An Interprofessional Public Library-Academic Partnership for Community Outreach on Women\u27s Health

This article describes a collaboration between a branch of the Queens Public Library in NY and an academic medical center that delivered a women’s health educational program with an interprofessional team of faculty, trainees, and students. The team delivered interactive 1-hour long monthly sessions in a Question and Answer format guided by a Powerpoint presentation. The overall goal was to deliver health education workshops on common medical conditions (i.e. diabetes, heart disease) and concerns of interest to women across the lifespan (i.e. infertility, dementia) to improve the health literacy of local community members. We outlined the steps in establishing this collaboration, the process of selecting topics and describe lessons learned from this endeavor, as well as future directions. As we move toward population health management, innovative means such as partnerships with local libraries represent one way to reach the public. This type of programming has potential to improve health literacy and address social determinants of health by providing the community members with timely, trusted health-related information

Using highly variable warfarin dosing to identify patients at risk for adverse events

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients who receive highly variable doses of warfarin may be at risk for poor anticoagulation control and adverse events. However, we lack a system to identify patients with the highest dose variability. Our objectives were to develop a scoring system to identify patients with high dose variability, and to validate this new measure by demonstrating that patients so identified have poor anticoagulation control and higher rates of adverse events (criterion validity).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used a database of over 4, 000 patients who received oral anticoagulation in community practice between 2000-2002. We reviewed the charts of 168 patients with large warfarin dose variation and agreed on 18 risk factor definitions for high dose variability. We identified 109 patients with the highest dose variability (cases), as measured by coefficient of variation (CoV, SD/mean). We matched each case to two controls with low dose variability. Then, we examined all 327 charts, blinded to case/control status, to identify the presence or absence of the 18 risk factors for dose variability. We performed a multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of high CoV. We also compared anticoagulation control, as measured by percent time in therapeutic range (TTR), and rates of adverse events between groups.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>CoV corresponded with other measures of anticoagulation control. TTR was 53% among cases and 79% among controls (p < 0.001). CoV also predicted adverse events. Six cases experienced a major hemorrhage versus 1 control (p < 0.001) and 3 cases had a thromboembolic event versus 0 control patients (p = 0.04). Independent predictors of high dose variability included hospitalization (OR = 21.3), decreased oral intake (OR = 12.2), use of systemic steroids (OR = 6.1), acetaminophen (OR = 4.0) and antibiotics (OR = 2.7; p < 0.05 for all).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>CoV can be used to identify patients at risk for poor anticoagulation control and adverse events. This new measure has the potential to identify patients at high risk before they suffer adverse events.</p

Examination of patient characteristics and hydroxychloroquine use based on the US Food and Drug Administration’s recommendation: a cross-sectional analysis in New York

Objective To describe the pattern of hydroxychloroquine use and examine the association between hydroxychloroquine use and clinical outcomes arising from changes in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s recommendation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Design A retrospective cross-sectional analysis.Setting and participants We included hospitalised adult patients at Northwell Health hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 infections between 1 March 2020 and 11 May 2020. We categorised changes in the FDA’s recommendation as pre-FDA approval (1 March 2020–27 March 2020), FDA approval (28 March 2020–23 April 2020), and FDA warning (24 April 2020–11 May 2020). The hydroxychloroquine-treated group received at least one dose within 48 hours of hospital admission.Primary outcome A composite of intubation and inpatient death.Results The percentages of patients who were treated with hydroxychloroquine were 192/2202 (8.7%) pre-FDA approval, 2902/6741 (43.0%) FDA approval, and 176/1066 (16.5%) FDA warning period (p&lt;0.001). Using propensity score matching, there was a higher rate of the composite outcome among patients treated with hydroxychloroquine (49/192, 25.5%) compared with no hydroxychloroquine (66/384, 17.2%) in the pre-FDA approval period (p=0.03) but not in the FDA approval period (25.5% vs 22.6%, p=0.08) or the FDA warning (21.0% vs 15.1%, p=0.11) periods. Coincidently, there was an increase in number of patients with COVID-19 and disease severity during the FDA approval period (24.1% during FDA approval vs 21.4% during pre-FDA approval period had the composite outcome). Hydroxychloroquine use was associated with increased odds of the composite outcome during the pre-FDA approval period (OR=1.65 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.51)) but not during the FDA approval (OR=1.17 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.39)) and FDA warning (OR=1.50 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.39)) periods.Conclusions Hydroxychloroquine use was associated with adverse clinical outcomes only during the pre-FDA approval period but not during the FDA approval and warning periods, even after adjusting for concurrent changes in the percentage of patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and the number (and disease severity) of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 infections