Objective To describe a single institution’s experience treating arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) of the basal ganglia, thalamus, and insula in a multimodal fasion. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of all deep AVMs treated at our institution between 1997–2011 with attention to patient selection, treatment strategies, and radiographic and functional outcomes. Results 97 patients underwent initial treatment at our institution. 64% presented with hemorrhage. 29% were located in the basal ganglia, 41% in the thalamus, and 30% in the insula. 80% were Spetzler-Martin grade III-IV. Initial treatment was microsurgical resection in 42%, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in 45%, and observation in 12%. Radiographic cure was achieved in 54% after initial surgical or SRS treatment (71% and 23%, respectively) and in 63% after subsequent treatments, with good functional outcomes in 78% (median follow-up 2.2 years). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed treatment group and age as factors associated with radiographic cure, while Spetzler-Martin score and time to follow-up were significantly associated with improved/unchanged functional status at time of last follow-up. Post-treatment hemorrhage occurred in 11% (7% of surgical and 18% of SRS patients). Conclusions Modern treatment of deep AVMs includes a multidisciplinary approach utilizing microsurgery, SRS, embolization, and observation. Supplementary grading adds meaningfully to traditional Spetzler-Martin grading to guide patient selection. Surgical resection is more likely to result in obliteration compared to SRS, and is associated with satisfactory results in highly selected patients.

No abstract

Introduction: As providers transition from "fee-for-service" to "pay-for-performance" models, focus has shifted to improving performance. This trend extends to the emergency department (ED) where visits continue to increase across the United States. Our objective was to determine whether displaying public performance metrics of physician triage data could drive intangible motivators and improve triage performance in the ED. Methods: This is a single institution, time-series performance study on a physician-in-triage system. Individual physician baseline metrics-number of patients triaged and dispositioned per shift-were obtained and prominently displayed with identifiable labels during each quarterly physician group meeting. Physicians were informed that metrics would be collected and displayed quarterly and that there would be no bonuses, punishments, or required training; physicians were essentially free to do as they wished. It was made explicit that the goal was to increase the number triaged, and while the number dispositioned would also be displayed, it would not be a focus, thereby acting as this study's control. At the end of one year, we analyzed metrics. Results: The group's average number of patients triaged per shift were as follows: Q1-29.2; Q2-31.9; Q3-34.4; Q4-36.5 (Q1 vs Q4, p < 0.00001). The average numbers of patients dispositioned per shift were Q1-16.4; Q2-17.8; Q3-16.9; Q4-15.3 (Q1 vs Q4, p = 0.14). The top 25% of Q1 performers increased their average numbers triaged from Q1-36.5 to Q4-40.3 (ie, a statistically insignificant increase of 3.8 patients per shift [p = 0.07]). The bottom 25% of Q1 performers, on the other hand, increased their averages from Q1-22.4 to Q4-34.5 (ie, a statistically significant increase of 12.2 patients per shift [p = 0.0013]). Conclusion: Public performance metrics can drive intangible motivators (eg, purpose, mastery, and peer pressure), which can be an effective, low-cost strategy to improve individual performance, achieve institutional goals, and thrive in the pay-for-performance era.

BACKGROUND: Recent findings on emergency department (ED) patient experience surveys and concerns for the low response rates challenge the quality and reliability of the survey reports. We assessed the consistency of an ED patient experience survey report and identifi ed the effects of patient demographics on ED patient experiences. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study at a university-based ED from July to December 2017. We obtained ED patient experience scores from an institutional version (IS) survey and the Press Ganey Associates-distributed survey (PGA). We compared top box scores from the two reports using frequency analysis and performed multivariable logistic regressions to identify associations between IS patient demographics and scores. RESULTS: We obtained 289 PGA and 234 IS responses. The IS reported signifi cant, higher top box scores in doctor-specifi c patient questions compared to PGA (all four P-values < 0.01). Female, Christian and White patients were more likely to give top box scores (OR 3.07, OR 2.22 and OR 2.41, P-value < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: We found significant differences in ED patient experience scores between the IS and PGA surveys. We recommend that healthcare providers consider patient demographic variables when interpreting ED experience score reports. Multiple survey techniques and distribution methods may be adopted to best capture ED patient experiences.