Mark W. Reid

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)

Low uptake of colorectal cancer screening among African Americans in an integrated Veterans Affairs health care network

BACKGROUND African Americans have the highest incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite guidelines to initiate screening with colonoscopy at age 45 in African Americans, the CRC incidence remains high in this group. OBJECTIVE To examine the rates and predictors of CRC screening uptake as well as time to screening in a population of African Americans and non-African Americans in a health care system that minimizes variations in insurance and access. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System. PATIENTS Random sample (N = 357) of patients eligible for initial CRC screening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Uptake of any screening method; uptake of colonoscopy, in particular; predictors of screening; and time to screening in African Americans and non-African Americans. RESULTS The overall screening rate by any method was 50%. Adjusted rates for any screening were lower among African Americans than non-African Americans (42% vs 58%; odds ratio [OR] 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.77). Colonoscopic screening was also lower in African Americans (11% vs 23%; adjusted OR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77). In addition to race, homelessness, lower service connectedness, taking more prescription drugs, and not seeing a primary care provider within 2 years of screening eligibility predicted lower uptake of screening. Time to screening colonoscopy was longer in African Americans (adjusted hazard ratio 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.75). LIMITATIONS The sample may not be generalizable. CONCLUSIONS We found marked disparities in CRC screening despite similar access to care across races. Despite current guidelines aimed at increasing CRC screening in African Americans, participation in screening remained low, and use of colonoscopy was infrequent.

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.

Development and validation of a disease-targeted quality of life instrument for chronic diverticular disease: the DV-QOL.

BackgroundColonic diverticular disease is typically conceived as acute diverticulitis attacks surrounded by periods of clinical silence. However, evolving data indicate that many patients have persistent symptoms and diminished health-related quality of life (HRQOL) long after acute attacks. We developed a disease-targeted HRQOL measure for symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD)—the diverticulitis quality of life (DV-QOL) instrument.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review to craft a conceptual model of SUDD HRQOL. This was complemented by three focus groups including 45 SUDD patients. We developed items based on our literature search, focus groups, and cognitive debriefings. We administered the items to SUDD patients with persistent symptoms following a confirmed diverticulitis event. We created scales based on factor analysis and evaluated the scales for reliability and validity.ResultsConcept elicitation revealed a range of illness experiences attributed to SUDD. Coding of 20,490 transcribed words yielded a 52-code network with four primary, condition-related concepts: (1) physical symptoms (e.g., bloating); (2) behaviors (e.g., restrictions); (3) cognitions and concerns (e.g., fear); and (4) impact and consequences (e.g., absenteeism, anxiety). Based on patient language, we developed the 17-item DV-QOL instrument. In a cross-sectional validation sample of 197 patients, DV-QOL discriminated between patients with recent versus distant diverticulitis events and correlated highly with Short Form 36 and hospital anxiety and depression scores.ConclusionsPatients with SUDD attribute a wide range of negative psychological, social, and physical symptoms to their condition, both during and after acute attacks; DV-QOL captures these symptoms in a valid, reliable manner.

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.

The impact of cannabis and cannabinoids for medical conditions on health-related quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION The use of cannabis or cannabinoids to treat medical conditions and/or alleviate symptoms is increasingly common. However, the impact of this use on patient reported outcomes, such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL), remains unclear. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, employing guidelines from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We categorized studies based on design, targeted disease condition, and type of cannabis or cannabinoid used. We scored studies based on quality and risk of bias. After eliminating some studies because of poor quality or insufficient data, we conducted meta-analyses of remaining studies based on design. RESULTS Twenty studies met our pre-defined selection criteria. Eleven studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 2322 participants); the remaining studies were of cohort and cross-sectional design. Studies of cannabinoids were mostly RCTs of higher design quality than studies of cannabis, which utilized smaller self-selected samples in observational studies. Although we did not uncover a significant association between cannabis and cannabinoids for medical conditions and HRQoL, some patients who used them to treat pain, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bower disorders have reported small improvements in HRQoL, whereas some HIV patients have reported reduced HRQoL. CONCLUSION The relationship between HRQoL and the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for medical conditions is inconclusive. Some patient populations report improvements whereas others report reductions in HRQoL. In order to inform users, practitioners, and policymakers more clearly, future studies should adhere to stricter research quality guidelines and more clearly report patient outcomes.

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.

Quality of Life, Functioning, and Depressive Symptom Severity in Older Adults With Major Depressive Disorder Treated With Citalopram in the STAR*D Study

OBJECTIVE Major depressive disorder (MDD) can substantially worsen patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and functioning. Prior studies have examined the role of age in MDD by comparing depressive symptom severity or remission rates between younger and older adults. This study examines these outcomes before and after SSRI treatment. On the basis of prior research, we hypothesized that older adults would have worse treatment outcomes in QOL, functioning, and depressive symptom severity and that nonremitters would have worse outcomes. METHODS A retrospective secondary data analysis was conducted from the National Institute of Mental Health-funded Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (July 2001-September 2006). We analyzed data for 2,280 nonpsychotic adults with DSM-IV-TR-defined MDD who received citalopram monotherapy. Older adults were classified as adults aged 65 years and above. All subjects completed patient-reported QOL, functioning, and depressive symptom severity measures at entry and exit. Subjects included 106 older adults and 2,174 adults < 65. MDD remission status posttreatment was also determined. RESULTS Both older adults and adults < 65 experienced significant improvements and medium to large treatment responses across QOL, functioning, and depressive symptom severity (P < .001). Older adults had smaller treatment effect sizes for all outcomes, particularly functioning. Conversely, mean change scores from entry to exit were equivalent across all outcomes. Remitters at exit had significantly better responses to treatment than nonremitters for the majority of outcomes. CONCLUSION Findings suggest that older adults and younger adults have comparable treatment responses to citalopram monotherapy, with significant improvements in patient-reported depressive symptom severity, functioning, and QOL. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00021528.