No abstract

Background and Objectives: Discharge delay of hospitalized patients is costly, inefficient, and can impede care of pending admissions. Through pharmacist colocation and daily discharge medication reconciliation meetings, we aimed to improve discharge efficiency and decrease the number of electronic pages. Methods: We conducted a quality improvement initiative on the family medicine inpatient teaching service at a large academic medical center using two interventions: colocation and daily discharge medication reconciliation meetings of pharmacist and family medicine residents. We assessed: (1) discharge delay, defined as the time between discharge order and pharmacist’s completion of discharge medication reconciliation and patient education; (2) the number of electronic messages between the pharmacist and family medicine team, assessed 1 month before and 1 month after implementation of the interventions. We also assessed team members’ postinitiative views on collaboration, discharge safety, and timeliness, and knowledge acquisition using three 5-point Likert statements. Results: Ninety-five preintervention and 54 postintervention patients met eligibility criteria. Discharge delay prior to intervention was 72.7±58.4 minutes and 47.6±37.4 minutes postintervention. The number of electronic messages between pharmacist and family medicine team pager decreased from 118 to 14 during the months studied. Team members felt collaboration, safe and timely discharges, and acquisition of new knowledge improved. Conclusions: Colocation of workspaces and daily medication reconciliation meetings were associated with decreased discharge delay and decreased pages between team members. Further study is needed to assess its reproducibility, impact on resident education and patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, and ability to scale to other services.

Background Hospital medicine (HM) has a well‐described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages. Objective Examine how COVID‐19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists. Design, Settings, and Participants Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US‐based physician first and last authors of COVID‐19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM‐specific journals. Main Outcome and Measures We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM‐specific journals. Results During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US‐based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US‐based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women. Conclusions Across COVID‐19‐related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high‐impact general medical journals. HM‐specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

To determine the degree to which hospitalists published academic manuscripts related to COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic.

considered 4.5 to 7.3 units for mild-to-moderate dry eye disease and 7.3 to 13.4 for moderate-to-severe dry eye disease. Outcomes were measured between 1 and 12 months. No significant improvement in OSDI scoring was noted for the omega-3 supplementation group compared with placebo (mean difference [MD] -2.5 units; 95% CI, -5.1 to 0.2 units). Another subgroup analysis (N570) of two trials compared omega-3 supplementation added to conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone after one and three months of treatment. Mean pretreatment OSDI scores were in the moderate to severity range. Conventional therapy consisted of oncedaily eyelid hygiene plus a once-daily lipid emulsion drop in one trial and artificial tears every four hours and betamethasone 0.1% drops every eight hours in the other trial. Statistically significant but borderline clinical symptom improvement was noted in the omega-3 group plus conventional therapy compared with conventional therapy alone (MD -7.2 units; 95% CI, -14.0 to -0.2 units).A 2019 meta-analysis of 17 RCTs (N53,363) measured the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation versus placebo in the treatment of dry eye disease of varying severity and etiology. 2 The majority of studies were conducted in India and the United States. The EPA dose ranged between 127.5 and 2,000 mg and DHA dose ranged between 99 and 1,000 mg given daily. Mean follow-up occurred at 1 to 12 months. Because of variable reporting methods, results were pooled and converted into a standardized MD (SMD). After pooling of all 17 trials, reductions in dry eye symptom scoring were strongly, significantly higher in the omega-3 supplementation group compared with placebo (SMD 0.97; 95% CI, 0.55-1.4; I 2 596%).The largest multicenter, double-blind RCT (n5535) to date comparing 3,000 mg of omega-3 supplementation versus placebo included in both reviews above was extended to evaluate effects of discontinuing omega-3 supplements compared with placebo after the study's initial 12-month phase. 3 Patients who completed the initial study's 12-month follow-up visit and who were assigned to the omega-3 treatment arm of the trial were eligible to participate. Of the original participants, 43 participants chose to participate in the extension study. The extension study population was similar to the original RCT with mean age of 58 years old. Patients were then randomized to either receive an additional 12 months of omega-3 supplementation or placebo. No significant difference in OSDI scores was noted between the two groups (MD -0.6 units; 95% CI, -11.0 to 9.5 units) after 12 months.