BackgroundImprovements in software and design and reduction in cost have made virtual reality (VR) a practical tool for immersive, three-dimensional (3D), multisensory experiences that distract patients from painful stimuli.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to measure the impact of a onetime 3D VR intervention versus a two-dimensional (2D) distraction video for pain in hospitalized patients.MethodsWe conducted a comparative cohort study in a large, urban teaching hospital in medical inpatients with an average pain score of ≥3/10 from any cause. Patients with nausea, vomiting, dementia, motion sickness, stroke, seizure, and epilepsy and those placed in isolation were excluded. Patients in the intervention cohort viewed a 3D VR experience designed to reduce pain using the Samsung Gear Oculus VR headset; control patients viewed a high-definition, 2D nature video on a 14-inch bedside screen. Pre- and postintervention pain scores were recorded. Difference-in-difference scores and the proportion achieving a half standard deviation pain response were compared between groups.ResultsThere were 50 subjects per cohort (N=100). The mean pain reduction in the VR cohort was greater than in controls (−1.3 vs −0.6 points, respectively; P=.008). A total of 35 (65%) patients in the VR cohort achieved a pain response versus 40% of controls (P=.01; number needed to treat=4). No adverse events were reported from VR.ConclusionsUse of VR in hospitalized patients significantly reduces pain versus a control distraction condition. These results indicate that VR is an effective and safe adjunctive therapy for pain management in the acute inpatient setting; future randomized trials should confirm benefit with different visualizations and exposure periods.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02456987; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02456987 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pJ1P644S)

BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) offers immersive, realistic, three-dimensional experiences that “transport” users to novel environments. Because VR is effective for acute pain and anxiety, it may have benefits for hospitalized patients; however, there are few reports using VR in this setting.ObjectiveThe aim was to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of VR in a diverse cohort of hospitalized patients.MethodsWe assessed the acceptability and feasibility of VR in a cohort of patients admitted to an inpatient hospitalist service over a 4-month period. We excluded patients with motion sickness, stroke, seizure, dementia, nausea, and in isolation. Eligible patients viewed VR experiences (eg, ocean exploration; Cirque du Soleil; tour of Iceland) with Samsung Gear VR goggles. We then conducted semistructured patient interview and performed statistical testing to compare patients willing versus unwilling to use VR.ResultsWe evaluated 510 patients; 423 were excluded and 57 refused to participate, leaving 30 participants. Patients willing versus unwilling to use VR were younger (mean 49.1, SD 17.4 years vs mean 60.2, SD 17.7 years; P=.01); there were no differences by sex, race, or ethnicity. Among users, most reported a positive experience and indicated that VR could improve pain and anxiety, although many felt the goggles were uncomfortable.ConclusionsMost inpatient users of VR described the experience as pleasant and capable of reducing pain and anxiety. However, few hospitalized patients in this “real-world” series were both eligible and willing to use VR. Consistent with the “digital divide” for emerging technologies, younger patients were more willing to participate. Future research should evaluate the impact of VR on clinical and resource outcomes.ClinicalTrialClinicaltrials.gov NCT02456987; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02456987 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6iFIMRNh3)

Our series of thoracenteses had a very low complication rate. Current clinical guidelines and practice patterns may not reflect evidence-based best practices.

Objectives Therapeutic virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an effective, drug-free tool for pain management, but there is a lack of randomized, controlled data evaluating its effectiveness in hospitalized patients. We sought to measure the impact of on-demand VR versus “health and wellness” television programming for pain in hospitalized patients. Methods We performed a prospective, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial in hospitalized patients with an average pain score of ≥3 out of 10 points. Patients in the experimental group received a library of 21 VR experiences administered using the Samsung Gear Oculus headset; control patients viewed specialized television programming to promote health and wellness. Clinical staff followed usual care; study interventions were not protocolized. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain using a numeric rating scale, as recorded by nursing staff during usual care. Pre- and post-intervention pain scores were compared immediately after initial treatment and after 48- and 72-hours. Results There were 120 subjects (61 VR; 59 control). The mean within-subject difference in immediate pre- and post-intervention pain scores was larger in the VR group (-1.72 points; SD 3.56) than in the control group (-0.46 points; SD 3.01); this difference was significant in favor of VR (P < .04). When limited to the subgroup of patients with severe baseline pain (≥7 points), the effect of VR was more pronounced vs. control (-3.04, SD 3.75 vs. -0.93, SD 2.16 points; P = .02). In regression analyses adjusting for pre-intervention pain, time, age, gender, and type of pain, VR yielded a .59 (P = .03) and .56 (P = .04) point incremental reduction in pain versus control during the 48- and 72-hour post-intervention periods, respectively. Conclusions VR significantly reduces pain versus an active control condition in hospitalized patients. VR is most effective for severe pain. Future trials should evaluate standardized order sets that interpose VR as an early non-drug option for analgesia.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to test whether patient medication adherence, a modifiable risk factor obtainable at hospital admission, predicts readmission within 30 days.Patients and methodsWe used a retrospective cohort study design to test whether patient medication adherence to all chronic medications, as determined by the 4-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4) administered by a pharmacist at the time of hospital admission, predicts 30-day readmissions. We compared readmission rates among 385 inpatients who had their adherence assessed from February 1, 2013, to January 31, 2014. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine the benefit of adding medication adherence to previously published variables that have been shown to predict 30-day readmissions.ResultsPatients with low and intermediate adherence (combined) had readmission rates of 20.0% compared to a readmission rate of 9.3% for patients with high adherence (P=0.005). By adding MMAS-4 data to previously published variables that have been shown to predict 30-day readmissions, we found that patients with low and intermediate medication adherence had an adjusted 2.54-fold higher odds of readmission compared to those in patients with high adherence (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32–4.90, P=0.005). The model’s predictive power, as measured by the c-statistic, improved from 0.65 to 0.70 after adding adherence.ConclusionBecause medication adherence assessed at hospital admission was independently associated with 30-day readmission risk, it offers potential for targeting interventions to improve adherence.

Background: The need for peripheral intravenous (IV) access in anatomically challenging patients is becoming a more commonly encountered clinical problem. The significant investment devoted to physician training for ultrasound-guided vascular access has not yet been matched by a similar commitment to nursing. Nurses, paramedics, and physicians are becoming more enthusiastic about peripheral IV access with ultrasound (PIVUS); however, institutional and clinician support has not yet been forthcoming. The learning curve for PIVUS has never been rigorously studied, and may be flatter than previously assumed. Methods: Registered nurses were selected to participate as trainees. Training involved 1:1 sessions consisting of formal orientation to portable ultrasound, mentoring, and practice sessions with a nurse practitioner who has expertise in ultrasound-guided peripheral vascular access; hands-on, supervised practice cannulating vessels on a nonhuman tissue simulator; and supervised attempts on live patients. Results: Seven of 8 trainees completed the training. The average number of patient encounters required to achieve 10 successful IV placements was 25 (range ¼ 18-32). The average time required for successful vessel cannulation was 19.57 minutes (range ¼ 5-62 minutes). An average of 25 attempts was required to achieve proficiency, and average of 50 cases was required to maintain consistency. Conclusions: In today's practice environment, PIVUS skills are increasingly important. The results of our study demonstrate that, with appropriate hands-on training and supervision, these skills can be effectively taught to registered nurses.

Reorganizing general medical/surgical units to provide team-based interprofessional care can improve outcomes among hospitalized older adults.

A coordinated, interdisciplinary team caring for SNF patients can reduce 30-day hospital readmissions.