Variation in Interstage Outpatient Care after the Norwood Procedure: A Report from the Joint Council on Congenital Heart Disease National Quality Improvement Collaborative

Objective. The National Pediatric Cardiology Quality Improvement Collaborative (NPC‐QIC) is the first quality improvement collaborative in pediatric cardiology, and its registry captures information on interstage care and outcomes of infants after the Norwood procedure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate variation in interstage outpatient clinical care practices for infants discharged home after the Norwood procedure. Design. Data for the first 100 infants enrolled in the NPC‐QIC registry were evaluated. The care domains assessed for variation included: (1) discharge communication with outpatient cardiologist and primary care physician (PCP); (2) nutrition plan at hospital discharge; and (3) planned use of home surveillance strategies. Results. One hundred infants were discharged home between July 2008 and February 2010, from 21 participating US pediatric cardiac programs. Median age at discharge was 29 (11–188) days. Interstage outpatient care was provided at the Norwood center for 62 infants, at other centers for 25, and at a combination of centers for 13. Complete discharge communication (defined as written communication of medication list, nutrition plan, and red flag checklist) was relayed to only 45 outpatient cardiologists and to 26 PCPs. Nutrition route at discharge was exclusively oral in 49, combined oral and nasogastric (NG)/nasojejunal (NJ) in 38, exclusively NG/NJ in six, combined oral and gastrostomy tube (GT) in six, and exclusively GT in one infant. Home surveillance strategies were utilized for 81 infants (oximetry and weight monitoring in 77, oximetry alone in four), with no home surveillance in 19 infants. Conclusions. Considerable variation exists in interstage outpatient care after the Norwood procedure in the care domains of discharge communication, nutrition, and home surveillance. Standardizing care around evidence‐based practices may improve the outcomes for these very high‐risk children.     

Quality of glucocorticoid replacement in adrenal insufficiency: clinical assessment vs. timed serum cortisol measurements

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of glucocorticoid replacement quality in adrenal insufficiency (AI) relies primarily on clinical judgement and thus largely depends on the physician's expertise. It is a matter of debate whether cortisol day curves are of value in assessing glucocorticoid replacement quality. Here we compared the results of a structured clinical assessment to the outcome of repeated, timed serum cortisol measurements. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study in the outpatient department of a university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Forty-six patients (19 men, 27 women, age range 16-76 years) with primary (n = 23) and secondary (n = 23) AI on stable replacement with a median dose of 37.5 mg cortisone acetate (range 25-50 mg) since 10 +/- 7 years (range 1-31 years). MEASUREMENTS: Clinical performance was scored by structured assessment of signs and symptoms, physical examination and routine biochemical tests. Serum cortisol was measured on two to three separate occasions in three timed samples after the morning glucocorticoid dose. Bone mineral density was measured in 15 patients with long-standing glucocorticoid replacement. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were considered well replaced, whereas clinical scores suggested over- or under-replacement in five and four, respectively. There was no correlation of the clinical score with total or body weight-adjusted glucocorticoid dose. The mean z score of serum cortisol differed significantly between under- and over-replaced patients (P < 0.05) but neither group differed significantly from well-replaced patients. Bone mineral density was normal in all patients studied. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that serum cortisol day curves are of limited value in the monitoring of glucocorticoid replacement. Bone mineral density in AI is generally normal and does not require routine follow-up.     

A randomized, open-label, controlled trial of gabapentin and phenobarbital in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal

Gabapentin was compared with phenobarbital for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal in a randomized, open-label, controlled trial in 27 inpatients. There were no significant differences in the proportion of treatment completers between treatment groups or the proportion of patients in each group requiring rescue medication for breakthrough signs and symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. There were no significant treatment differences in withdrawal symptoms or psychological distress, nor were there serious adverse events. These findings suggest that gabapentin may be as effective as phenobarbital in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal. Given gabapentin's favorable pharmacokinetic profile, further study of its effectiveness in treating alcohol withdrawal is warranted.     

Principles to consider in defining new directions in internal medicine training and certification

SGIM endorses seven principles related to current thinking about internal medicine training: 1) internal medicine requires a full three years of residency training before subspecialization; 2) internal medicine residency programs must dramatically increase support for training in the ambulatory setting and offer equivalent opportunities for training in both inpatient and outpatient medicine; 3) in settings where adequate support and time are devoted to ambulatory training, the third year of residency could offer an opportunity to develop further expertise or mastery in a specific type or setting of care; 4) further certification in specific specialties within internal medicine requires the completion of an approved fellowship program; 5) areas of mastery in internal medicine can be demonstrated through modified board certification and recertification examinations; 6) certification processes throughout internal medicine should focus increasingly on demonstration of clinical competence through adherence to validated standards of care within and across practice settings; and 7) regardless of the setting in which General Internists practice, we should unite to promote the critical role that this specialty serves in patient care.