Baptist Memorial Health Care

Abstract Objective Prenatal surgical interventions for neural tube defects have been shown to improve fetal outcomes but are associated with previously poorly quantified maternal risk, which is inherently dependent on the surgical approach used. We hypothesized that a meta‐analysis would enable objective quantitation of maternal risk and safety, stratified by which antenatal neural tube defect surgical approaches were employed. Study design We conducted a meta‐analysis by searching PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. We included all studies that performed prenatal intrauterine neural tube defect repair, regardless of the surgical technique. Our primary safety measure outcomes were maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity (inclusive of uterine rupture or dehiscence, blood transfusion, and pulmonary edema). A total of 26 studies published between 2010 and 2024 were selected, prioritizing larger sample sizes and relevant outcomes when populations overlapped. The meta‐analysis was conducted using random‐effects models to account for between‐study heterogeneity, which was quantified using the I 2 statistic; sensitivity analyses and meta‐regression were performed to assess robustness and explore sources of heterogeneity. Analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.0.5). Results Our meta‐analysis included a total of 1485 patients. No occurrence of maternal mortality was reported in any included studies (0/995). Some studies provided comprehensive data for all complications, while others only reported specific outcomes, leading to variation in case denominators: uterine rupture or dehiscence was observed in a pooled proportion of 4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1%–11%), occurring in 7.4% of open surgery cases (53/710), 3.1% of mini‐hysterotomy cases (6/192), and 0% of fetoscopic cases (0/157). Among 872 reported cases, maternal pulmonary edema occurred in 3% (pooled estimate: 0.03; 95% CI, 0.02–0.06). The lowest rate of pulmonary edema was seen with open surgical approaches (20 of 661 cases, 3%), followed by mini‐hysterotomy (2 of 55 cases, 3.6%) and fetoscopic surgeries (15 of 159 cases, 9.4%). Model‐adjusted pooled proportions demonstrated an overall low rate of maternal blood transfusion at 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01–0.05) among 971 cases. Conclusion This study highlights the need for standardized and comprehensive reporting of maternal outcomes in fetal surgery in order to reliably counsel patients on anticipated and acceptable maternal risk. However, despite limited data, our findings suggest that maternal mortality is rare and that severe maternal complications occur infrequently; however, the potential for serious morbidity underscores the need for careful patient selection, counselling, and standardized outcome reporting.

To assess the relationship between checklist-based performance in simulated neurologic emergencies and supervisor- and self-assessed entrustment among neurocritical care (NCC) advanced practice providers (APPs).

Digital health tools are positive for delivering evidence-based care. However, few studies have applied rigorous frameworks to understand their use in community settings. This study aimed to identify implementation determinants of the Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) tool within outpatient oncology settings as part of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. A mixed-methods approach informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) examined barriers and facilitators to AH-HA implementation in four NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices participating in the WF-1804CD AH-HA trial. Provider surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interviews with providers (n=15) were coded using deductive (CFIR) and inductive codes by trained analysts. The CFIR rating tool was used to rate each quote for (i) valence, defined as a positive (+) or negative (-) influence, and (ii) strength, defined as a neutral (0), weak (1), or strong (2) influence on implementation. All providers considered discussing cardiovascular health with patients as important (61.5%, n=8/13) or somewhat important (38.5%, n=5/13). The tool was well-received by providers and was feasible to use in routine care among cancer survivors. Providers felt the tool was acceptable and usable, had a relative advantage over routine care, and had the potential to generate benefits for patients. Common reasons clinicians reported not using AH-HA were (i) insufficient time and (ii) the tool interfering with workflow. Systematically identifying implementation determinants from this study will guide the broader dissemination of the AH-HA tool across clinical settings and inform implementation strategies for future scale-up hybrid trials.

BackgroundWomen with high-risk breast lesions, such as atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), have a 4- to tenfold increased risk of breast cancer compared to women with non-proliferative breast disease. Despite high-quality data supporting chemoprevention, uptake remains low. Interventions are needed to break down barriers.MethodsThe parent trial, MiCHOICE, is a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of patient and provider decision support tools to improve informed choice about chemoprevention among women with AH or LCIS. For this pre-implementation analysis, 25 providers participated in semi-structured interviews prior to accessing decision support tools. Interviews sought to understand attitudes/beliefs and barriers/facilitators to chemoprevention.ResultsInterviews with 25 providers (18 physicians and 7 advanced practice providers) were included. Providers were predominantly female (84%), white (72%), and non-Hispanic (88%). Nearly all providers (96%) had prescribed chemoprevention for eligible patients. Three themes emerged in qualitative analysis. The first theme describes providers’ confidence in chemoprevention and the utility of decision support tools. The second theme elucidates barriers to chemoprevention, including time constraints, risk communication and perceptions of patients’ fear of side effects and anxiety. The third theme is the need for early implementation of decision support tools.ConclusionsThis qualitative study suggests that providers were interested in the early inclusion of decision aids (DA) in their chemoprevention discussion workflow. The DAs may help overcome certain barriers which were elucidated in these interviews, including patient level concerns about side effects, clinic time constraints and difficulty communicating risk. A multi-faceted intervention with a DA as one active component may be needed.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with the NIH clinical trial registry, clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04496739.

PURPOSEWhile the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in routine clinical practice is increasing, barriers to patient engagement limit adoption. Studies have focused on technology access as a key barrier, yet other characteristics may also confound readiness to use ePROs including patients' confidence in using technology and confidence in asking clinicians questions.METHODSTo assess readiness to use ePROs, adult patients from six US-based health systems who started a new oncology treatment or underwent a cancer-directed surgery were invited to complete a survey that assessed access to and confidence in the use of technology, ease of asking clinicians questions about health, and symptom management self-efficacy. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were fit to assess the association between technology confidence, ease of asking questions, and symptom management self-efficacy.RESULTSWe contacted 3,212 individuals, and 1,043 (33%) responded. The median age was 63 years, 68% were female, and 75% reported having access to patient portals. Over 80% had two or more electronic devices. Most patients reported high technology confidence, higher ease of asking clinicians questions, and high symptom management self-efficacy (n = 692; 66%). Patients with high technology confidence also reported higher ease of asking nurses about their health (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.58 [95% CI, 2.36 to 8.87]; P ≤ .001). Those who reported higher ease of asking nurses questions were more likely to report higher confidence in managing symptoms (AOR, 30.54 [95% CI, 12.91 to 72.30]; P ≤ .001).CONCLUSIONPatient readiness to use ePROs likely depends on multiple factors, including technology and communication confidence, and symptom management self-efficacy. Future studies should assess interventions to address these factors.

126 Background: Lung cancer (LC) causes the most cancer deaths in the US, but early detection improves outcomes. Uptake of Low-Dose CT screening (LDCT) has been low, contributing to race-based disparities. Programmatic management of incidentally detected pulmonary nodules (PN) provides a complementary avenue for early detection which could address disparities. In our PN cohort, Detecting Early LC in the Mississippi Delta (DELUGE), we provide broad access to early detection across a region fraught with geographic, socioeconomic, and race-based disparities. However, many detected PN will not result in LC. After successful implementation at the program level, we seek to evaluate individual-level factors important for early-detection. We evaluated how individuals with small PN identified in DELUGE differ between those who were and were not diagnosed with LC. Methods: DELUGE is a prospective cohort study where we systematically manage incidentally detected PN with trained navigators and evidence-based risk stratification. We constructed DELUGE in a community-based healthcare system across the mid-south with some of the highest per-capita LC incidence and mortality rates in the US. We evaluated all PN ≤30mm in DELUGE from 2015-2022. We compared clinical and demographic characteristics between individuals who were or were not diagnosed with LC within 24 months. Primary analysis used logistic regression, reporting odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: From 2015-2022, 17,945 individuals with PN ≤30 mm (71% of the total cohort of 25,339) were identified and enrolled in DELUGE. They had median age of 65 years, were 56% female, and 27% Black / 69% White. 853 (4.8%) patients were diagnosed with LC within two years. PN size significantly predicted LC diagnosis. For every 1 mm increase in nodule size the odds of LC increased by 15% (OR: 1.15 [1.14-1.16]); PN in an upper lobe (OR: 2.0 [1.7-2.2]) and those with cavitation also increased the odds of LC (OR: 2.9[1.9-4.2]). Sex, rural/urban residence, and number of PN were not associated with LC. The most predictive individual level characteristics were age, prior cancer history (OR: 1.3 [1.1-1.5], family cancer history (OR: 1.7 [1.5-2.0], COPD (OR: 3.3 [2.9-3.8]), and smoking history (OR: 6.6 [5.3-8.4]). In the multiple variable model, the most significant associations with LC diagnosis included PN size, age, insurance, family cancer history, COPD, and smoking history (all p<0.0001). This model could provide estimated sensitivity 0.81 and specificity 0.81 for predicting LC (AUC= 0.88). Conclusions: Factors measurable at baseline have predictive ability, and predictive modeling may be useful in management of small PN. More focused follow-up could improve programmatic efficiency, targeting the alleviation of geographic, socioeconomic, and race-based health disparities in this high poverty region of the US.