perspectives on hospitals’ role in the opioid epidemic

Policymakers, legislators, and clinicians have raised concerns that hospital-based clinicians may be incentivized to inappropriately prescribe and administer opioids when addressing pain care needs of their patients, thus potentially contributing to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. Given the need to involve all healthcare settings, including hospitals, in joint efforts to curb the opioid epidemic, it is essential to understand if clinicians perceive hospitals as contributors to the problem. Therefore, we examined clinical perspectives on the role of hospitals in the opioid epidemic

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Receipt of opioids and patient care experiences among nonsurgical hospitalized adults

Objective: To examine the association between receipt of opioids and patient care experiences among nonsurgical hospitalized adults. Data sources: A total of 17 691 patient-level responses to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient care experience survey linked to medical records from nonsurgical hospitalizations in an 11-hospital health care system in a Midwestern state, years 2011-2016. Study design: We conducted a pooled cross-sectional study that used propensity score matching analyses and logistic regression to estimate the relationship between patients' care experience measures (overall and pain-specific) and their receipt of opioids while hospitalized. In supplementary analyses, we used the same propensity score matching methods to estimate the relationship between patient care experience measures and receipt of opioids in four patient subgroups based on average patient-reported pain during hospitalization (no pain; mild pain; moderate pain; and severe pain). Principal findings: Receipt of opioids was not associated with patient care experience measures in our main analysis. In our supplementary analysis, we found lower ratings for pain control among hospitalizations for patients who reported moderate pain (Marginal Effects = -4.5 percent; P value = .015). Conclusions: Counter to some previous studies, we observed that receipt of opioids was not associated with patient care experience measures for nonsurgical hospitalized adults. These findings may be due to different pain experiences of adults hospitalized for nonsurgical versus surgical reasons