Digoxin did not reduce overall mortality, but it reduced the rate of hospitalization both overall and for worsening heart failure. These findings define more precisely the role of digoxin in the management of chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: This is the largest and only multivariate study evaluating the difference in mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between patients with cancer and patients without cancer in the United States. The objective was to assess COVID-19 mortality rates in patients with cancer versus patients without cancer and uncover possible statistically significant characteristics contributing to mortality. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed patients with cancer and patients without cancer who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from March 1 through April 30, 2020. This was a multicenter study in the state of Louisiana throughout the Ochsner Health System in both tertiary and nontertiary centers. Patients older than 18 years were eligible. Three hundred twelve patients with cancer were compared with 4833 patients without cancer. RESULTS: Mortality was found to be higher in the cancer group. Patients of advanced age with cancer had a significant increase in mortality (odds ratio [OR], 5.96; P < .001). Other significant risk factors for increased mortality were male sex (OR, 2.15), a history of chronic kidney disease (OR, 3.84), and obesity (OR, 1.30). In hospitalized patients with cancer, adverse vital signs on admission, decreased absolute lymphocyte counts, thrombocytopenia, elevated creatinine, lactic acidosis, and elevated procalcitonin all seemed to increase the risk of death. Among patients with cancer, active or progressive disease (P < .001) and recent therapy (OR, 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-5.08) were shown to increase mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer have increased mortality in the setting of infection with SARS-CoV-2 in comparison with patients without cancer. Patients with cancer who are 65 years of age or older and those with certain comorbidities have the greatest risk of death. Recent cancer-directed therapy and disease status also seem to play roles in mortality.

Objective Childhood cancer metrics are currently primarily focused on survival rates and late effects of therapy. Our objectives were to design and test a metric that reflected overall quality and safety performance, across all cancer types, of an oncology–bone marrow transplant service line and to use the metric to drive improvement. Method The Cancer Care Index (CCI) aggregates adverse safety events and missed opportunities for best practices into a composite score that reflects overall program performance without regard to cancer type or patient outcome. Fifteen domains were selected in 3 areas as follows: (1) treatment-related quality and safety, (2) provision of a harm-free environment, and (3) psychosocial support. The CCI is the aggregate number of adverse events or missed opportunities to provide quality care in a given time frame. A lower CCI reflects better care and improved overall system performance. Multidisciplinary microsystem-based teams addressed specific aims for each domain. The CCI was widely followed by all team members, particularly frontline providers. Results The CCI was easy to calculate and deploy and well accepted by the staff. The annual CCI progressively decreased from 278 in 2012 to 160 in 2014, a 42% reduction. Improvements in care were realized across most index domains. Multiple new initiatives were successfully implemented. Conclusions The CCI is a useful metric to document performance improvement across a broad range of domains, regardless of cancer type. By the use of quality improvement science, progressive reduction in CCI has occurred over a 3-year period.

Background Scholarly activity is a requirement for accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. There is currently no uniform definition used by all Residency Review Committees (RRCs). A total of 6 of the 27 RRCs currently have a rubric or draft of a rubric to evaluate scholarly activity. Objective To develop a definition of scholarly activity and a set of rubrics to be used in program accreditation to reduce subjectivity of the evaluation of scholarly activity at the level of individual residency programs and across RRCs. Methods We performed a review of the pertinent literature and selected faculty promotion criteria across the United States to develop a structure for a proposed rubric of scholarly activity, drawing on work on scholarship by experts to create a definition of scholarly activity and rubrics for its assessment. Results The literature review showed that academic institutions in the United States place emphasis on all 4 major components of Boyer's definition of scholarship: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. We feel that the assessment of scholarly activity should mirror these findings as set forth in our proposed rubric. Our proposed rubric is intended to ensure a more objective evaluation of these components of scholarship in accreditation reviews, and to address both expectations for scholarly pursuits for core teaching faculty and those for resident and fellow physicians. Conclusion The aim of our proposed rubric is to ensure a more objective evaluation of these components of scholarship in accreditation reviews, and to address expectations for scholarly pursuits for core teaching faculty as well as those for resident and fellow physicians.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract