Quiche lessons

Short story.Winner of the 2008 Missouri Review Peden Prize.On October 20th, 2008, the Missouri Review presented our annual Peden Prize to Molly McNett, whose story '"Quiche lessons' appeared in our summer 2007 issue. As part of the evening, Molly read an abridged version of her story. We're happy to present on this podcast our recording of that reading, introduced by Associate Editor Evelyn Somers. This recording was produced by Caitlin Garing--Publisher's Web site

Global Incidence of Neurological Manifestations Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19-A Report for the GCS-NeuroCOVID Consortium and the ENERGY Consortium.

Importance The COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect millions of people globally, with increasing reports of neurological manifestations but limited data on their incidence and associations with outcome. Objective To determine the neurological phenotypes, incidence, and outcomes among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study included patients with clinically diagnosed or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 at 28 centers, representing 13 countries and 4 continents. The study was performed by the Global Consortium Study of Neurologic Dysfunction in COVID-19 (GCS-NeuroCOVID) from March 1 to September 30, 2020, and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) Neuro-COVID Registry (ENERGY) from March to October 2020. Three cohorts were included: (1) the GCS-NeuroCOVID all COVID-19 cohort (n = 3055), which included consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with and without neurological manifestations; (2) the GCS-NeuroCOVID COVID-19 neurological cohort (n = 475), which comprised consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had confirmed neurological manifestations; and (3) the ENERGY cohort (n = 214), which included patients with COVID-19 who received formal neurological consultation. Exposures Clinically diagnosed or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures Neurological phenotypes were classified as self-reported symptoms or neurological signs and/or syndromes assessed by clinical evaluation. Composite incidence was reported for groups with at least 1 neurological manifestation. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Results Of the 3055 patients in the all COVID-19 cohort, 1742 (57%) were men, and the mean age was 59.9 years (95% CI, 59.3-60.6 years). Of the 475 patients in the COVID-19 neurological cohort, 262 (55%) were men, and the mean age was 62.6 years (95% CI, 61.1-64.1 years). Of the 214 patients in the ENERGY cohort, 133 (62%) were men, and the mean age was 67 years (95% CI, 52-78 years). A total of 3083 of 3743 patients (82%) across cohorts had any neurological manifestation (self-reported neurological symptoms and/or clinically captured neurological sign and/or syndrome). The most common self-reported symptoms included headache (1385 of 3732 patients [37%]) and anosmia or ageusia (977 of 3700 patients [26%]). The most prevalent neurological signs and/or syndromes were acute encephalopathy (1845 of 3740 patients [49%]), coma (649 of 3737 patients [17%]), and stroke (222 of 3737 patients [6%]), while meningitis and/or encephalitis were rare (19 of 3741 patients [0.5%]). Presence of clinically captured neurologic signs and/or syndromes was associated with increased risk of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.99; 95% CI, 4.33-8.28) after adjusting for study site, age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Presence of preexisting neurological disorders (aOR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.80-2.75) was associated with increased risk of developing neurological signs and/or syndromes with COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance In this multicohort study, neurological manifestations were prevalent among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and were associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Preexisting neurological disorders were associated with increased risk of developing neurological signs and/or syndromes in COVID-19

Common Data Elements for COVID-19 Neuroimaging: A GCS-NeuroCOVID Proposal

Funder: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000065Funder: James S. McDonnell Foundation; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000913Funder: National Institute of Health ResearchFunder: United Kingdom Research and InnovationFunder: Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trus

Consensus summary statement of the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care : a statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

Neurocritical care depends, in part, on careful patient monitoring but as yet there are little data on what processes are the most important to monitor, how these should be monitored, and whether monitoring these processes is cost-effective and impacts outcome. At the same time, bioinformatics is a rapidly emerging field in critical care but as yet there is little agreement or standardization on what information is important and how it should be displayed and analyzed. The Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to begin to address these needs. International experts from neurosurgery, neurocritical care, neurology, critical care, neuroanesthesiology, nursing, pharmacy, and informatics were recruited on the basis of their research, publication record, and expertise. They undertook a systematic literature review to develop recommendations about specific topics on physiologic processes important to the care of patients with disorders that require neurocritical care. This review does not make recommendations about treatment, imaging, and intraoperative monitoring. A multidisciplinary jury, selected for their expertise in clinical investigation and development of practice guidelines, guided this process. The GRADE system was used to develop recommendations based on literature review, discussion, integrating the literature with the participants' collective experience, and critical review by an impartial jury. Emphasis was placed on the principle that recommendations should be based on both data quality and on trade-offs and translation into clinical practice. Strong consideration was given to providing pragmatic guidance and recommendations for bedside neuromonitoring, even in the absence of high quality data

The Curing Coma Campaign: Framing Initial Scientific Challenges—Proceedings of the First Curing Coma Campaign Scientific Advisory Council Meeting

Abstract: Coma and disordered consciousness are common manifestations of acute neurological conditions and are among the most pervasive and challenging aspects of treatment in neurocritical care. Gaps exist in patient assessment, outcome prognostication, and treatment directed specifically at improving consciousness and cognitive recovery. In 2019, the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) launched the Curing Coma Campaign in order to address the “grand challenge” of improving the management of patients with coma and decreased consciousness. One of the first steps was to bring together a Scientific Advisory Council including coma scientists, neurointensivists, neurorehabilitationists, and implementation experts in order to address the current scientific landscape and begin to develop a framework on how to move forward. This manuscript describes the proceedings of the first Curing Coma Campaign Scientific Advisory Council meeting which occurred in conjunction with the NCS Annual Meeting in October 2019 in Vancouver. Specifically, three major pillars were identified which should be considered: endotyping of coma and disorders of consciousness, biomarkers, and proof-of-concept clinical trials. Each is summarized with regard to current approach, benefits to the patient, family, and clinicians, and next steps. Integration of these three pillars will be essential to the success of the Curing Coma Campaign as will expanding the “curing coma community” to ensure broad participation of clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates with the goal of identifying and implementing treatments to fundamentally improve the outcome of patients

Leveraging academic initiatives to advance implementation practice: a scoping review of capacity building interventions

Abstract Background Academic institutions building capacity for implementation scholarship are also well positioned to build capacity in real world health and human service settings. How practitioners and policy makers are included and trained in implementation capacity-building initiatives, and their impact on building implementation practice capacity is unclear. This scoping review identified and examined features of interventions that build implementation practice capacity across researchers and practitioners or practitioners-in-training. Methods Five bibliographic databases were searched. Eligible studies (a) described an implementation capacity building intervention with a connection to an academic institution, (b) targeted researchers and practitioners (including practitioners-in-training, students, or educators), and (c) reported intervention or participant outcomes. Articles that only described capacity building interventions without reporting outcomes were excluded. Consistent with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, key study characteristics were extracted (target participants, core components, and outcomes) and analyzed using open coding and numerical analysis. Results Of 1349 studies identified, 64 met eligibility for full-text review, and 14 were included in the final analysis. Half of the studies described implementation capacity building interventions that targeted health or behavioral health researchers, practitioners, and practitioners-in-training together, and half targeted practitioners or practitioners-in-training only. The most common components included structured didactic activities offered in person or online, mentorship and expert consultation to support implementation, and practical application activities (e.g., field placements, case studies). Knowledge sharing activities and technical assistance were less common. All studies reported favorable outcomes related to knowledge attainment, increased ability to implement evidence, productivity, and satisfaction. Conclusions Building implementation capacity among practitioners is critical for integrating insights from implementation science into the field and preventing the “secondary” implementation research-to-practice gap. This scoping review identified several promising implementation practice capacity building interventions that tend to build practitioner capacity via expert led activities which may be relevant for academic institutions seeking to build implementation practice capacity. To avoid widening the implementation research-to-practice gap, implementation capacity building interventions are needed that target policy makers, expand beyond multiple practice settings, and leverage university/community partnerships or on-site academic medical centers. Future studies will also be needed to test the impact on service quality and public health outcomes

The EAN COVID-19 registry (ENERGY): An international instrument for surveillance of neurological complications in patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health issue. Neurological complications have been reported in up to one-third of affected cases, but their distribution varies significantly in terms of prevalence, incidence and phenotypical characteristics. Variability can be mostly explained by the differing sources of cases (hospital vs. community-based), the accuracy of the diagnostic approach, and the interpretation of the patients' complaints. Moreover, after recovering, patients can still experience neurological symptoms. To obtain a more precise picture of the neurological manifestations and outcome of the COVID-19 infection, an international registry (ENERGY) has been created by the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) in collaboration with European national neurological societies and the Neurocritical Care Society and Research Network (NCRN). ENERGY can be implemented as a stand-alone instrument for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients AND neurological findings or as an addendum to an existing registry not targeting neurologic symptoms. Data are also collected to study the impact of neurological symptoms and neurological complications on outcomes. The variables included in the registry have been selected in the interest of most countries, to favour pooling with data from other sources, and to facilitate data collection even in resource-poor countries. Included are adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection, ascertained through neurological consultation, and providing informed consent. Key demographic and clinical findings are collected at registration. Patients are followed up to 12 months in search of incident neurological manifestations. As of August 19, 254 centres from 69 countries and four continents have made requests to join the study

International multidisciplinary consensus conference on multimodality monitoring: ICU processes of care

There is an increased focus on evaluating processes of care, particularly in the high acuity and cost environment of intensive care. Evaluation of neurocritical-specific care and evidence-based protocol implementation are needed to effectively determine optimal processes of care and effect on patient outcomes. General quality measures to evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) processes of care have been proposed; however, applicability of these measures in neurocritical care populations has not been established. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for English language articles from 1990 to August 2013. A total of 1,061 articles were reviewed, with 145 meeting criteria for inclusion in this review. Care in specialized neurocritical care units or by neurocritical teams can have a positive impact on mortality, length of stay, and in some cases, functional outcome. Similarly, implementation of evidence-based protocol-directed care can enhance outcome in the neurocritical care population. There is significant evidence to support suggested quality indicators for the general ICU population, but limited research regarding specific use in neurocritical care. Quality indices for neurocritical care have been proposed; however, additional research is needed to further validate measures