Background

Smartphone technology is ubiquitous throughout neurologic practices, and numerous apps relevant to a neurologist's clinical practice are now available. Data from other medical specialties suggest high utilization of smartphones in routine clinical care. However, the ways in which these devices are used by neurologists for patient care-related activities are not well defined.

Objective

This paper aims to characterize current patterns of smartphone use and perceptions of the utility of smartphones for patient care-related activities among academic neurology trainees and attending physicians. We also seek to characterize areas of need for future app development.

Methods

We developed a 31-item electronic questionnaire to address these questions and invited neurology trainees and attendings of all residency programs based in the United States to participate. We summarized descriptive statistics for respondents and specifically compared responses between trainees and attending physicians.

Results

We received 213 responses, including 112 trainee and 87 attending neurologist responses. Neurology trainees reported more frequent use of their smartphone for patient care-related activities than attending neurologists (several times per day: 84/112, 75.0% of trainees; 52/87, 59.8% of attendings; P=.03). The most frequently reported activities were internet use, calendar use, communication with other physicians, personal education, and health care-specific app use. Both groups also reported regular smartphone use for the physical examination, with trainees again reporting more frequent usage compared with attendings (more than once per week: 35/96, 36.5% of trainees; 8/58, 13.8% of attendings; P=.03). Respondents used their devices most commonly for the vision, cranial nerve, and language portions of the neurologic examination. The majority of respondents in both groups reported their smartphones as "very useful" or "essential" for the completion of patient care-related activities (81/108, 75.0% of trainees; 50/83, 60.2% of attendings; P=.12). Neurology trainees reported a greater likelihood of using their smartphones in the future than attending neurologists ("very likely": 73/102, 71.6% of trainees; 40/82, 48.8% of attendings; P=.005). The groups differed in their frequencies of device usage for specific patient care-related activities, with trainees reporting higher usage for most activities. Despite high levels of use, only 12 of 184 (6.5%) respondents reported ever having had any training on how to use their device for clinical care. Regarding future app development, respondents rated vision, language, mental status, and cranial nerve testing as potentially being the most useful to aid in the performance of the neurologic examination.

Conclusions

Smartphones are used frequently and are subjectively perceived to be highly useful by academic neurologists. Trainees tended to use their devices more frequently than attendings. Our results suggest specific avenues for future technological development to improve smartphone use for patient care-related activities. They also suggest an unmet need for education on effectively using smartphone technology for clinical care.

Introduction

Reducing unplanned hospital readmissions has become a national focus due to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) penalties for hospitals with high rates. A first step in reducing unplanned readmission is to understand which patients are at high risk for readmission, which readmissions are planned, and how well planned readmissions are currently captured in comparison to patient-level chart review.

Methods

We examined all 5455 inpatient neurology admissions over a 2-year period to University of California San Francisco Medical Center and Johns Hopkins Hospital via chart review. We collected information such as patient age, procedure codes, diagnosis codes, all-payer diagnosis-related group, observed length of stay (oLOS), and expected length of stay. We performed multivariate logistic modeling to determine predictors of readmission. Discharge summaries were reviewed for evidence that a subsequent readmission was planned.

Results

A total of 353 (6.5%) discharges were readmitted within 30 days. Fifty-five (15.6%) of the 353 readmissions were planned, most often for a neurosurgical procedure (41.8%) or immunotherapy (23.6%). Only 8 of these readmissions would have been classified as planned using current CMS methodology. Patient age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01 for each 10-year increase, P < .001) and estimated length of stay (OR = 1.04, P = .002) were associated with a greater likelihood of readmission, whereas index admission oLOS was not.

Conclusions

Many neurologic readmissions are planned; however, these are often classified by current CMS methodology as unplanned and penalized accordingly. Modifications of the CMS lists for potentially planned neurological and neurosurgical procedures and for acute discharge neurologic diagnoses should be considered.

Background and purpose

Neurohospitalist neurology is a fast-growing subspecialty with a variety of practice settings featuring neurohospitalist models of care. Since inception, the subspecialty has responded to new challenges in resident training, hospital reimbursement, practice, and burnout.

Methods

To characterize neurohospitalists' current practice and perspectives, we surveyed the neurohospitalists and trainees affiliated with the Neurohospitalist Society using an electronic survey distributed through the society listserv.

Results

Of 501 individuals surveyed by e-mail, 119 began the survey (23.8% response rate), with 88.2% self-identifying as neurohospitalists. Most neurohospitalists (63%) are 10 years or less out of training, devoting 70% of their professional time to inpatient clinical activities while also performing administrative or teaching activities. Only 38% are employed by an academic department. Call schedules are common, with 75% of neurohospitalists participating in a hospital or emergency call schedule, while 55% provide telemedicine services. The majority (97%) of neurohospitalists primarily care for adults, most commonly treating patients with cerebrovascular disease, seizures, and delirium/encephalopathy. The majority (87%) are overall pleased with their work, but 36% report having experienced burnout.

Conclusions

Neurohospitalists are a diverse group of neurologists primarily practicing in the inpatient setting while performing a variety of additional activities. They provide a wide array of clinical expertise for acute neurological diseases and neurological emergencies that require hospitalization, including stroke, seizure, and encephalopathy. Neurohospitalists in general are very pleased with their work, while burnout, as in neurology and other areas of medicine, remains a concern.

BACKGROUND: The presence of co-existent neuronal antibodies (neuronal-IgG) in patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein immunoglobulin G (MOG-IgG1) is not yet well understood. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the co-existence of a broad range of neuronal-IgG in MOG-IgG1+ patients. METHODS: MOG-IgG1+ patients were tested for 17 neuronal-IgGs in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum including NMDA-R-IgG, AMPA-R-IgG, GABAB-R-IgG, LGI1-IgG, CASPR2-IgG, GABAA-R-IgG, GAD65-IgG, mGLUR1-IgG, DPPX-IgG, CRMP5-IgG, amphiphysin-IgG, PCA1,2,Tr, and ANNA1,2,3. Clinical and radiological features of MOG-IgG1+ with NMDA-R-IgG in CSF were compared to a control cohort of MOG-IgG1+ patients without NMDA-R-IgG. RESULTS: A total of 376 MOG-IgG1+ patients underwent testing for neuronal-IgGs. Serum testing for neuronal-IgGs (113 adults, 142 children) identified one child with NMDA-R-IgG (0.7%), one child with CASPR2-IgG (0.7%), one adult with LGI1-IgG (0.9%) and one adult with GABAA-R-IgG (0.9%). CSF testing for neuronal-IgGs (97 adults, 169 children) identified seven children (4%) and seven adults (7%) with NMDA-R-IgG, and one adult with GABAA-R-IgG (1%). The MOG-IgG1+/NMDA-R-IgG+ patients had a median age of 17 (range: 2-39) years. Features associated with MOG-IgG1+/NMDA-R-IgG+ included encephalopathy (p = 0.001), seizures (p = 0.045), and leptomeningeal enhancement (p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: NMDA-R-IgG was the most frequently detected neuronal-IgG to co-exist with MOG-IgG1. MOG-IgG1+/NMDA-R-IgG+ patients most often presented with encephalopathy and seizures. Testing for MOG-IgG1 and NMDA-R-IgG may be warranted in patients with encephalopathy and inflammatory demyelinating syndromes.

The objective of this paper is to evaluate available evidence for each step in autoimmune encephalitis management and provide expert opinion when evidence is lacking. The paper approaches autoimmune encephalitis as a broad category rather than focusing on individual antibody syndromes. Core authors from the Autoimmune Encephalitis Alliance Clinicians Network reviewed literature and developed the first draft. Where evidence was lacking or controversial, an electronic survey was distributed to all members to solicit individual responses. Sixty-eight members from 17 countries answered the survey. The most popular bridging therapy was oral prednisone taper chosen by 38% of responders while rituximab was the most popular maintenance therapy chosen by 46%. Most responders considered maintenance immunosuppression after a second relapse in patients with neuronal surface antibodies (70%) or seronegative autoimmune encephalitis (61%) as opposed to those with onconeuronal antibodies (29%). Most responders opted to cancer screening for 4 years in patients with neuronal surface antibodies (49%) or limbic encephalitis (46%) as opposed to non-limbic seronegative autoimmune encephalitis (36%). Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript and a summary of the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations is presented at the conclusion.

The objective of this paper is to evaluate available evidence for each step in autoimmune encephalitis management and provide expert opinion when evidence is lacking. The paper approaches autoimmune encephalitis as a broad category rather than focusing on individual antibody syndromes. Core authors from the Autoimmune Encephalitis Alliance Clinicians Network reviewed literature and developed the first draft. Where evidence was lacking or controversial, an electronic survey was distributed to all members to solicit individual responses. Sixty-eight members from 17 countries answered the survey. Corticosteroids alone or combined with other agents (intravenous IG or plasmapheresis) were selected as a first-line therapy by 84% of responders for patients with a general presentation, 74% for patients presenting with faciobrachial dystonic seizures, 63% for NMDAR-IgG encephalitis and 48.5% for classical paraneoplastic encephalitis. Half the responders indicated they would add a second-line agent only if there was no response to more than one first-line agent, 32% indicated adding a second-line agent if there was no response to one first-line agent, while only 15% indicated using a second-line agent in all patients. As for the preferred second-line agent, 80% of responders chose rituximab while only 10% chose cyclophosphamide in a clinical scenario with unknown antibodies. Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript and a summary of the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations is presented at the conclusion.