Bibiana M. Martinez

Feasibility of an Immersive Virtual Reality Intervention for Hospitalized Patients: An Observational Cohort Study

Background Virtual reality (VR) offers immersive, realistic, three-dimensional experiences that “transport” users to novel environments. Because VR is effective for acute pain and anxiety, it may have benefits for hospitalized patients; however, there are few reports using VR in this setting. Objective The aim was to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of VR in a diverse cohort of hospitalized patients. Methods We assessed the acceptability and feasibility of VR in a cohort of patients admitted to an inpatient hospitalist service over a 4-month period. We excluded patients with motion sickness, stroke, seizure, dementia, nausea, and in isolation. Eligible patients viewed VR experiences (eg, ocean exploration; Cirque du Soleil; tour of Iceland) with Samsung Gear VR goggles. We then conducted semistructured patient interview and performed statistical testing to compare patients willing versus unwilling to use VR. Results We evaluated 510 patients; 423 were excluded and 57 refused to participate, leaving 30 participants. Patients willing versus unwilling to use VR were younger (mean 49.1, SD 17.4 years vs mean 60.2, SD 17.7 years; P=.01); there were no differences by sex, race, or ethnicity. Among users, most reported a positive experience and indicated that VR could improve pain and anxiety, although many felt the goggles were uncomfortable. Conclusions Most inpatient users of VR described the experience as pleasant and capable of reducing pain and anxiety. However, few hospitalized patients in this “real-world” series were both eligible and willing to use VR. Consistent with the “digital divide” for emerging technologies, younger patients were more willing to participate. Future research should evaluate the impact of VR on clinical and resource outcomes. ClinicalTrial Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02456987; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02456987 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6iFIMRNh3)

Virtual Reality for Management of Pain in Hospitalized Patients: Results of a Controlled Trial

Background Improvements in software and design and reduction in cost have made virtual reality (VR) a practical tool for immersive, three-dimensional (3D), multisensory experiences that distract patients from painful stimuli. Objective The objective of the study was to measure the impact of a onetime 3D VR intervention versus a two-dimensional (2D) distraction video for pain in hospitalized patients. Methods We conducted a comparative cohort study in a large, urban teaching hospital in medical inpatients with an average pain score of ≥3/10 from any cause. Patients with nausea, vomiting, dementia, motion sickness, stroke, seizure, and epilepsy and those placed in isolation were excluded. Patients in the intervention cohort viewed a 3D VR experience designed to reduce pain using the Samsung Gear Oculus VR headset; control patients viewed a high-definition, 2D nature video on a 14-inch bedside screen. Pre- and postintervention pain scores were recorded. Difference-in-difference scores and the proportion achieving a half standard deviation pain response were compared between groups. Results There were 50 subjects per cohort (N=100). The mean pain reduction in the VR cohort was greater than in controls (−1.3 vs −0.6 points, respectively; P=.008). A total of 35 (65%) patients in the VR cohort achieved a pain response versus 40% of controls (P=.01; number needed to treat=4). No adverse events were reported from VR. Conclusions Use of VR in hospitalized patients significantly reduces pain versus a control distraction condition. These results indicate that VR is an effective and safe adjunctive therapy for pain management in the acute inpatient setting; future randomized trials should confirm benefit with different visualizations and exposure periods. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02456987; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02456987 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pJ1P644S)

Computer-Generated Vs. Physician-Documented History of Present Illness (HPI): Results of a Blinded Comparison

Objectives:Healthcare delivery now mandates shorter visits with higher documentation requirements, undermining the patient–provider interaction. To improve clinic visit efficiency, we developed a patient–provider portal that systematically collects patient symptoms using a computer algorithm called Automated Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Symptoms (AEGIS). AEGIS also automatically “translates” the patient report into a full narrative history of present illness (HPI). We aimed to compare the quality of computer-generated vs. physician-documented HPIs.Methods:We performed a cross-sectional study with a paired sample design among individuals visiting outpatient adult gastrointestinal (GI) clinics for evaluation of active GI symptoms. Participants first underwent usual care and then subsequently completed AEGIS. Each individual thereby had both a physician-documented and a computer-generated HPI. Forty-eight blinded physicians assessed HPI quality across six domains using 5-point scales: (i) overall impression, (ii) thoroughness, (iii) usefulness, (iv) organization, (v) succinctness, and (vi) comprehensibility. We compared HPI scores within patient using a repeated measures model.Results:Seventy-five patients had both computer-generated and physician-documented HPIs. The mean overall impression score for computer-generated HPIs was higher than physician HPIs (3.68 vs. 2.80; P<0.001), even after adjusting for physician and visit type, location, mode of transcription, and demographics. Computer-generated HPIs were also judged more complete (3.70 vs. 2.73; P<0.001), more useful (3.82 vs. 3.04; P<0.001), better organized (3.66 vs. 2.80; P<0.001), more succinct (3.55 vs. 3.17; P<0.001), and more comprehensible (3.66 vs. 2.97; P<0.001).Conclusions:Computer-generated HPIs were of higher overall quality, better organized, and more succinct, comprehensible, complete, and useful compared with HPIs written by physicians during usual care in GI clinics.

Impact of National Institutes of Health Gastrointestinal PROMIS Measures in Clinical Practice: Results of a Multicenter Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES:The National Institutes of Health (NIH) created the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to allow efficient, online measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but it remains untested whether PROMIS improves outcomes. Here, we aimed to compare the impact of gastrointestinal (GI) PROMIS measures vs. usual care on patient outcomes.METHODS:We performed a pragmatic clinical trial with an off-on study design alternating weekly between intervention (GI PROMIS) and control arms at one Veterans Affairs and three university-affiliated specialty clinics. Adults with GI symptoms were eligible. Intervention patients completed GI PROMIS symptom questionnaires on an e-portal 1 week before their visit; PROs were available for review by patients and their providers before and during the clinic visit. Usual care patients were managed according to customary practices. Our primary outcome was patient satisfaction as determined by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included provider interpersonal skills (Doctors’ Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (DISQ)) and shared decision-making (9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9)).RESULTS:There were 217 and 154 patients in the GI PROMIS and control arms, respectively. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups (P>0.05). Intervention patients had similar assessments of their providers’ interpersonal skills (DISQ 89.4±11.7 vs. 89.8±16.0, P=0.79) and shared decision-making (SDM-Q-9 79.3±12.4 vs. 79.0±22.0, P=0.85) vs. controls.CONCLUSIONS:This is the first controlled trial examining the impact of NIH PROMIS in clinical practice. One-time use of GI PROMIS did not improve patient satisfaction or assessment of provider interpersonal skills and shared decision-making. Future studies examining how to optimize PROs in clinical practice are encouraged before widespread adoption.

Preventing Endoscopy Clinic No-Shows: Prospective Validation of a Predictive Overbooking Model

OBJECTIVES:Patient absenteeism for scheduled visits and procedures (“no-show”) occurs frequently in healthcare systems worldwide, resulting in treatment delays and financial loss. To address this problem, we validated a predictive overbooking system that identifies patients at high risk for missing scheduled gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures (“no-shows” and cancellations), and offers their appointments to other patients on short notice.METHODS:We prospectively tested a predictive overbooking system at a Veterans Administration outpatient endoscopy clinic over a 34-week period, alternating between traditional booking and predictive overbooking methods. For the latter, we assigned a no-show risk score to each scheduled patient, utilizing a previously developed logistic regression model built with electronic health record data. To compare booking methods, we measured service utilization—defined as the percentage of daily total clinic capacity occupied by patients—and length of clinic workday.RESULTS:Compared to typical booking, predictive overbooking resulted in nearly all appointment slots being filled—2.5 slots available during control weeks vs. 0.35 slots during intervention weeks, t(161)=4.10, P=0.0001. Service utilization increased from 86% during control weeks to 100% during intervention weeks, allowing 111 additional patients to undergo procedures. Physician and staff overages were more common during intervention weeks, but less than anticipated (workday length of 7.84 h (control) vs. 8.31 h (intervention), t(161)=2.28, P=0.02).CONCLUSIONS:Predictive overbooking may be used to maximize endoscopy scheduling. Future research should focus on adapting the model for use in primary care and specialty clinics.

Does "Decision Fatigue" Impact Manuscript Acceptance? An Analysis of Editorial Decisions by the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Does “Decision Fatigue” Impact Manuscript Acceptance? An Analysis of Editorial Decisions by the American Journal of Gastroenterology

Depression and Coleman Care Transitions Intervention

ABSTRACT The Coleman Care Transitions Intervention (CTI) is a “Patient Activation Model.” Depression can be a barrier to activation and may challenge CTI. This study addressed whether CTI coaches modified the intervention for older adults who screened positive for depression. Over 4,500 clients in a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services demonstration completed screening for depression with the PHQ-9; one in five screened positive (score = 9+). Our findings suggest that coaches modified CTI and played a more directive role for clients who screened positive for depression, resulting in similar 30-day readmission rates among patients who screened positive for depression risk and those who did not. That finding stands in contrast to the widely reported higher readmission rates among people screening positive for depression.