Background Industry funders can simply provide money or collaborate in trial design, analysis, or reporting of clinical trials. Our aim was to assess the impact of industry collaboration on trial methodology and results of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Methods We searched PubMed for oncology RCTs published May 2013 to December 2015 in peer-reviewed journals with impact factor > 5 requiring reporting of funder role. Two authors extracted methodologic (primary endpoint; blinding of the patient, clinician, and outcomes assessor; and analysis) and outcome data. We used descriptive statistics and two-sided Fisher exact tests to compare characteristics of trials with collaboration, with industry funding only, and without industry funding. Results We included 224 trials. Compared to those without industry funding, trials with collaboration used more placebo control (RR 3·59, 95% CI [1·88–6·83], p<·0001), intention-to-treat analysis (RR 1·32, 95% CI [1·04–1·67], p=·02), and blinding of patients (RR 3·05, 95% CI [1·71–5·44], p<·0001), clinicians (RR 3·36, 95% CI [1·83–6·16], p=<·001), and outcomes assessors (RR 3·03, 95% CI [1·57–5·83], p=·0002). They did not differ in use of overall survival as a primary endpoint (RR 1·27 95% CI [0·72–2·24]) and were similarly likely to report positive results (RR 1·11 95% CI [0·85–1·46], p=0·45). Studies with funding only did not differ from those without funding. Conclusions Oncology RCTs with industry collaboration were more likely to use some high-quality methods than those without industry funding, with similar rates of positive results. Our findings suggest that collaboration is not associated with trial outcomes and that mandatory disclosure of funder roles may mitigate bias.

As the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread to the US, so too did descriptions of an associated coagulopathy and thrombotic complications. Hospitals created institutional protocols for inpatient management of COVID-19 coagulopathy and thrombosis in response to this developing data. We collected and analyzed protocols from 21 US academic medical centers developed between January and May 2020. We found greatest consensus on recommendations for heparin-based pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients without contraindications. Protocols differed regarding incorporation of D-dimer tests, dosing of VTE prophylaxis, indications for post-discharge pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, how to evaluate for VTE, and the use of empiric therapeutic anticoagulation. These findings support ongoing efforts to establish international, evidence-based guidelines.

This paper demonstrates that POC has limited short-term and long-term systemic toxicity and most of the ocular complications were acute, not delayed. Only two select cases showed long-term complete responses to POC alone and the data do not support the use as monotherapy, although where it was used in combination with other modalities, 39% of the eyes were saved.

No abstract

BackgroundOver-ordering of daily laboratory tests adversely affects patient care through hospital-acquired anaemia, patient discomfort, burden on front-line staff and unnecessary downstream testing. This remains a prevalent issue despite the 2013 Choosing Wisely recommendation to minimise unnecessary daily labs. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify interventions targeting unnecessary laboratory testing.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central and SCOPUS databases to identify interventions focused on reducing daily complete blood count, complete metabolic panel and basic metabolic panel labs. We defined interventions as ‘effective’ if a statistically significant reduction was attained and ‘highly effective’ if a reduction of ≥25% was attained.ResultsThe search yielded 5646 studies with 41 articles that met inclusion criteria. We grouped interventions into one or more categories: audit and feedback, cost display, education, electronic medical record (EMR) change, and policy change. Most interventions lasted less than a year and used a multipronged approach. All five strategies were effective in most studies with EMR change being the most commonly used independent strategy. EMR change and policy change were the strategies most frequently reported as effective. EMR change was the strategy most frequently reported as highly effective.ConclusionOur analysis identified five categories of interventions targeting daily laboratory testing. All categories were effective in most studies, with EMR change being most frequently highly effective.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021254076.

BACKGROUND: Medical centers across the country have had to rapidly adapt clinician staffing strategies to accommodate large influxes of patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 . OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the adaptations and staffing strategies that US academic medical centers employed in the inpatient setting early in the spread of COVID-19, and to assess whether those changes were sustained during the first phase of the pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey assessing organizationlevel, team-level, and clinician-level inpatient workforce adaptations. PARTICIPANTS: Hospital medicine leadership at 27 academic medical centers in the USA. KEY RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 36 centers responded to the survey (75%). Widespread practices included frequent staffing reassessment, organization-level changes such as geographic cohorting and redeployment of nonhospitalists, and exempting high-risk healthcare workers from direct care of patients with COVID-19. Several practices were implemented but discontinued, such as reduction of non-essential services, indicating that they were less sustainable for large centers. CONCLUSION: These findings provide guidance for inpatient leaders seeking to identify sustainable practices for COVID-19 inpatient workforce planning.

Background During the initial wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, care delivery and workforce adaptations were rapidly implemented. In response to subsequent surges of patients, institutions have deployed, modified, and/or discontinued their workforce plans. Objective Using rapid qualitative methods, we sought to explore hospitalists’ experiences with workforce deployment, types of clinicians deployed, and challenges encountered with subsequent iterations of surge planning during the COVID-19 pandemic across a collaborative of hospital medicine groups. Approach Using rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were conducted in partnership with the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). We interviewed physicians, advanced practice providers (APP), and physician researchers about (1) ongoing adaptations to the workforce as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) current struggles with workforce planning, and (3) evolution of workforce planning. Key Results We conducted five focus groups with 33 individuals from 24 institutions, representing 52% of HOMERuN sites. A variety of adaptations was described by participants, some common across institutions and others specific to the institution’s location and context. Adaptations implemented shifted from the first waves of COVID patients to subsequent waves. Three global themes also emerged: (1) adaptability and comfort with dynamic change, (2) the importance of the unique hospitalist skillset for effective surge planning and redeployment, and (3) the lack of universal solutions. Conclusions Hospital workforce adaptations to the COVID pandemic continued to evolve. While few approaches were universally effective in managing surges of patients, and successful adaptations were highly context dependent, the ability to navigate a complex system, adaptability, and comfort in a chaotic, dynamic environment were themes considered most critical to successful surge management. However, resource constraints and sustained high workload levels raised issues of burnout. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07480-x.

Background: The hospitalist workforce has been at the forefront of the pandemic and has been stretched in both clinical and nonclinical domains. We aimed to understand current and future workforce concerns, as well as strategies to cultivate a thriving hospital medicine workforce.Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted qualitative, semistructured focus groups with practicing hospitalists via video conferencing (Zoom). Utilizing components from the Brainwriting Premortem Approach, attendees were split into small focus groups and listed their thoughts about workforce issues that hospitalists may encounter in the next 3 years, identifying the highest priority workforce issues for the hospital medicine community. Each small group discussed the most pressing workforce issues. These ideas were then shared across the entire group and ranked.We used rapid qualitative analysis to guide a structured exploration of themes and subthemes.Results: Five focus groups were held with 18 participants from 13 academic institutions. We identified five key areas: (1) support for workforce wellness; (2) staffing and pipeline development to maintain an adequate workforce to match clinical growth; (3) scope of work, including how hospitalist work is defined and whether the clinical skillset should be expanded; (4) commitment to the academic mission in the setting of rapid and unpredictable clinical growth; and (5) alignment between the duties of hospitalists and resources of hospitals. Hospitalists voiced numerous concerns about the future of our workforce. Several domains were identified as high-priority areas of focus to address current and future challenges.