Gaps in Adolescent Tobacco Prevention and Counseling in Vermont

Introduction. Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death in Vermont. While the Vermont Blueprint for Health includes compensation for adult tobacco counseling, it includes no specific mention of pediatric populations. Research questions: To what extent are tobacco assessment and cessation efforts occurring in the primary care setting with pediatric patients? What factors influence their practices?Methods. A 12-question electronic survey, modeled on an American Academy of Pediatrics survey, was distributed to primary care providers throughout Vermont; through the UVM departments of pediatrics, family medicine, the Vermont Medical Society and the Vermont Area Health Education Center. We received 70 completed surveys.Results. 70% of the surveyed primary care providers begin tobacco counseling at the age recommended (11 years) by the Vermont Department of Health. Only 45.71% of providers are confident in their understanding of the recommendations for adolescent health screening written in the Blueprint for Health. Additionally, only 67.1% of the providers expressed confidence in their ability to provide guidance regarding the harmful effects of E-cigarettes, compared to 92.8% feeling confident regarding conventional cigarettes. 70% of providers listed time restraints as a significant factor in their decision not to counsel adolescents on tobacco use.Discussion. The Blueprint for Health is a guiding document for provider practices that is not well understood and does not specifically include pediatric tobacco prevention. In an environment where youth E-cigarette use is rising, especially among adolescents, it is especially critical that physicians are confident in their counseling practices.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/comphp_gallery/1237/thumbnail.jp

Association of Internal Medicine Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) with Length of Stay, Hospitalization Costs, and Formal Imaging: a Prospective Cohort Study

Background: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) use has rapidly expanded among internal medicine (IM) physicians in practice and residency training programs. Many benefits have been established; however, studies demonstrating the impact of POCUS on system metrics are few and mostly limited to the emergency department or intensive care setting. The study objective was to evaluate the impact of inpatient POCUS on patient outcomes and hospitalization metrics. Methods: Prospective cohort study of 12,399 consecutive adult admissions to 22 IM teaching attendings, at a quaternary care teaching hospital (7/1/2011-6/30/2015), with or without POCUS available during a given hospitalization. Multivariable regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses compared multiple hospital metric outcomes (costs, length of stay, radiology-based imaging, satisfaction, etc.) between the “POCUS available” vs. “POCUS unavailable” groups as well as the “POCUS available” subgroups of “POCUS used” vs. “POCUS not used”. Results: Patients in the “POCUS available” vs. “POCUS unavailable” group had lower mean total and per-day hospital costs ($17,474 vs.$21,803, p<0.001; $2,805.88 vs.$3,557.53, p<0.001), lower total and per-day radiology cost ($705.41 vs.$829.12, p<0.001; $163.11 vs.$198.53, p<0.001), fewer total chest X-rays (1.31 vs. 1.55, p=0.01), but more chest CTs (0.22 vs 0.15; p=0.001). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.77 days (95% CI = 5.63, 5.91) in the “POCUS available” group vs. 6.08 95% CI (5.66, 6.51) in the “POCUS unavailable” group (p=0.14). Within the “POCUS available” group, cost analysis with a 4:1 PSM (including LOS as a covariate) compared patients receiving POCUS vs. those that could have but did not, and also showed total and per-day cost savings in the “POCUS used” subgroup ($15,082 vs. 15,746; p<0.001 and$2,685 vs. $2,753; p=0.04). Conclusions: Availability and selected use of POCUS was associated with a meaningful reduction in total hospitalization cost, radiology cost, and chest X-rays for hospitalized patients