Project description:ProblemVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of potentially preventable mortality, morbidity, and increased medical costs. Risk-appropriate prophylaxis can prevent most VTE events, but only a small fraction of patients at risk receive this treatment.DesignProspective quality improvement programme.SettingJohns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Strategies for changeA multidisciplinary team established a VTE Prevention Collaborative in 2005. The collaborative applied the four step TRIP (translating research into practice) model to develop and implement a mandatory clinical decision support tool for VTE risk stratification and risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis for all hospitalised adult patients. Initially, paper based VTE order sets were implemented, which were then converted into 16 specialty-specific, mandatory, computerised, clinical decision support modules.Key measures for improvementVTE risk stratification within 24 hours of hospital admission and provision of risk-appropriate, evidence based VTE prophylaxis.Effects of changeThe VTE team was able to increase VTE risk assessment and ordering of risk-appropriate prophylaxis with paper based order sets to a limited extent, but achieved higher compliance with a computerised clinical decision support tool and the data feedback which it enabled. Risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis increased from 26% to 80% for surgical patients and from 25% to 92% for medical patients in 2011.Lessons learntA computerised clinical decision support tool can increase VTE risk stratification and risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis among hospitalised adult patients admitted to a large urban academic medical centre. It is important to ensure the tool is part of the clinician's normal workflow, is mandatory (computerised forcing function), and offers the requisite modules needed for every clinical specialty.
Project description:Integrase inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended by expert panels as initial therapy for people with HIV. Because there can be disparities in prescribing and uptake of novel and/or recommended therapies, this analysis assessed potential INSTI prescribing disparities using a combined data set from the Johns Hopkins HIV Clinical Cohort and the DC Cohort. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with ever being prescribed an INSTI. Disparities were noted, including clinic location, age, and being transgender. Identifying disparities may allow clinicians to focus their attention on these individuals and ensure that therapy decisions are grounded in valid clinical reasons.
Project description:PurposeThe use of radiation therapy (RT) in consolidating oligometastatic prostate cancer (OPCa) is a rapidly evolving treatment paradigm. We review our institutional experience using metastasis-directed therapy in the definitive management of men with OPCa.Methods and materialsPatients with OPCa treated with definitive RT were included. The Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed to assess biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and time to next intervention. Cumulative incidence functions were used to calculate rates of local failure. Toxicity was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4).ResultsThis study analyzed 156 patients with OPCa and 354 metastatic lesions with median follow-up of 24.6 months. Of 150 patients with toxicity data, 53 (35%) experienced acute grade 1 toxicity, 8 (5%) had grade 2, and none had grade 3 toxicity. Only 13 patients (9%) had late toxicities. At 24 months, the cumulative incidence of local failure was 7.4%. Median bPFS for the entire cohort was 12.9 months and 52% at 1 year. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with prolonged bPFS were peri-RT androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), lower gross tumor volume, and hormone-sensitive (HS) OPCa. Median time to next intervention, including repeat RT, was 21.6 months. Median bPFS for men with HS prostate cancer was 17.2 months compared with 7.2 months in men with castrate-resistant OPCa (P < .0001), and cumulative incidence of local failure at 24 months was lower with HS OPCa (4.8% vs 12.1%; P = .034). We analyzed 28 men with HS OPCa treated with a course of peri-RT ADT (median, 4.3 months) with recovery of testosterone. At a median follow-up of 33.5 months, 20 patients had not developed bPFS, median bPFS had not been reached, and 24-month bPFS was 77%.ConclusionsMetastasis-directed therapy can be effective across a wide range of OPCa subtypes, but with differential efficacy. Further study is warranted to investigate the use of RT across the wide range of patients with OPCa.
Project description:Faculty value equitable and transparent policies for determining salaries and expect their compensation to compare favorably to the marketplace. Academic institutions use compensation to recruit and retain talented faculty as well as to reward accomplishment. Institutions are therefore working to decrease salary disparities that appear arbitrary or reflect long-standing biases and to identify metrics for merit-based remuneration. Ours is a large academic pathology department with 97 tenure-track faculty. Faculty salaries are comprised of 3 parts (A + B + C). Part A is determined by the type of appointment and years at rank; part B recognizes defined administrative, educational, or clinical roles; and part C is a bonus to reward and incentivize activities that forward the missions of the department and medical school. A policy for part C allocations was first codified and approved by department faculty in 1993. It rewarded performance using a semiquantitative scale, based on subjective evaluations of the department director (chair) in consultation with deputy directors (vice chairs) and division directors. Faculty could not directly calculate their part C, and distributions data were not widely disclosed. Over the last 2 years (2015-2017), we have implemented a more objective formula for quantifying an earned part C, which is primarily designed to recognize scholarship in the form of research productivity, educational excellence, and clinical quality improvement. Here, we share our experience with this approach, reviewing part C calculations as made for individual faculty members, providing a global view of the resulting allocations, and considering how the process and outcomes reflect our values.