Digital health has long been championed as a means to expanding access to health care. Now that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated many health systems' integration of digital tools for care, digital health may provide a path towards more accessible stroke prevention and treatment, particularly for historically disadvantaged patient populations. Stroke management is composed of multiple time points where digital health innovations have the potential to augment health access and treatment: from primary prevention, to the time-sensitive detection of ischemic stroke, administration of thrombolytic agents and consideration for endovascular interventions, to appropriate post-acute care, rehabilitation, and lifelong secondary stroke prevention-stroke care relies on a multidisciplinary and standardized approach. However, as we discuss pointedly in this Focused Update, underrepresented individuals face multilevel digital health disparities that potentially diminish the benefits of these digital advances. As such, these multilevel needs must be discussed and accounted for as health systems seek to integrate innovative and equitable digital health solutions towards stroke care.

The decision-making process on behalf of unrepresented adults (ie, those who lack capacity to make medical decisions and have no identifiable surrogate) is at risk for not incorporating their interests, raising ethical concerns. We performed semistructured interviews with key stakeholders across multiple sectors in an urban county who participate in the care of or decision-making process for unrepresented adults. This included a safety net healthcare system, social services, and legal services. Participants were healthcare, social service, and legal professionals who worked with unrepresented adults (n = 25). Our interview questions explored the current process for proxy decision making in cases of unrepresented adults and potential alternatives. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using the constant comparative method to identify major themes related to ethical challenges if they were raised. Participants grappled with multiple ethical challenges around the care of unrepresented adults. Themes described by participants were: (1) prioritizing autonomy; (2) varying safety thresholds; (3) distributing resources fairly; and (4) taking a moral toll on stakeholders. In conclusion, all stakeholders identified ethical challenges in caring for unrepresented adults. An applied ethical framework that takes these dilemmas into account could improve ethical practice for unrepresented adults and lessen the emotional toll on stakeholders. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1724-1729, 2019.

We demonstrate that Magnetic Particle Imaging (MPI) enables monitoring of cellular grafts with high contrast, sensitivity, and quantitativeness. MPI directly detects the intense magnetization of iron-oxide tracers using low-frequency magnetic fields. MPI is safe, noninvasive and offers superb sensitivity, with great promise for clinical translation and quantitative single-cell tracking. Here we report the first MPI cell tracking study, showing 200-cell detection in vitro and in vivo monitoring of human neural graft clearance over 87 days in rat brain.

Background

Gaps in the receipt and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) persist for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [1]. In 2020, the Veterans Affairs (VA) developed a heart failure (HF) specific population dashboard to monitor care quality and performance on standard HFrEF performance measures [2].

Methods

The Dashboard Activated Services and Telehealth for HF (DASH-HF) study is a pragmatic randomized quality improvement study designed to evaluate the utility of proactive population management clinics using the VA's HF dashboard to optimize GDMT for patients with HFrEF. Panel management telemedicine clinics incorporated multidisciplinary clinicians to perform chart review and impromptu telephone encounters to evaluate current HFrEF management and opportunities to optimize GDMT. The study will evaluate the efficacy of proactive panel management to usual care at 6 months as quantified by the GDMT optimization potential score. Secondary outcomes include hospitalizations, mortality, and clinician time per intervention. The study completed enrollment and randomization of 300 participants. The intervention was performed from September to December 2021.

Conclusion

DASH-HF will contribute to the literature by evaluating use of the existing VA dashboard to identify HF patients with the lowest adherence to GDMT and proactively target this group for the intervention.

Registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT05001165.

Background

Heart failure is a prevailing diagnosis of hospitalization and readmission within 6 months, and nearly a quarter of these patients die within a year. Guideline-directed medication therapies reduce risk of mortality by 73% over 2 years; however, the implementation of these therapies to their target dose in clinical practice continues to be challenging. In 2020, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System developed a HF dashboard to monitor and improve outpatient HF management. The DASH-HF (Dashboard Activated Services and Telehealth for Heart Failure) study is a randomized, pragmatic clinical trial to evaluate proactive dashboard-directed telehealth clinics to improve the use and dosing of guideline-directed medication therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction not on optimal guideline-directed medication therapy within the VA.

Methods

Three hundred veterans with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction met inclusion criteria with an optimization potential score (OPS) of 5 or less out of 10, representing nonoptimal guideline-directed medication therapy. The primary outcome was a composite score of guideline-directed medical therapy, the OPS, 6 months after the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes included active prescriptions for each individual guideline-directed medical therapy class, HF-related hospitalizations, deaths, and clinician time per patient during the intervention clinics.

Results

There was no significant difference between the intervention arm and usual care group in the primary outcome (OPS, 2.9; SD=2.1 versus OPS, 2.6, SD=2.1); adjusted mean difference 0.3 (95% CI, -0.1 to 0.7) or in the prespecified secondary outcomes for hospitalization and all-cause mortality for the intervention of proactive dashboard-based clinics.

Conclusions

A dashboard-based clinic intervention did not improve the OPS or secondary outcomes of hospitalization and all-cause mortality. There remains a larger opportunity to better target patients and provide more intensive follow-up to further evaluate the utility of proactive dashboard-based clinics for HF management and quality improvement.

Registration

URL: https://www.

Clinicaltrials

gov; Unique identifier: NCT05001165.