scholarly journals British Gynaecological Cancer Society recommendations for women with gynecological cancer who received non-standard care during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. ijgc-2021-002942
Author(s):  
Alexandra Taylor ◽  
Sudha S Sundar ◽  
Rebecca Bowen ◽  
Rick Clayton ◽  
Sarah Coleridge ◽  
...  

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pressures on clinical services required adaptation to how care was prioritised and delivered for women with gynecological cancer. This document discusses potential ‘salvage’ measures when treatment has deviated from the usual standard of care. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society convened a multidisciplinary working group to develop recommendations for the onward management and follow-up of women with gynecological cancer who have been impacted by a change in treatment during the pandemic. These recommendations are presented for each tumor type and for healthcare systems, and the impact on gynecological services are discussed. It will be important that patient concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on their cancer pathway are acknowledged and addressed for their ongoing care.

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S61-S61
Author(s):  
Evan D Robinson ◽  
Heather L Cox ◽  
April E Attai ◽  
Lindsay Donohue ◽  
Megan Shah ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Implementation of the Accelerate PhenoTM Gram-negative platform (AXDX) paired with ASP intervention projects to improve time to definitive institutional-preferred antimicrobial therapy (IPT). However, few data describe the impact of discrepant RDT results from standard of care (SOC) methods on antimicrobial prescribing. Here we evaluate the prescribing outcomes for discrepant results following the first year of AXDX + ASP implementation. Methods Consecutive, non-duplicate blood cultures for adult inpatients with GNB BSI following combined RDT + ASP intervention were included (July 2018 – July 2019). AXDX results were emailed to the ASP in real time then released into the EMR upon ASP review and communication with the treating team. SOC identification (ID; Vitek® MS/Vitek® 2) and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST; Trek SensititreTM) followed RDT as the reference standard. IPT was defined as the narrowest susceptible beta-lactam, and a discrepancy was characterized when there was categorical disagreement between RDT and SOC methods. When IPT by AXDX was found to be non-susceptible on SOC, this was characterized as “false susceptible“. Conversely, “false resistance” was assessed when a narrower-spectrum agent was susceptible by SOC. Results were also deemed discrepant when the AXDX provided no/incorrect ID for on-panel organisms, no AST, or a polymicrobial specimen was missed. Results Sixty-nine of 250 patients (28%) had a discrepancy in organism ID or AST: false resistance (9%), false susceptible (5%), no AST (5%), no ID (4%), incorrect ID (2%), and missed polymicrobial (2%). A prescribing impact occurred in 55% of cases (Table 1), where unnecessarily broad therapy was continued most often. Erroneous escalation (7%) and de-escalation to inactive therapy (7%) occurred less frequently. In-hospital mortality occurred in 4 cases, none of which followed an inappropriate transition to inactive therapy. Conclusion Though the AXDX platform provides rapid ID and AST results, close coordination with Clinical Microbiology and continued ASP follow up are needed to optimize therapy. Although uncommon, the potential for erroneous ASP recommendations to de-escalate to inactive therapy following AXDX results warrants further investigation. Disclosures Amy J. Mathers, MD, D(ABMM), Accelerate Diagnostics (Consultant)


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 665-665
Author(s):  
Inmaculada Gallego Jimenez ◽  
Amelia Lopez Ladron ◽  
David Morales Pancorbo ◽  
Eva Fernandez Parra ◽  
Maria Rodriguez de la Borbolla ◽  
...  

665 Background: Bevacizumab, a humanized antibody against the molecular target endotelial growth factor VEGF-A, has incorporated to the standard of care of metastatic colon-rectal cancer (mCRC). A recent study has suggested that the left colon localization of the primary tumor may be a factor associated with a poorer survival in individuals treated against mCRC with bevacizumab including chemotherapy. Our objective was to analyze the impact of the localization of the primary tumor on the survival of patients with mCRC treated with bevacizumab. Methods: Prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in Spain. Twenty-nine consecutive patients with mCRC who started a first-line therapy including bevacizumab were included. Patients were followed up until death, lost to follow-up or the censoring date (31th August, 2013). The primary end-point of the study was death from any cause. Predictors of survival, including the localization of the primary tumor, were assessed. Results: The median (Q1-Q3) age was 59 (52-67) years and 13 (45%) patients were male. Chemotherapy scheme was XELOX in 13 (45%) patients, FOLFOX in 8 (28%), FOLFIRI in 5 (17%), XELIRI in 2 (7%) and capecitabine in 1 (3%) patient. The localization of the primary tumor were distributed as follows: rectum in 6 (21%), sigmoid colon in 9 (31%), left colon in 9 (31%) and right colon in 5 (17%) patients. After a median (Q1-Q3) follow-up of 29 (13-41) months, 19 (66%) patients died. There were no patients lost to the follow-up. The mean (SD) survival in patients with left colon cancer was 25 (8) months whereas it was 47 (7) months in the remaining population (p = 0.1). The low sample size precluded to perform reliable multivariate analyses. Conclusions: Our study suggests that left colon localization of the primary tumor may have a worse prognosis in patients with mCRC treated with bevacizumab. Although no statistically significant differences have been observed, this fact may have been a consequence of the limited power of the analysed sample. Collaborative studies should be perfomed in order to clarify this issue.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8035-8035
Author(s):  
Saad Zafar Usmani ◽  
Thierry Facon ◽  
Shaji Kumar ◽  
Torben Plesner ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
...  

8035 Background: D-Rd significantly reduced the risk of progression/death by 44% in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts vs Rd in the phase 3 MAIA study. To examine the impact of age on efficacy/safety of D-Rd vs Rd in this population, a subgroup analysis was conducted in pts <75 and ≥75 y of age. Methods: Transplant-ineligible NDMM pts were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± DARA; stratification was based on age (<75 vs ≥75 y), ISS (I, II, III), and region (North America vs Other). Pts received 28-day cycles of either R 25 or 10 mg (based on renal function) PO QD on Days 1-21 and either d 40 or 20 mg (based on age or BMI) PO/IV weekly until progression. In the D-Rd arm, pts received daratumumab 16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter until progression. PFS is the primary endpoint. Results: Among 737 randomized pts (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369), 321 (44%) were ≥75 y of age. For D-Rd vs Rd, relative median dose intensity for R was 79% vs 93% for <75 y subgroup and 66% vs 89% for ≥75 y subgroup, respectively. After median follow-up of 28 mo, significant PFS benefit of D-Rd vs Rd was maintained in both <75 and ≥75 y subgroups (Table). Deeper responses and MRD-negative rate (10-5 threshold) remained higher with D-Rd vs Rd in both subgroups (Table). Most common (≥10%; D-Rd/Rd) grade 3/4 TEAEs in ≥75 y pts were neutropenia (60%/41%), lymphopenia (19%/12%), anemia (16%/22%), pneumonia (15%/10%), leukopenia (12%/6%), and thrombocytopenia (8%/11%). Fewer pts receiving D-Rd vs Rd discontinued treatment due to TEAEs (<75 y: 5% vs 12%; ≥75 y: 10% vs 21%). Conclusions: D-Rd pts received less R vs Rd group regardless of age. Efficacy of D-Rd in <75 and ≥75 y pts was consistent with the ITT population, and D-Rd demonstrated acceptable tolerability regardless of age. Together with the phase 3 ALCYONE study, these studies confirm clinical benefit of daratumumab plus standard-of-care in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts ≥75 y of age. Clinical trial information: NCT02252172. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1676-1676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽  
Dong-Wook Kim ◽  
Surapol Issaragrisil ◽  
Richard E Clark ◽  
Josy Reiffers ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1676 Background: Pts treated with nilotinib in the ENESTnd phase 3 trial achieved higher and faster rates of major molecular response (MMR, ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS), deeper molecular responses (MR4, ≤ 0.01%IS and MR4.5, ≤ 0.0032%IS), significantly lower rates of progression to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), and fewer CML-related deaths compared with imatinib by 1, 2, and 3 y. Here, we report data with a minimum follow-up of 3 y; efficacy and safety data based on longer follow-up of 4 y will be presented to further assess the impact of nilotinib vs imatinib in pts with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP. Methods: Adult pts (N = 846) with newly-diagnosed Ph+ CML-CP were randomized to nilotinib 300 mg twice daily (BID; n = 282), nilotinib 400 mg BID (n = 281), or imatinib 400 mg once daily (QD; n = 283). MMR, MR4, MR4.5, time to progression to AP/BC, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results: Significantly higher rates of MMR, MR4, and MR4.5 by 3 y were achieved in nilotinib- vs imatinib-treated pts (Table). Nilotinib led to the achievement of higher rates of molecular responses regardless of Sokal risk group or age. The difference in the rates of both MR4 and MR4.5 continued to be significantly higher for nilotinib, with the difference in favor of nilotinib increasing from 1 to 3 y (MR4: 9%-14% difference by 1 y, 18%-24% difference by 3 y; MR4.5: 6%-10% difference by 1 y, 13%-17% difference by 3 y). Among patients who achieved MMR, more pts achieved MR4 or MR4.5 on nilotinib 300 mg BID (68%) and nilotinib 400 mg BID (62%) compared with imatinib (49%). No pt in any arm progressed after achieving MR4.5. Significantly fewer pts progressed to AP/BC on nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). No new progressions occurred on core treatment between the 2-y and 3-y analyses. When events occurring after treatment discontinuation were included, the rates of progression to AP/BC were also significantly lower with nilotinib vs imatinib (Table). Nearly twice as many pts had emergent mutations on imatinib (n = 21) vs either nilotinib arm (n = 11 in each arm), with 5 pts overall developing mutations between 2 and 3 y. OS remained similar in all groups at 3 y, but fewer CML-related deaths occurred in both the nilotinib 300 mg BID (n = 5) and 400 mg BID (n = 4) arms vs imatinib (n = 14). Both drugs were well tolerated. Few new adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities were observed between 2 and 3 y. Rates of discontinuation due to AEs were 10%, 14%, and 11% in the nilotinib 300 mg BID, nilotinib 400 mg BID, and imatinib arms, respectively. Conclusions: Nilotinib continues to demonstrate superiority vs imatinib, yielding faster and deeper molecular responses and a significantly decreased risk of progression. Results of ENESTnd support the use of nilotinib as a standard of care option in newly diagnosed adult pts with Ph+ CML-CP and should be considered to replace imatinib as the standard-of-care frontline therapy for patients with Ph+ CML-CP. Disclosures: Kantarjian: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Kim:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ARIAD: Research Funding; II-Yang: Research Funding. Clark:Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reiffers:BMS: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other; Novartis: Expense reimbursement for travel expenses, Expense reimbursement for travel expenses Other. Nicolini:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hughes:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; CSL: Research Funding. Hochhaus:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kemp:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Fan:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment. Waltzman:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Saglio:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Larson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0228428
Author(s):  
Megan E. D’Innocenzo ◽  
Jonathan L. Pearlman ◽  
Yasmin Garcia-Mendez ◽  
Stephanie Vasquez-Gabela ◽  
Christina Zigler ◽  
...  

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that only 17–37% of the approximately 77 million people who need a wheelchair have access to one. Many organizations are trying to address this need through varying service delivery approaches. For instance, some adhere to WHO’s recommended 8-steps service approach while others provide wheelchairs with little to no service. There is limited and sometimes conflicting evidence of the impact of the WHO’s recommendations on the outcomes of wheelchair provision. To help build this evidence, we \explored outcomes of two groups of users who received their wheelchairs through two service models over time. The 8-Steps group (n = 118) received a wheelchair selected from a range of models from service providers trained using the WHO process, and the standard of care (SOC) group (n = 24) received hospital-style wheelchairs and without clinical service. Interviews were conducted at baseline and at follow-up 3 to 6 months after provision, to collect data about wheelchair usage, satisfaction, skills, maintenance and repairs, and life satisfaction. Across-group statistical comparisons were not appropriate due to significant differences between groups. In general, participants used their wheelchairs every day but reported very low mobility levels (<500 meters for the 8-steps group, and <100 meters for the SOC group.) The 8-steps group used their wheelchair for either between 1–3 hours per day, or more than 8 hours per day. The SOC used it between 1 and 3 hours per day. Overall, wheelchair usage and wheelchair skills decreased over the 3- to 6-month data collection timeline. Wheelchair breakdowns were common in both groups emphasizing the need for maintenance, occurring more frequently in the 8-Steps (28.8%) compared to the SOC group (8%), and emphasizing the need for maintenance services. No significant differences were found when comparing device satisfaction across wheelchairs types. Our results emphasize the need for routine maintenance to address frequent wheelchair breakdowns. Our results also demonstrate a large disparity in several outcome variables across groups which motivates future studies where across-group comparisons are possible.


2022 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhan-Miao Yi ◽  
Sarah Willis ◽  
Yuan Zhang ◽  
Na Liu ◽  
Qi-Yu Tang ◽  
...  

Objective: To identify the impact of a collaborative pharmaceutical care service (CPCS) on medication safety and establish the impact of the CPCS on patient reported outcomes for Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients.Methods: Initially, PD outpatients receiving the CPCS between March 2017 and March 2019 were compared with PD patients receiving standard of care to identify differences in management. Pharmacist interventions data were coded and patients with PD receiving the CPCS were compared with those receiving standard of care to determine differences in medicines prescribed and dosage associated with these. Following this, data of patients receiving CPCS at baseline and 3-months follow-up were collected using a questionnaire consisting of validated measures of two patient-reported outcomes [adherence and quality of life (QoL)]. Mean scores for continuous variables were calculated, with descriptive analysis of categorical variables consisting of frequency counts and percentages. Change in adherence score before and after CPCS was investigated using a Wilcoxon sign rank sum test, spearman correlation analysis was used to correlate the changes in QoL before and after CPCS with the number of interventions, and p &lt; 0.05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant.Results: A total of 331 PD outpatients received CPCS over 490 outpatient visits with an average age of 71.83 (±12.54). Five hundred and forty-five drug related problems were recorded as pharmacist interventions, of which most involved change to dosage (n = 226, 41.47%), adverse drug reactions (n = 135, 24.77%), and change in a medication (n = 102, 18.72%). Compared with those receiving standard of care, patients receiving CPCS were significantly less likely to have been prescribed pramipexole (18.52 versus 23.77%, p &lt; 0.001) and more likely to have been prescribed amantadine (5.40 versus 3.70%, p = 0.02) and selegiline (17.36 versus 11.64%, p &lt; 0.001). Lower dosages of levodopa/benserazide (0.51 ± 0.31 g versus 0.84 ± 0.37 g, p &lt; 0.001), levodopa/carbidopa (0.33 ± 0.23 g versus 0.66 ± 0.47 g, p &lt; 0.001), pramipexole (1.14 ± 1.63 mg versus 1.27 ± 0.69 mg, p = 0.01), and entacapone (130.00 ± 79.76 mg versus 173.09 ± 97.86 mg, p &lt; 0.001) were also recorded. At baseline 119 PD outpatients with an average age of 69.98 (±9.90) were recruited for the longitudinal study. At 3-month follow-up, participants reported improvement in bodily pain subscale (baseline versus 3-months follow-up, 30.04 ± 22.21 versus 23.01 ± 20.98, p = 0.037) and medication adherence (6.19 ± 1.50 versus 6.72 ± 1.73, p = 0.014). Frequency of CPCS use was related to activity of daily living subscale (p = 0.047), the bodily pain subscale (p = 0.026), and medication adherence (p = 0.011). Total score of PDQ-39 was associated with patient education (p = 0.005) and usage and dosage combined with patient education (p = 0.006), while medication adherence score was associated with usage and dosage (p = 0.005).Conclusion: The CPCS was effective in resolving drug-related problems and in improving patients’ medication regimens, medication adherence, and QoL through patient education and dosage adjustments. This is the first step in the development and feasibility testing of pharmacy services for PD patients in China.


2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nora H. Sharaya ◽  
Megan F. Dorrell ◽  
Nick A. Sciacca

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to determine the change in the adherence questionnaire score from the initial pharmacist intervention to 60 to 90 days follow-up. The secondary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of the type of pharmacist intervention on questionnaire scores. Methods: Administration of an adherence questionnaire to guide interventions has become the standard of care for patients during appointments with clinical pharmacy specialists at 3 primary care clinics. Subjects who received a questionnaire between November 4, 2013, and January 15, 2014, were included. These subjects received a second questionnaire 60 to 90 days after the first questionnaire to identify changes resulting from the pharmacist’s interventions. A scoring system was utilized to quantify patients’ responses to both the preintervention and postintervention questionnaires. The type of intervention completed was determined at each pharmacist’s clinical discretion. Results: Adherence scores increased significantly 60 to 90 days after administration of the questionnaire with a pharmacist’s intervention. Medication reminders, simplifying medication regimens, discount program referrals, disease-state information, medication information, and therapeutic interchanges, all increased adherence scores. Conclusion: A standardized tool to assess and address adherence was effectively utilized by 9 pharmacists at 3 clinics. The use of a standardized tool to guide adherence interventions is an effective way to increase adherence to medication therapy.


Author(s):  
Linda Gordon ◽  
Nicole Ansani-Jankowski

Background: Depression affects up to 20% of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes mellitus (DM), and congestive heart failure (CHF); and is associated with poorer health outcomes. HEDIS Depression Care Measure Set includes the utilization of PHQ-9 survey to monitor depression and appropriate treatment and follow-up. The goal of this program is to design, implement, and measure the success of a quality improvement (QI) initiative addressing HEDIS depression measures in the cardiovascular (CV) population. Methods: First an analysis of current practice and HEDIS compliance was conducted; 2. A plan was developed to address gaps in care; 3. A QI program was executed in the cardiac catheter lab; and 4. Outcome measures and methods to determine program success were designed. Results: Current practice analysis of the catheter lab revealed that depression screening, monitoring, and follow-up were not routinely conducted. Further, it was identified that the PHQ-9 screener was available in the EMR system but not being utilized. Therefore, a QI program was designed with the following components: 1. Patients > 18 years old receive the PHQ-9 upon discharge from the catheter lab; 2. If a patient scores > 10 on the PHQ-9 they receive education and are scheduled for follow-up; 3. A clinical database collects information on Framingham risk scores, CV risks, PHQ-9 scores, medical history, and biometric data. These data are then used to provide customized CV care plans including depression education; 4. A shared medical appointment (SMA) format provides additional depression education and follow-up. This program was executed in January 2014. The outcomes plan evaluates the impact of this QI program on HEDIS goal attainment and CV care. A control group receives screening, initial education, and standard of care. The intervention group receives screening, initial education, entry into the disease management database, customized education, therapeutic lifestyle counselling, and participation in the SMA focusing on depression. Currently 39 patients are enrolled in each arm. Interim analysis reveals 100% depression screening in both groups and high rates of follow-up in the intervention group (2 initial components of the HEDIS goals). Conclusions: Implementing a multi-faceted depression screening and follow-up QI program addresses HEDIS goals and has shown initial success in closing identified gaps in care. Future implications include a comparative analysis of the QI program to standard of care on composite HEDIS depression measures and CV goal attainment.


2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1575-1575
Author(s):  
S. Hopkins ◽  
S. Gertler ◽  
G. Nicholas

1575 Background: The NCIC CE.3/EORTC 22981/26981 was open during the time period of August 2000 to March 2002. When the study closed, there existed a gap in care that did not address the ongoing management of patients (pts) with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) that had been surgically excised. As a result of this gap, it was decided that the adjuvant use of temozolomide (TMZ) was to become the standard of care at our centre due to its lack of perceived toxicities and early evidence for its activity. Methods: An analysis was performed of all pts with GBM that were seen at the centre from 1998 to the summer of 2005. In total, 240 pts were identified across multiple medical and radiation oncologists. 75 pts were treated with radiotherapy (RAD) alone post surgery, 86 pts were treated with RAD + TMZ post surgery, 18 pts only had surgery and the remaining pts were unresectable. Average age was 59.7 years for pts treated only with RAD, and 54.6 years for those treated with TMZ + RAD (p = 0.028). 59% of pts treated with RAD were male, while 62% treated with RAD + TMZ were male. Median follow-up was 11.3 months for RAD and 15.7 months for TMZ + RAD (p = 0.0001816). Preliminary survival analysis demonstrates a 56% reduction in the risk of death for pts treated with TMZ + RAD when compared to RAD (log rank p = 9.6 × 10−6). Median survival was 12.7 months for pts treated with RAD and 27 months for pts treated with TMZ + RAD (see table ). A further analysis including recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) and duration of therapy post RAD will be attempted to confirm the similarities between the two groups. Conclusion: Adjuvant TMZ + RAD has increased overall survival by 14.3 months in our institution. Further analysis is necessary to determine the impact on duration of therapy of TMZ. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]


2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 738-744
Author(s):  
Lindsey E. Wiegmann ◽  
Matthew S. Belisle ◽  
Kristin S. Alvarez ◽  
Neelima J. Kale

Previous studies have shown pharmacists positively impact 30-day readmission rates. However, there is limited data regarding the effect of clinical pharmacist (CP) follow-up on 90-day readmission or evaluation of disease-specific goals after hospitalization. Investigators analyzed the impact of postdischarge extended CP follow-up within a family medicine service (FMS). The primary end point was all-cause 90-day readmission rates. Secondary end points included all-cause 30- and 60-day readmission rates and the achievement of disease-specific goals postdischarge. Retrospective chart review was performed for patients admitted from August 2016 to November 2017 who were seen by a physician within the FMS 14 days postdischarge. Fourteen percent of patients within the CP intervention group were readmitted within 90 days in comparison to 22% in the standard of care group ( P = .244). Readmission rates at 30 and 60 days were as follows: intervention group 2%, 10%, and standard of care group 16%, 22% ( P = .015, P = .089, respectively). In addition, multiple patients with uncontrolled diabetes who completed CP visits upon hospital discharge met glycemic goals at the end of the study time period. Despite inclusion of the CP in postdischarge care, 90-day readmission rate remained unchanged.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document