Showing papers by "Thomas McGinn published in 2022"
TL;DR: A practical clinical depiction of patients with clinical COVID-19 myocarditis across fulminant and non-fulminant cases is provided and accessible laboratory findings to define severity are offered.
Abstract: Background: COVID-19 myocarditis is becoming increasingly appreciated as a complication of COVID-19. There are significant hurdles to formal diagnosis with endomyocardial biopsy or cardiac MRI, whether by resource limitations, patient instability, or isolation precautions. Therefore, further exploratory analysis is needed to clinically define the characteristics and spectrum of severity of COVID-19 myocarditis. Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical course, echocardiographic, and laboratory testing across suspected fulminant and non-fulminant clinically defined COVID-19 myocarditis. Methods: In a cross-sectional observational study of 19 patients with clinically defined COVID-19 myocarditis, we report presenting symptoms, clinical course, laboratory findings, and echocardiographic results stratified by non-fulminant and fulminant myocarditis. Student t-test and univariate logistic regression are used to compare laboratory findings across fulminant and non-fulminant cases. Findings: Among 19 patients, there was no prior history of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, or heart failure; 21.1% of patients died; and 78.9% of cases required supplemental oxygen. A significantly higher geometric mean D-dimer and ferritin were observed in patients with fulminant compared to non-fulminant suspected myocarditis. 26.3% of cases had pericardial effusions. 10 out of the 16 with available echocardiographic data had normal left ventricular systolic function. Conclusions: In this study, we provide a practical clinical depiction of patients with clinical COVID-19 myocarditis across fulminant and non-fulminant cases. Statistically significant elevations in inflammatory markers in fulminant versus non-fulminant cases generate hypotheses regarding the role of systemic inflammation. While cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy may not be accessible at scale in low- and middle-income countries, the present study offers a clinical definition of COVID-19 myocarditis and accessible laboratory findings to define severity.
3 citations
TL;DR: In this paper , a priori stratification of CXR results for diagnosing pneumonia based on language of certainty was validated using χ2 test; a P value of less than .0033 was considered significant to account for multiple comparisons.
Abstract: Uncertain language in chest radiograph (CXR) reports for the diagnosis of pneumonia is prevalent. The purpose of this study is to validate an a priori stratification of CXR results for diagnosing pneumonia based on language of certainty.Retrospective chart review.CXR reports of 2,411 patient visits ≥ 18 years, admitted to medicine, who received a CXR and noncontrast chest CT within 48 hours of emergency department registration at two large academic hospitals (tertiary and quaternary care) were reviewed.The CXR and CT report impressions were categorized as negative, uncertain, or positive. Uncertain CXRs were further stratified into four categories based on language modifiers for the degree of pneumonia certainty. Comparison of CXR and CT results were determined using χ2 test; a P value of less than .0033 was considered significant to account for multiple comparisons.CXR reports for the diagnosis of pneumonia revealed the following distribution: 61% negative, 32% uncertain, and 7% positive; CT reports were 55% negative, 22% uncertain, and 23% positive for the diagnosis of pneumonia. There were significant differences between CXR categories compared with CT categories for diagnosis of pneumonia (P < .001). Negative CXR results were not significantly different than the uncertain category with the most uncertain language (P = .030) but were significantly different from all other uncertain categories and positive CXR results (each P < .001). Positive CXR results were not significantly different than the least uncertain category (most certain language) (P = .130) but were significantly different from all other categories (each P < .001).Language used in CXR reports to diagnose pneumonia exists in categories of varying certainty and should be considered when evaluating patients for pneumonia.
1 citations
TL;DR: The pulmonary embolism risk calculator (PE risk calculator) as discussed by the authors is a clinical decision support tool that incorporates a behavior theory-informed nudge to address identified behavioral barriers to use.
Abstract: Background The improvements in care resulting from clinical decision support (CDS) have been significantly limited by consistently low health care provider adoption. Health care provider attitudes toward CDS, specifically psychological and behavioral barriers, are not typically addressed during any stage of CDS development, although they represent an important barrier to adoption. Emerging evidence has shown the surprising power of using insights from the field of behavioral economics to address psychological and behavioral barriers. Nudges are formal applications of behavioral economics, defined as positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions that have a nonforced effect on decision-making. Objective Our goal is to employ a user-centered design process to develop a CDS tool—the pulmonary embolism (PE) risk calculator—for PE risk stratification in the emergency department that incorporates a behavior theory–informed nudge to address identified behavioral barriers to use. Methods All study activities took place at a large academic health system in the New York City metropolitan area. Our study used a user-centered and behavior theory–based approach to achieve the following two aims: (1) use mixed methods to identify health care provider barriers to the use of an active CDS tool for PE risk stratification and (2) develop a new CDS tool—the PE risk calculator—that addresses behavioral barriers to health care providers’ adoption of CDS by incorporating nudges into the user interface. These aims were guided by the revised Observational Research Behavioral Information Technology model. A total of 50 clinicians who used the original version of the tool were surveyed with a quantitative instrument that we developed based on a behavior theory framework—the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior framework. A semistructured interview guide was developed based on the survey responses. Inductive methods were used to analyze interview session notes and audio recordings from 12 interviews. Revised versions of the tool were developed that incorporated nudges. Results Functional prototypes were developed by using Axure PRO (Axure Software Solutions) software and usability tested with end users in an iterative agile process (n=10). The tool was redesigned to address 4 identified major barriers to tool use; we included 2 nudges and a default. The 6-month pilot trial for the tool was launched on October 1, 2021. Conclusions Clinicians highlighted several important psychological and behavioral barriers to CDS use. Addressing these barriers, along with conducting traditional usability testing, facilitated the development of a tool with greater potential to transform clinical care. The tool will be tested in a prospective pilot trial. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/42653
1 citations