BACKGROUND: The relationship between experienced discrimination and its effects on pain interference and management among racial disparities is not well explored. This research investigated these associations among Black and White U.S. adults.
METHODS: The analysis involved 9369 Black and White adults in the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS), assessing experiences of discrimination, pain interference (SF-12), and pain treatment, incorporating factors like demographics, comorbidities, and stress.
RESULTS: Black participants experiencing moderate discrimination were found to have a 41% increased likelihood of pain interference (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.02-1.95), similaritythose facing high levels of discrimination also showed a 41% increase (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06-1.86) compared to those without such experiences. White individuals reporting moderate discrimination also faced a heightened risk, with a 21% greater chance of pain interference (aOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.45). Notably, the presence of moderate discrimination among Black participants correlated with a 12% reduced probability of receiving pain treatment (aOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56-1.37). Furthermore, Black, and White individuals who reported discrimination when seeking employment had a 33% (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.98) and 32% (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96) lower likelihood, respectively, of receiving treated pain.
CONCLUSIONS: The study elucidates how discrimination exacerbates pain interference and restricts access to treatment, affecting Black and White individuals differently. These findings underscore an urgent need for strategies to counteract discrimination\'s negative effects on healthcare outcomes. Addressing these disparities is crucial for advancing health equity and improving the overall quality of care.

UNASSIGNED: Guidelines recommend high-sensitivity cardiac troponin to risk stratify patients with possible myocardial infarction and identify those eligible for discharge. Our aim was to evaluate adoption of this approach in practice and to determine whether effectiveness and safety varies by age, sex, ethnicity, or socioeconomic deprivation status.
UNASSIGNED: A multi-centre cohort study was conducted in 13 hospitals across the United Kingdom from November 1st, 2021, to October 31st, 2022. Routinely collected data including high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I or T measurements were linked to outcomes. The primary effectiveness and safety outcomes were the proportion discharged from the Emergency Department, and the proportion dead or with a subsequent myocardial infarction at 30 days, respectively. Patients were stratified using peak troponin concentration as low (<5 ng/L), intermediate (5 ng/L to sex-specific 99th percentile), or high-risk (>sex-specific 99th percentile).
UNASSIGNED: In total 137,881 patients (49% [67,709/137,881] female) were included of whom 60,707 (44%), 42,727 (31%), and 34,447 (25%) were stratified as low-, intermediate- and high-risk, respectively. Overall, 65.8% (39,918/60,707) of low-risk patients were discharged from the Emergency Department, but this varied from 26.8% [2200/8216] to 93.5% [918/982] by site. The safety outcome occurred in 0.5% (277/60,707) and 11.4% (3917/34,447) of patients classified as low- or high-risk, of whom 0.03% (18/60,707) and 1% (304/34,447) had a subsequent myocardial infarction at 30 days, respectively. A similar proportion of male and female patients were discharged (52% [36,838/70,759] versus 54% [36,113/67,109]), but discharge was more likely if patients were <70 years old (61% [58,533/95,227] versus 34% [14,428/42,654]), from areas of low socioeconomic deprivation (48% [6697/14,087] versus 43% [12,090/28,116]) or were black or asian compared to caucasian (62% [5458/8877] and 55% [10,026/18,231] versus 46% [35,138/75,820]).
UNASSIGNED: Despite high-sensitivity cardiac troponin correctly identifying half of all patients with possible myocardial infarction as being at low risk, only two-thirds of these patients were discharged. Substantial variation in the discharge of patients by age, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and site was observed identifying important opportunities to improve care.
UNASSIGNED: UK Research and Innovation.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores and understands community members\' resilience in outpatient clinics, considering various dimensions and types of resilience.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study.
METHODS: This study was conducted in Saudi outpatient clinics from September to December 2023 and included 384 individuals chosen through systematic random sampling. Various tools were used, such as Social Cohesion and Trust Scale, Community Resilience Assessment Tool, Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences, Environmental Resilience Assessment, Economic Resilience Index, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Brief Resilience Scale, Resilience Scale for Adults and Healthcare Resilience Index.
RESULTS: Participants displayed a robust overall resilience level, as indicated by Total Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale score of 63.0 ± 9.0. Additionally, they demonstrated commendable levels of resilience in Total Brief Resilience Scale (56.04 ± 8.6), Resilience Scale for Adults (82.5 ± 7.2) and Healthcare Resilience Index (45.8 ± 5.5). These findings offer significant insights into psychological and emotional well-being of the study population, highlighting their adaptive capacities and coping mechanisms across various life domains.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable insights into the multidimensional nature of resilience in outpatient settings. The cross-sectional design sets the groundwork for future longitudinal investigations, highlighting the need for a holistic approach to understanding and promoting resilience.
CONCLUSIONS: This study holds immediate implications for participants and their communities. It underscores the adaptive capacities and coping mechanisms prevalent in the outpatient population by revealing commendable resilience levels. This insight enhances individuals\' psychological and emotional well-being, contributing positively to the overall resilience and communal strength. Additionally, this study sheds light on how resilience among community members in Saudi Arabia relates to international advanced nursing communities, providing insight into their work.
UNASSIGNED: Patients who have received outpatient services in the past 6 months were purposively chosen to ensure a diverse representation across age, gender and socio-economic backgrounds in this study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with signs or symptoms (s/s) of suspected preeclampsia are not diagnosed with preeclampsia. We sought to determine and compare the prevalence of s/s, pregnancy outcomes, and costs between patients with and without diagnosed preeclampsia.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed a large insurance research database. Pregnancies with s/s of preeclampsia versus a confirmed preeclampsia diagnosis were identified using International Classification of Diseases codes. S/s include hypertension, proteinuria, headache, visual symptoms, edema, abdominal pain, and nausea/vomiting. Pregnancies were classed as 1) s/s of preeclampsia without a confirmed preeclampsia diagnosis (suspicion only), 2) s/s with a confirmed diagnosis (preeclampsia with suspicion), 3) diagnosed preeclampsia without s/s recorded (preeclampsia only), and 4) no s/s, nor preeclampsia diagnosis (control).
RESULTS: Of 1,324,424 pregnancies, 29.2 % had ≥1 documented s/s of suspected preeclampsia, and 14.2 % received a preeclampsia diagnosis. Hypertension and headache were the most common s/s, leading 20.2 % and 9.2 % pregnancies developed to preeclampsia diagnosis, respectively. Preeclampsia, with or without suspicion, had the highest rates of hypertension-related severe maternal morbidity (HR [95 % CI]: 3.0 [2.7, 3.2] and 3.6 [3.3, 4.0], respectively) versus controls. A similar trend was seen in neonatal outcomes such as preterm delivery and low birth weight. Cases in which preeclampsia was suspected but not confirmed had the highest average total maternal care costs ($6096 [95 % CI: 602, 6170] over control).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence but poor selectivity of traditional s/s of preeclampsia, highlighting a clinical need for improved screening method and cost-effectiveness disease management.

BACKGROUND: Commuting time to treatment has been shown to affect healthcare outcomes such as engagement and initiation. The purpose of this study is to extend this line of research to investigate the effects of driving time to opioid programs on treatment outcomes.
METHODS: We analyzed discharge survey data from 22,587 outpatient opioid use disorder treatment episodes (mainly methadone) in Los Angeles County and estimated the associated driving time to each episode using Google Maps. We used multivariable logistic regressions to examine the association between estimated driving time and odds of treatment completion after adjusting for possible confounders.
RESULTS: Findings show an average driving time of 11.32 min and an average distance of 11.18 km. We observed differences in estimated driving time across age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Young, male, less formally educated, and Medi-Cal-ineligible clients drove longer to treatment. A 10-min drive was associated with a 33% reduction in the completion of methadone treatment plans (p < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: This systemwide analysis provides novel time estimates of driving-based experiences and a strong relationship with completion rates in methadone treatment. Specifically, the result showing reduced treatment completion rates for drive times longer than 10 min may inform policies regarding the ideal geographic placement of methadone-based treatment programs and service expansion initiatives.

In the context of a pandemic, the rapid development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is critical. The guideline development process includes prioritization of the guideline topic, questions and health outcomes. This case study describes the application of a new methodology to prioritize questions and rate the importance of health outcomes for a COVID-19 dental guideline.
Panel members rated the topic and the questions\' overall importance, using a 9-point scale (1 = least important; 9 = most important). In addition, they rated six criteria if multiple questions received the same overall importance rating: common in practice, uncertainty in practice, variation in practice, new evidence available, cost consequences, not previously addressed. Panellists also rated the importance of each outcome, defined with health outcome descriptors, using a 9-point scale and the utility of health outcomes on a visual analogue scale. The correlation between each criterion and overall question importance was tested by Spearman correlation coefficient.
Of seven topics, four were rated as high priority and three were rated as important, but not of high priority. Thirty-six percent of the questions (18/50) were rated as high priority to address in the guideline and 64% (32/50) were rated as an important question but not of high priority. Of the 11 outcomes, 72.7% were rated as critical for decision making. The mean utility rating was 0.57 (SD 0.32), with a minimum mean rating of 0.16 and a maximum of 0.76 (SD 0.23).
This case study demonstrated that this approach provides a rigorous and transparent methodology to conduct the prioritizations of guideline topics, questions and health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The economic and clinical benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery are proven, yet may be underutilized in appropriate cases, especially in the elderly. Since the elderly constitute the greatest colorectal surgical volume, our goal was to identify trends in utilization and impact of laparoscopy in this cohort.
METHODS: A national review of elective inpatient colorectal resections from the Premier Inpatient Database between 2010 and 2015 was performed. Patients were included if elderly (≥ 65 years), then grouped into open or laparoscopic procedures. The main outcome measures were trends in utilization by approach and total costs for the episode of care, length of stay (LOS), readmission, and complications by approach in the elderly. Multivariable regression models controlled for differences across platforms, adjusting for patient demographic, comorbidities and hospital characteristics.
RESULTS: In 70,655 elderly patients evaluated, laparoscopic adoption remained lower than open throughout the study period. Rates increased until 2013, then declined, with increasing rates of open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower mean total costs ($4012 less/case), complications and readmissions (36% and 33% less, respectively), and shorter LOS (2.6 less days) than open cases (all p < 0.0001). When complications occurred, they were less severe and the readmission episodes were less costly with laparoscopy than open colorectal surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of laparoscopy in the elderly has lagged behind open surgery and even declined in recent years despite being associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost. With this tremendous value proposition to increase use of laparoscopic surgery in the elderly, further work needs to evaluate root causes of the disparity.

There is increasing concern that sedatives commonly used during critical illness may be neurotoxic during the period of early brain development. The Sedation strategy and cognitive outcome after critical illness in early childhood (RESTORE-cognition) study is a prospective cohort study designed to examine the relationships between sedative exposure during pediatric critical illness and long-term neurocognitive outcomes. We assess multiple domains of neurocognitive function 2.5-5 years post-hospital discharge, at a single time point and depending on participant and clinician availability, in up to 500 subjects who had normal baseline cognitive function, were aged 2 weeks to 8 years at pediatric intensive care unit admission, and were enrolled in a cluster randomized controlled trial of a sedation protocol (the RESTORE trial; U01 HL086622 and HL086649). In addition, to provide comparable data on an unexposed group with similar baseline biological characteristics and environment, we are studying matched, healthy siblings of RESTORE patients. Our goal is to increase understanding of the relationships between sedative exposure, critical illness, and long-term neurocognitive outcomes in infants and young children by studying these subjects 2.5 to 5 years after their index hospitalization. This paper highlights the design challenges in conducting comprehensive neurocognitive assessment procedures across a broad age span at multiple testing centers across the United States. Our approach, which includes building interprofessional teams and novel cohort retention strategies, may be of help in future longitudinal trials.

Exercise ECG (Ex-ECG) is advocated by guidelines for patients with low - intermediate probability of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, there are no randomized studies comparing Ex-ECG with exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) evaluating long term cost-effectiveness of each management strategy.
Accordingly, 385 patients with no prior CAD and low-intermediate probability of CAD (mean pre-test probability 34%), were randomized to undergo either Ex-ECG (194 patients) or ESE (191 patients). The primary endpoint was clinical effectiveness defined as the positive predictive value (PPV) for the detection of CAD of each test. Cost-effectiveness was derived using the cumulative costs incurred by each diagnostic strategy during a mean of follow up of 3.0 years.
The PPV of ESE and Ex-ECG were 100% and 64% (p = 0.04) respectively for the detection of CAD. There were fewer clinic (31 vs 59, p < 0.01) and emergency visits (14 vs 30, p = 0.01) and lower number of hospital bed days (8 vs 29, p < 0.01) in the ESE arm, with fewer patients undergoing coronary angiography (13.4% vs 6.3%, p = 0.02). The overall cumulative mean costs per patient were £796 for Ex-ECG and £631 for ESE respectively (p = 0.04) equating to a >20% reduction in cost with an ESE strategy with no difference in the combined end-point of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization and hospitalization for chest pain between ESE and Ex-ECG (3.2% vs 3.7%, p = 0.38).
In patients with low to intermediate pretest probability of CAD and suspected angina, an ESE management strategy is cost-effective when compared with Ex-ECG during long term follow up.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) contributes to morbidity and mortality, and its care is often suboptimal and/or delayed. The Acute Kidney Outreach to Reduce Deterioration and Death (AKORDD) study is a large pilot testing provision of early specialist advice, to improve outcomes for patients with AKI.
This before and after study will test an Outreach service for adult patients with AKI, identified using the national algorithm. During the 2-month before phase, AKI outcomes (30-day mortality, need for dialysis or AKI stage deterioration) will be observed in the intervention and control hospitals and their respective community areas; no interventions will be delivered. Patients will receive good standard care. During the 5-month after phase, the intervention will be delivered to patients with AKI in the intervention hospital and its area. Patients with AKI in the control hospital and its area will continue to have good standard care only. Patients already on dialysis and at end of life will be excluded. The interventions will be initially delivered via a phone call, with or without a visit to the primary clinician, aiming at rapidly establishing the aetiology, correcting reversible causes and conducting further appropriate investigation. Surviving stage 3 patients will be followed-up in an AKI clinic. We will conduct qualitative research using focus group-based discussions with primary and secondary care clinicians during the early and late phases of the trial. This will help break down potential barriers and improve care delivery.
Patients will be contacted about the study allowing them to \'opt out\'. The work of an Outreach team, guided by AKI alerts and delivering timely advice to clinicians, may improve outcomes. If the results suggest that benefits are delivered by an AKI Outreach team, this study will lead to a full cluster randomised trial.
NCT02398682: Pre-results.