OrthoPass: Long-term Outcomes following Implementation of an Orthopaedic Patient Handoff Template.

Standardized handoff tools improve communication and patient care; however, their widespread use in surgical fields is lacking. OrthoPass, an orthopaedic adaptation of I-PASS, was developed in 2019 to address handoff concerns and demonstrated sustained improvements across multiple handoff domains over an 18-month period. We sought to characterize the longitudinal effect and sustainability of OrthoPass within a single large residency program 3.5 years after its implementation. This mixed methods study involved electronic handoff review for quality domains in addition to survey distribution and evaluation. We conducted comparative analyses of handoff adherence and survey questions as well as a thematic analysis of provider-free responses. We evaluated 146 electronic handoffs orthopaedic residents, fellows, and advanced practice providers 3.5 years after OrthoPass implementation. Compared with 18-month levels, adherence was sustained across five of nine handoff domains and was markedly improved in two domains. Furthermore, provider valuations of OrthoPass improved regarding promoting communication and patient safety (83% versus 70%) and avoiding patient errors and near misses (72% versus 60%). These improvements were further substantiated by positive trends in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Surveys on Patient Safety Culture hospital survey data. Thematic analysis of free responses shared by 37 providers (42%) generated favorable, unfavorable, and balanced themes further contextualized by subthemes. At 3.5 years after its introduction, OrthoPass continues to improve patient handoff quality and to support provider notions of patient safety. Although providers acknowledged the benefits of this electronic handoff tool, they also shared unique insights into several drawbacks. This feedback will inform ongoing efforts to improve OrthoPass

Inpatient Opioid Use Varies by Construct Length Among Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion Patients

BACKGROUND: Laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy and fusion (LF) are utilized to achieve decompression in patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Comparative analyses aimed at determining outcomes and clarifying indications between these procedures represent an area of active research. Accordingly, we sought to compare inpatient opioid use between LP and LF patients and to determine if opioid use correlated with length of stay. METHODS: Sociodemographic information, surgical and hospitalization data, and medication administration records were abstracted for patients \u3e18 years of age who underwent LP or LF for DCM in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system between 2017 and 2019. Specifically, morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of oral and parenteral pain medication given after arrival in the recovery area until discharge from the hospital were collected. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-squared analysis or Fisher exact test when appropriate. Continuous variables were compared using Independent samples RESULTS: One hundred eight patients underwent LF, while 138 patients underwent LP. Total inpatient opioid use was significantly higher in the LF group (312 vs. 260 MME, p=.03); this difference was primarily driven by higher postoperative day 0 pain medication requirements. Furthermore, more LF patients required high dose (\u3e80 MME/day) regimens. While length of stay was significantly different between groups, with LF patients staying approximately 1 additional day, postoperative day 0 MME was not a significant predictor of this difference. When operative levels including C2, T1, and T2 were excluded, the differences in total opioid use and average length of stay lost significance. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient opioid use and length of stay were significantly greater in LF patients compared to LP patients; however, when constructs including C2, T1, T2 were excluded from analysis, these differences lost significance. Such findings highlight the impact of operative extent between these procedures. Future studies incorporating patient reported outcomes and evaluating long-term pain needs will provide a more complete understanding of postoperative outcomes between these 2 procedures

The Science Performance of JWST as Characterized in Commissioning

This paper characterizes the actual science performance of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), as determined from the six month commissioning period. We summarize the performance of the spacecraft, telescope, science instruments, and ground system, with an emphasis on differences from pre-launch expectations. Commissioning has made clear that JWST is fully capable of achieving the discoveries for which it was built. Moreover, almost across the board, the science performance of JWST is better than expected; in most cases, JWST will go deeper faster than expected. The telescope and instrument suite have demonstrated the sensitivity, stability, image quality, and spectral range that are necessary to transform our understanding of the cosmos through observations spanning from near-earth asteroids to the most distant galaxies.Comment: 5th version as accepted to PASP; 31 pages, 18 figures; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/acb29

The James Webb Space Telescope Mission

Twenty-six years ago a small committee report, building on earlier studies, expounded a compelling and poetic vision for the future of astronomy, calling for an infrared-optimized space telescope with an aperture of at least $4m$. With the support of their governments in the US, Europe, and Canada, 20,000 people realized that vision as the $6.5m$ James Webb Space Telescope. A generation of astronomers will celebrate their accomplishments for the life of the mission, potentially as long as 20 years, and beyond. This report and the scientific discoveries that follow are extended thank-you notes to the 20,000 team members. The telescope is working perfectly, with much better image quality than expected. In this and accompanying papers, we give a brief history, describe the observatory, outline its objectives and current observing program, and discuss the inventions and people who made it possible. We cite detailed reports on the design and the measured performance on orbit.Comment: Accepted by PASP for the special issue on The James Webb Space Telescope Overview, 29 pages, 4 figure