Hospital Renovation Patient Satisfaction

Article Type
Changed
Sun, 05/21/2017 - 13:25
Display Headline
Changes in patient satisfaction related to hospital renovation: Experience with a new clinical building

Hospitals are expensive and complex facilities to build and renovate. It is estimated $200 billion is being spent in the United States during this decade on hospital construction and renovation, and further expenditures in this area are expected.[1] Aging hospital infrastructure, competition, and health system expansion have motivated institutions to invest in renovation and new hospital building construction.[2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] There is a trend toward patient‐centered design in new hospital construction. Features of this trend include same‐handed design (ie, rooms on a unit have all beds oriented in the same direction and do not share headwalls); use of sound absorbent materials to reduced ambient noise[7, 8, 9]; rooms with improved view and increased natural lighting to reduce anxiety, decrease delirium, and increase sense of wellbeing[10, 11, 12]; incorporation of natural elements like gardens, water features, and art[12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]; single‐patient rooms to reduce transmission of infection and enhance privacy and visitor comfort[7, 19, 20]; presence of comfortable waiting rooms and visitor accommodations to enhance comfort and family participation[21, 22, 23]; and hotel‐like amenities such as on‐demand entertainment and room service menus.[24, 25]

There is a belief among some hospital leaders that patients are generally unable to distinguish their positive experience with a pleasing healthcare environment from their positive experience with care, and thus improving facilities will lead to improved satisfaction across the board.[26, 27] In a controlled study of hospitalized patients, appealing rooms were associated with increased satisfaction with services including housekeeping and food service staff, meals, as well as physicians and overall satisfaction.[26] A 2012 survey of hospital leadership found that expanding and renovating facilities was considered a top priority in improving patient satisfaction, with 82% of the respondents stating that this was important.[27]

Despite these attitudes, the impact of patient‐centered design on patient satisfaction is not well understood. Studies have shown that renovations and hospital construction that incorporates noise reduction strategies, positive distraction, patient and caregiver control, attractive waiting rooms, improved patient room appearance, private rooms, and large windows result in improved satisfaction with nursing, noise level, unit environment and cleanliness, perceived wait time, discharge preparedness, and overall care. [7, 19, 20, 23, 28] However, these studies were limited by small sample size, inclusion of a narrow group of patients (eg, ambulatory, obstetric, geriatric rehabilitation, intensive care unit), and concurrent use of interventions other than design improvement (eg, nurse and patient education). Many of these studies did not use the ubiquitous Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys.

We sought to determine the changes in patient satisfaction that occurred during a natural experiment, in which clinical units (comprising stable nursing, physician, and unit teams) were relocated from an historic clinical building to a new clinical building that featured patient‐centered design, using HCAHPS and Press Ganey surveys and a large study population. We hypothesized that new building features would positively impact both facility related (eg, noise level), nonfacility related (eg, physician and housekeeping service related), and overall satisfaction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected Press Ganey and HCAPHS patient satisfaction survey data for a single academic tertiary care hospital.[29] The research project was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board.

Participants

All patients discharged from 12 clinical units that relocated to the new clinical building and returned patient satisfaction surveys served as study patients. The moved units included the coronary care unit, cardiac step down unit, medical intensive care unit, neuro critical care unit, surgical intensive care unit, orthopedic unit, neurology unit, neurosurgery unit, obstetrics units, gynecology unit, urology unit, cardiothoracic surgery unit, and the transplant surgery and renal transplant unit. Patients on clinical units that did not move served as concurrent controls.

Exposure

Patients admitted to the new clinical building experienced several patient‐centered design features. These features included easy access to healing gardens with a water feature, soaring lobbies, a collection of more than 500 works of art, well‐decorated and light‐filled patient rooms with sleeping accommodations for family members, sound‐absorbing features in patient care corridors ranging from acoustical ceiling tiles to a quiet nurse‐call system, and an interactive television network with Internet, movies, and games. All patients during the baseline period and control patients during the study period were located in typical patient rooms with standard hospital amenities. No other major patient satisfaction interventions were initiated during the pre‐ or postperiod in either arm of the study; ongoing patient satisfaction efforts (such as unit‐based customer care representatives) were deployed broadly and not restricted to the new clinical building. Clinical teams comprised of physicians, nurses, and ancillary staff did not change significantly after the move.

Time Periods

The move to new clinical building occurred on May 1, 2012. After allowing for a 15‐day washout period, the postmove period included Press Ganey and HCAHPS surveys returned for discharges that occurred during a 7.5‐month period between May 15, 2102 and December 31, 2012. Baseline data included Press Ganey and HCAHPS surveys returned for discharges in the preceding 12 months (May 1, 2011 to April 30, 2012). Sensitivity analysis using only 7.5 months of baseline data did not reveal any significant difference when compared with 12‐month baseline data, and we report only data from the 12‐month baseline period.

Instruments

Press Ganey and HCAHPS patient satisfaction surveys were sent via mail in the same envelope. Fifty percent of the discharged patients were randomized to receive the surveys. The Press Ganey survey contained 33 items covering across several subdomains including room, meal, nursing, physician, ancillary staff, visitor, discharge, and overall satisfaction. The HCAHPS survey contained 29 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)‐mandated items, of which 21 are related to patient satisfaction. The development and testing and methods for administration and reporting of the HCAHPS survey have been previously described.[30, 31] Press Ganey patient satisfaction survey results have been reported in the literature.[32, 33]

Outcome Variables

Press Ganey and HCAHPS patient satisfaction survey responses were the primary outcome variables of the study. The survey items were categorized as facility related (eg, noise level), nonfacility related (eg, physician and nursing staff satisfaction), and overall satisfaction related.

Covariates

Age, sex, length of stay (LOS), insurance type, and all‐payer refined diagnosis‐related groupassociated illness complexity were included as covariates.

Statistical Analysis

Percent top‐box scores were calculated for each survey item as the percent of patients who responded very good for a given item on Press Ganey survey items and always or definitely yes or 9 or 10 on HCAHPS survey items. CMS utilizes percent top‐box scores to calculate payments under the Value Based Purchasing (VBP) program and to report the results publicly. Numerous studies have also reported percent top‐box scores for HCAHPS survey results.[31, 32, 33, 34]

Odds ratios of premove versus postmove percentage of top‐box scores, adjusted for age, sex, LOS, complexity of illness, and insurance type were determined using logistic regression for the units that moved. Similar scores were calculated for unmoved units to detect secular trends. To determine whether the differences between the moved and unmoved units were significant, we introduced the interaction term (moved vs unmoved unit status) (pre‐ vs postmove time period) into the logistic regression models and examined the adjusted P value for this term. All statistical analysis was performed using SAS Institute Inc.'s (Cary, NC) JMP Pro 10.0.0.

RESULTS

The study included 1648 respondents in the moved units in the baseline period (ie, units designated to move to a new clinical building) and 1373 respondents in the postmove period. There were 1593 respondents in the control group during the baseline period and 1049 respondents in the postmove period. For the units that moved, survey response rates were 28.5% prior to the move and 28.3% after the move. For the units that did not move, survey response rates were 20.9% prior to the move and 22.7% after the move. A majority of survey respondents on the nursing units that moved were white, male, and had private insurance (Table 1). There were no significant differences between respondents across these characteristics between the pre‐ and postmove periods. Mean age and LOS were also similar. For these units, there were 70.5% private rooms prior to the move and 100% after the move. For the unmoved units, 58.9% of the rooms were private in the baseline period and 72.7% were private in the study period. Similar to the units that moved, characteristics of the respondents on the unmoved units also did not differ significantly in the postmove period.

Patient Characteristics at Baseline and Postmove By Unit Status
Patient demographicsMoved Units (N=3,021)Unmoved Units (N=2,642)
PrePostP ValuePrePostP Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: APRDRG, all‐payer refined diagnosis‐related group; LOS, length of stay. *Scale from 1 to 4, where 1 is minor and 4 is extreme.

White75.3%78.2%0.0766.7%68.5%0.31
Mean age, y57.357.40.8457.357.10.81
Male54.3%53.0%0.4840.5%42.3%0.23
Self‐reported health      
Excellent or very good54.7%51.2%0.0438.7%39.5%0.11
Good27.8%32.0%29.3%32.2%
Fair or poor17.5%16.9%32.0%28.3%
Self‐reported language      
English96.0%97.2%0.0696.8%97.1%0.63
Other4.0%2.8%3.2%2.9%
Self‐reported education      
Less than high school5.8%5.0%0.2410.8%10.4%0.24
High school grad46.4%44.2%48.6%45.5%
College grad or more47.7%50.7%40.7%44.7%
Insurance type      
Medicaid6.7%5.5%0.1110.8%9.0%0.32
Medicare32.0%35.5%36.0%36.1%
Private insurance55.6%52.8%48.0%50.3%
Mean APRDRG complexity*2.12.10.092.32.30.14
Mean LOS4.75.00.124.95.00.77
Service      
Medicine15.4%16.2%0.5140.0%34.5%0.10
Surgery50.7%45.7%40.1%44.1%
Neurosciences20.3%24.1%6.0%6.0%
Obstetrics/gynecology7.5%8.2%5.7%5.6%

The move was associated with significant improvements in facility‐related satisfaction (Tables 2 and 3). The most prominent increases in satisfaction were with pleasantness of dcor (33.6% vs 66.2%), noise level (39.9% vs 59.3%), and visitor accommodation and comfort (50.0% vs 70.3 %). There was improvement in satisfaction related to cleanliness of the room (49.0% vs 68.6 %), but no significant increase in satisfaction with courtesy of the person cleaning the room (59.8% vs 67.7%) when compared with units that did move.

Changes in HCAHPS Patient Satisfaction Scores From Baseline to Postmove Period By Unit Status
Satisfaction DomainMoved UnitsUnmoved UnitsP Value of the Difference in Odds Ratio Between Moved and Unmoved Units
% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)
PrePostPrePost
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval. *Adjusted for age, race, sex, length of stay, complexity of illness, and insurance type.

FACILITY RELATED
Hospital environment       
Cleanliness of the room and bathroom61.070.81.62 (1.40‐1.90)64.069.21.24 (1.03‐1.48)0.03
Quietness of the room51.365.41.89 (1.63‐2.19)58.660.31.08 (0.90‐1.28)<0.0001
NONFACILITY RELATED
Nursing communication       
Nurses treated with courtesy/respect84.086.71.28 (1.05‐1.57)83.687.11.29 (1.02‐1.64)0.92
Nurses listened73.176.41.21 (1.03‐1.43)74.275.51.05 (0.86‐1.27)0.26
Nurses explained75.076.61.10 (0.94‐1.30)76.076.21.00 (0.82‐1.21)0.43
Physician communication       
Doctors treated with courtesy/respect89.590.51.13 (0.89‐1.42)84.987.31.20 (0.94‐1.53)0.77
Doctors listened81.481.00.93 (0.83‐1.19)77.777.10.94 (0.77‐1.15)0.68
Doctors explained79.279.01.00(0.84‐1.19)75.774.40.92 (0.76‐1.12)0.49
Other       
Help toileting as soon as you wanted61.863.71.08 (0.89‐1.32)62.360.60.92 (0.71‐1.18)0.31
Pain well controlled63.263.81.06 (0.90‐1.25)62.062.60.99 (0.81‐1.20)060
Staff do everything to help with pain77.780.11.19 (0.99‐1.44)76.875.70.90 (0.75‐1.13)0.07
Staff describe medicine side effects47.047.61.05 (0.89‐1.24)49.247.10.91 (0.74‐1.11)0.32
Tell you what new medicine was for76.476.41.02 (0.84‐1.25)77.178.81.09(0.85‐1.39)0.65
Overall
Rate hospital (010)75.083.31.71 (1.44‐2.05)75.777.61.06 (0.87‐1.29)0.006
Recommend hospital82.587.11.43 (1.18‐1.76)81.482.00.98 (0.79‐1.22)0.03
Changes in Press Ganey Patient Satisfaction Scores From Baseline to Postmove Period by Unit Status
Satisfaction DomainMoved UnitUnmoved UnitP Value of the Difference in Odds Ratio Between Moved and Unmoved Units
% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)
PrePostPrePost
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IV, intravenous. *Adjusted for age, race, sex, length of stay, complexity of illness, and insurance type.

FACILITY RELATED
Room       
Pleasantness of room dcor33.664.83.77 (3.24‐4.38)41.647.01.21 (1.02‐1.44)<0.0001
Room cleanliness49.068.62.35 (2.02‐2.73)51.659.11.32 (1.12‐1.58)<0.0001
Room temperature43.154.91.64 (1.43‐1.90)45.048.81.14 (0.96‐1.36)0.002
Noise level in and around the room40.259.22.23 (1.92‐2.58)45.547.61.07 (0.90‐1.22)<0.0001
Visitor related       
Accommodations and comfort of visitors50.070.32.44 (2.10‐2.83)55.359.11.14 (0.96‐1.35)<0.0001
NONFACILITY RELATED
Food       
Temperature of the food31.133.61.15 (0.99‐1.34)34.038.91.23 (1.02‐1.47)0.51
Quality of the food25.827.11.10 (0.93‐1.30)30.236.21.32 (1.10‐1.59)0.12
Courtesy of the person who served food63.962.30.93 (0.80‐1.10)66.061.40.82 (0.69‐0.98)0.26
Nursing       
Friendliness/courtesy of the nurses76.382.81.49 (1.26‐1.79)77.780.11.10 (0.90‐1.37)0.04
Promptness of response to call60.162.61.14 (0.98‐1.33)59.262.01.10 (0.91‐1.31)0.80
Nurses' attitude toward requests71.075.81.30 (1.11‐1.54)70.572.41.06 (0.88‐1.28)0.13
Attention to special/personal needs66.772.21.32 (1.13‐1.54)67.870.31.09 (0.91‐1.31)0.16
Nurses kept you informed64.372.21.46 (1.25‐1.70)65.869.81.17 (0.98‐1.41)0.88
Skill of the nurses75.379.51.28 (1.08‐1.52)74.378.61.23 (1.01‐1.51)0.89
Ancillary staff       
Courtesy of the person cleaning the room59.867.71.41 (1.21‐1.65)61.266.51.24 (1.03‐1.49)0.28
Courtesy of the person who took blood66.568.11.10 (0.94‐1.28)63.263.10.96 (0.76‐1.08)0.34
Courtesy of the person who started the IV70.071.71.09 (0.93‐1.28)66.669.31.11 (0.92‐1.33)0.88
Visitor related       
Staff attitude toward visitors68.179.41.84 (1.56‐2.18)70.372.21.06 (0.87‐1.28)<0.0001
Physician       
Time physician spent with you55.058.91.20 (1.04‐1.39)53.255.91.10 (0.92‐1.30)0.46
Physician concern questions/worries67.270.71.20 (1.03‐1.40)64.366.11.05 (0.88‐1.26)0.31
Physician kept you informed65.367.51.12 (0.96‐1.30)61.663.21.05 (0.88‐1.25)0.58
Friendliness/courtesy of physician76.378.11.11 (0.93‐1.31)71.073.31.08 (0.90‐1.31)0.89
Skill of physician85.488.51.35 (1.09‐1.68)78.081.01.15 (0.93‐1.43)0.34
Discharge       
Extent felt ready for discharge62.066.71.23 (1.07‐1.44)59.262.31.10 (0.92‐1.30)0.35
Speed of discharge process50.754.21.16 (1.01‐1.33)47.850.01.07 (0.90‐1.27)0.49
Instructions for care at home66.471.11.25 (1.06‐1.46)64.067.71.16 (0.97‐1.39)0.54
Staff concern for your privacy65.371.81.37 (1.17‐0.85)63.666.21.10 (0.91‐1.31)0.07
Miscellaneous       
How well your pain was controlled64.266.51.14 (0.97‐1.32)60.262.61.07 (0.89‐1.28)0.66
Staff addressed emotional needs60.063.41.19 (1.02‐1.38)55.160.21.20 (1.01‐1.42)0.90
Response to concerns/complaints61.164.51.19 (1.02‐1.38)57.260.11.10 (0.92‐1.31)0.57
Overall
Staff worked together to care for you72.677.21.29 (1.10‐1.52)70.373.21.13 (0.93‐1.37)0.30
Likelihood of recommending hospital79.184.31.44 (1.20‐1.74)76.379.21.14 (0.93‐1.39)0.10
Overall rating of care given76.883.01.50 (1.25‐1.80)74.777.21.10 (0.90‐1.34)0.03

With regard to nonfacility‐related satisfaction, there were statistically higher scores in several nursing, physician, and discharge‐related satisfaction domains after the move. However, these changes were not associated with the move to the new clinical building as they were not significantly different from improvements on the unmoved units. Among nonfacility‐related items, only staff attitude toward visitors showed significant improvement (68.1% vs 79.4%). There was a significant improvement in hospital rating (75.0% vs 83.3% in the moved units and 75.7% vs 77.6% in the unmoved units). However, the other 3 measures of overall satisfaction did not show significant improvement associated with the move to the new clinical building when compared to the concurrent controls.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to our hypothesis and a belief held by many, we found that patients appeared able to distinguish their experience with hospital environment from their experience with providers and other services. Improvement in hospital facilities with incorporation of patient‐centered features was associated with improvements that were largely limited to increases in satisfaction with quietness, cleanliness, temperature, and dcor of the room along with visitor‐related satisfaction. Notably, there was no significant improvement in satisfaction related to physicians, nurses, housekeeping, and other service staff. There was improvement in satisfaction with staff attitude toward visitors, but this can be attributed to availability of visitor‐friendly facilities. There was a significant improvement in 1 of the 4 measures of overall satisfaction. Our findings also support the construct validity of HCAHPS and Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys.

Ours is one of the largest studies on patient satisfaction related to patient‐centered design features in the inpatient acute care setting. Swan et al. also studied patients in an acute inpatient setting and compared satisfaction related to appealing versus typical hospital rooms. Patients were matched for case mix, insurance, gender, types of medical services received and LOS, and were served by the same set of physicians and similar food service and housekeeping staff.[26] Unlike our study, they found improved satisfaction related to physicians, housekeeping staff, food service staff, meals, and overall satisfaction. However, the study had some limitations. In particular, the study sample was self‐selected because the patients in this group were required to pay an extra daily fee to utilize the appealing room. Additionally, there were only 177 patients across the 2 groups, and the actual differences in satisfaction scores were small. Our sample was larger and patients in the study group were admitted to units in the new clinical buildings by the same criteria as they were admitted to the historic building prior to the move, and there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the comparison groups.

Jansen et al. also found broad improvements in patient satisfaction in a study of over 309 maternity unit patients in a new construction, all private‐room maternity unit with more appealing design elements and comfort features for visitors.[7] Improved satisfaction was noted with the physical environment, nursing care, assistance with feeding, respect for privacy, and discharge planning. However, it is difficult to extrapolate the results of this study to other settings, as maternity unit patients constitute a unique patient demographic with unique care needs. Additionally, when compared with patients in the control group, the patients in the study group were cared for by nurses who had a lower workload and who were not assigned other patients with more complex needs. Because nursing availability may be expected to impact satisfaction with clinical domains, the impact of private and appealing room may very well have been limited to improved satisfaction with the physical environment.

Despite the widespread belief among healthcare leadership that facility renovation or expansion is a vital strategy for improving patient satisfaction, our study shows that this may not be a dominant factor.[27] In fact, the Planetree model showed that improvement in satisfaction related to physical environment and nursing care was associated with implementation of both patient‐centered design features as well as with utilization of nurses that were trained to provide personalized care, educate patients, and involve patients and family.[28] It is more likely that provider‐level interventions will have a greater impact on provider level and overall satisfaction. This idea is supported by a recent JD Powers study suggesting that facilities represent only 19% of overall satisfaction in the inpatient setting.[35]

Although our study focused on patient‐centered design features, several renovation and construction projects have also focused on design features that improve patient safety and provider satisfaction, workflow, efficiency, productivity, stress, and time spent in direct care.[9] Interventions in these areas may lead to improvement in patient outcomes and perhaps lead to improvement in patient satisfaction; however, this relationship has not been well established at present.

In an era of cost containment, healthcare administrators are faced with high‐priced interventions, competing needs, limited resources, low profit margins, and often unclear evidence on cost‐effectiveness and return on investment of healthcare design features. Benefits are related to competitive advantage, higher reputation, patient retention, decreased malpractice costs, and increased Medicare payments through VBP programs that incentivize improved performance on quality metrics and patient satisfaction surveys. Our study supports the idea that a significant improvement in patient satisfaction related to creature comforts can be achieved with investment in patient‐centered design features. However, our findings also suggest that institutions should perform an individualized cost‐benefit analysis related to improvements in this narrow area of patient satisfaction. In our study, incorporation of patient‐centered design features resulted in improvement on 2 VBP HCAHPS measures, and its contribution toward total performance score under the VBP program would be limited.

Strengths of our study include the use of concurrent controls and our ability to capitalize on a natural experiment in which care teams remained constant before and after a move to a new clinical building. However, our study has some limitations. It was conducted at a single tertiary care academic center that predominantly serves an inner city population and referral patients seeking specialized care. Drivers of patient satisfaction may be different in community hospitals, and a different relationship may be observed between patient‐centered design and domains of patient satisfaction in this setting. Further studies in different hospital settings are needed to confirm our findings. Additionally, we were limited by the low response rate of the surveys. However, this is a widespread problem with all patient satisfaction research utilizing voluntary surveys, and our response rates are consistent with those previously reported.[34, 36, 37, 38] Furthermore, low response rates have not impeded the implementation of pay‐for‐performance programs on a national scale using HCHAPS.

In conclusion, our study suggests that hospitals should not use outdated facilities as an excuse for achievement of suboptimal satisfaction scores. Patients respond positively to creature comforts, pleasing surroundings, and visitor‐friendly facilities but can distinguish these positive experiences from experiences in other patient satisfaction domains. In our study, the move to a higher‐amenity building had only a modest impact on overall patient satisfaction, perhaps because clinical care is the primary driver of this outcome. Contrary to belief held by some hospital leaders, major strides in overall satisfaction across the board and other subdomains of satisfaction likely require intervention in areas other than facility renovation and expansion.

Disclosures

Zishan Siddiqui, MD, was supported by the Osler Center of Clinical Excellence Faculty Scholarship Grant. Funds from Johns Hopkins Hospitalist Scholars Program supported the research project. The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.

Files
References
  1. Czarnecki R, Havrilak C. Create a blueprint for successful hospital construction. Nurs Manage. 2006;37(6):3944.
  2. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center website. Facts at a glance. Available at: http://www.wrnmmc.capmed.mil/About%20Us/SitePages/Facts.aspx. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  3. Silvis JK. Keys to collaboration. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/keys‐collaboration. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  4. Galling R. A tale of 4 hospitals. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/tale‐4‐hospitals. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  5. Horwitz‐Bennett B. Gateway to the east. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/gateway‐east. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  6. Silvis JK. Lessons learned. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/lessons‐learned. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  7. Janssen PA, Klein MC, Harris SJ, Soolsma J, Seymour LC. Single room maternity care and client satisfaction. Birth. 2000;27(4):235243.
  8. Watkins N, Kennedy M, Ducharme M, Padula C. Same‐handed and mirrored unit configurations: is there a difference in patient and nurse outcomes? J Nurs Adm. 2011;41(6):273279.
  9. Joseph A, Kirk Hamilton D. The Pebble Projects: coordinated evidence‐based case studies. Build Res Inform. 2008;36(2):129145.
  10. Ulrich R, Lunden O, Eltinge J. Effects of exposure to nature and abstract pictures on patients recovering from open heart surgery. J Soc Psychophysiol Res. 1993;30:7.
  11. Cavaliere F, D'Ambrosio F, Volpe C, Masieri S. Postoperative delirium. Curr Drug Targets. 2005;6(7):807814.
  12. Keep PJ. Stimulus deprivation in windowless rooms. Anaesthesia. 1977;32(7):598602.
  13. Sherman SA, Varni JW, Ulrich RS, Malcarne VL. Post‐occupancy evaluation of healing gardens in a pediatric cancer center. Landsc Urban Plan. 2005;73(2):167183.
  14. Marcus CC. Healing gardens in hospitals. Interdiscip Des Res J. 2007;1(1):127.
  15. Warner SB, Baron JH. Restorative gardens. BMJ. 1993;306(6885):10801081.
  16. Ulrich RS. Effects of interior design on wellness: theory and recent scientific research. J Health Care Inter Des. 1991;3:97109.
  17. Beauchemin KM, Hays P. Sunny hospital rooms expedite recovery from severe and refractory depressions. J Affect Disord. 1996;40(1‐2):4951.
  18. Macnaughton J. Art in hospital spaces: the role of hospitals in an aestheticised society. Int J Cult Policy. 2007;13(1):85101.
  19. Hahn JE, Jones MR, Waszkiewicz M. Renovation of a semiprivate patient room. Bowman Center Geriatric Rehabilitation Unit. Nurs Clin North Am 1995;30(1):97115.
  20. Jongerden IP, Slooter AJ, Peelen LM, et al. (2013). Effect of intensive care environment on family and patient satisfaction: a before‐after study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(9):16261634.
  21. Leather P, Beale D, Santos A, Watts J, Lee L. Outcomes of environmental appraisal of different hospital waiting areas. Environ Behav. 2003;35(6):842869.
  22. Samuels O. Redesigning the neurocritical care unit to enhance family participation and improve outcomes. Cleve Clin J Med. 2009;76(suppl 2):S70S74.
  23. Becker F, Douglass S. The ecology of the patient visit: physical attractiveness, waiting times, and perceived quality of care. J Ambul Care Manage. 2008;31(2):128141.
  24. Scalise D. Patient satisfaction and the new consumer. Hosp Health Netw. 2006;80(57):5962.
  25. Bush H. Patient satisfaction. Hospitals embrace hotel‐like amenities. Hosp Health Netw. 2007;81(11):2426.
  26. Swan JE, Richardson LD, Hutton JD. Do appealing hospital rooms increase patient evaluations of physicians, nurses, and hospital services? Health Care Manage Rev. 2003;28(3):254264.
  27. Zeis M. Patient experience and HCAHPS: little consensus on a top priority. Health Leaders Media website. Available at http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/intelligence/detail.cfm?content_id=28289334(2):125133.
  28. Centers for Medicare 67:2737.
  29. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems. Summary analysis. http://www.hcahpsonline.org/SummaryAnalyses.aspx. Accessed October 1, 2014.
  30. Centers for Medicare 44(2 pt 1):501518.
  31. J.D. Power and Associates. Patient satisfaction influenced more by hospital staff than by the hospital facilities. Available at: http://www.jdpower.com/press‐releases/2012‐national‐patient‐experience‐study#sthash.gSv6wAdc.dpuf. Accessed December 10, 2013.
  32. Murray‐García JL, Selby JV, Schmittdiel J, Grumbach K, Quesenberry CP. Racial and ethnic differences in a patient survey: patients' values, ratings, and reports regarding physician primary care performance in a large health maintenance organization. Med Care. 2000;38(3): 300310.
  33. Chatterjee P, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Patient experience in safety‐net hospitals implications for improving care and Value‐Based Purchasing patient experience in safety‐net hospitals. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(16):12041210.
  34. Siddiqui ZK, Wu AW, Kurbanova N, Qayyum R. Comparison of Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient satisfaction scores for specialty hospitals and general medical hospitals: confounding effect of survey response rate. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(9):590593.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(3)
Page Number
165-171
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Hospitals are expensive and complex facilities to build and renovate. It is estimated $200 billion is being spent in the United States during this decade on hospital construction and renovation, and further expenditures in this area are expected.[1] Aging hospital infrastructure, competition, and health system expansion have motivated institutions to invest in renovation and new hospital building construction.[2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] There is a trend toward patient‐centered design in new hospital construction. Features of this trend include same‐handed design (ie, rooms on a unit have all beds oriented in the same direction and do not share headwalls); use of sound absorbent materials to reduced ambient noise[7, 8, 9]; rooms with improved view and increased natural lighting to reduce anxiety, decrease delirium, and increase sense of wellbeing[10, 11, 12]; incorporation of natural elements like gardens, water features, and art[12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]; single‐patient rooms to reduce transmission of infection and enhance privacy and visitor comfort[7, 19, 20]; presence of comfortable waiting rooms and visitor accommodations to enhance comfort and family participation[21, 22, 23]; and hotel‐like amenities such as on‐demand entertainment and room service menus.[24, 25]

There is a belief among some hospital leaders that patients are generally unable to distinguish their positive experience with a pleasing healthcare environment from their positive experience with care, and thus improving facilities will lead to improved satisfaction across the board.[26, 27] In a controlled study of hospitalized patients, appealing rooms were associated with increased satisfaction with services including housekeeping and food service staff, meals, as well as physicians and overall satisfaction.[26] A 2012 survey of hospital leadership found that expanding and renovating facilities was considered a top priority in improving patient satisfaction, with 82% of the respondents stating that this was important.[27]

Despite these attitudes, the impact of patient‐centered design on patient satisfaction is not well understood. Studies have shown that renovations and hospital construction that incorporates noise reduction strategies, positive distraction, patient and caregiver control, attractive waiting rooms, improved patient room appearance, private rooms, and large windows result in improved satisfaction with nursing, noise level, unit environment and cleanliness, perceived wait time, discharge preparedness, and overall care. [7, 19, 20, 23, 28] However, these studies were limited by small sample size, inclusion of a narrow group of patients (eg, ambulatory, obstetric, geriatric rehabilitation, intensive care unit), and concurrent use of interventions other than design improvement (eg, nurse and patient education). Many of these studies did not use the ubiquitous Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys.

We sought to determine the changes in patient satisfaction that occurred during a natural experiment, in which clinical units (comprising stable nursing, physician, and unit teams) were relocated from an historic clinical building to a new clinical building that featured patient‐centered design, using HCAHPS and Press Ganey surveys and a large study population. We hypothesized that new building features would positively impact both facility related (eg, noise level), nonfacility related (eg, physician and housekeeping service related), and overall satisfaction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected Press Ganey and HCAPHS patient satisfaction survey data for a single academic tertiary care hospital.[29] The research project was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board.

Participants

All patients discharged from 12 clinical units that relocated to the new clinical building and returned patient satisfaction surveys served as study patients. The moved units included the coronary care unit, cardiac step down unit, medical intensive care unit, neuro critical care unit, surgical intensive care unit, orthopedic unit, neurology unit, neurosurgery unit, obstetrics units, gynecology unit, urology unit, cardiothoracic surgery unit, and the transplant surgery and renal transplant unit. Patients on clinical units that did not move served as concurrent controls.

Exposure

Patients admitted to the new clinical building experienced several patient‐centered design features. These features included easy access to healing gardens with a water feature, soaring lobbies, a collection of more than 500 works of art, well‐decorated and light‐filled patient rooms with sleeping accommodations for family members, sound‐absorbing features in patient care corridors ranging from acoustical ceiling tiles to a quiet nurse‐call system, and an interactive television network with Internet, movies, and games. All patients during the baseline period and control patients during the study period were located in typical patient rooms with standard hospital amenities. No other major patient satisfaction interventions were initiated during the pre‐ or postperiod in either arm of the study; ongoing patient satisfaction efforts (such as unit‐based customer care representatives) were deployed broadly and not restricted to the new clinical building. Clinical teams comprised of physicians, nurses, and ancillary staff did not change significantly after the move.

Time Periods

The move to new clinical building occurred on May 1, 2012. After allowing for a 15‐day washout period, the postmove period included Press Ganey and HCAHPS surveys returned for discharges that occurred during a 7.5‐month period between May 15, 2102 and December 31, 2012. Baseline data included Press Ganey and HCAHPS surveys returned for discharges in the preceding 12 months (May 1, 2011 to April 30, 2012). Sensitivity analysis using only 7.5 months of baseline data did not reveal any significant difference when compared with 12‐month baseline data, and we report only data from the 12‐month baseline period.

Instruments

Press Ganey and HCAHPS patient satisfaction surveys were sent via mail in the same envelope. Fifty percent of the discharged patients were randomized to receive the surveys. The Press Ganey survey contained 33 items covering across several subdomains including room, meal, nursing, physician, ancillary staff, visitor, discharge, and overall satisfaction. The HCAHPS survey contained 29 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)‐mandated items, of which 21 are related to patient satisfaction. The development and testing and methods for administration and reporting of the HCAHPS survey have been previously described.[30, 31] Press Ganey patient satisfaction survey results have been reported in the literature.[32, 33]

Outcome Variables

Press Ganey and HCAHPS patient satisfaction survey responses were the primary outcome variables of the study. The survey items were categorized as facility related (eg, noise level), nonfacility related (eg, physician and nursing staff satisfaction), and overall satisfaction related.

Covariates

Age, sex, length of stay (LOS), insurance type, and all‐payer refined diagnosis‐related groupassociated illness complexity were included as covariates.

Statistical Analysis

Percent top‐box scores were calculated for each survey item as the percent of patients who responded very good for a given item on Press Ganey survey items and always or definitely yes or 9 or 10 on HCAHPS survey items. CMS utilizes percent top‐box scores to calculate payments under the Value Based Purchasing (VBP) program and to report the results publicly. Numerous studies have also reported percent top‐box scores for HCAHPS survey results.[31, 32, 33, 34]

Odds ratios of premove versus postmove percentage of top‐box scores, adjusted for age, sex, LOS, complexity of illness, and insurance type were determined using logistic regression for the units that moved. Similar scores were calculated for unmoved units to detect secular trends. To determine whether the differences between the moved and unmoved units were significant, we introduced the interaction term (moved vs unmoved unit status) (pre‐ vs postmove time period) into the logistic regression models and examined the adjusted P value for this term. All statistical analysis was performed using SAS Institute Inc.'s (Cary, NC) JMP Pro 10.0.0.

RESULTS

The study included 1648 respondents in the moved units in the baseline period (ie, units designated to move to a new clinical building) and 1373 respondents in the postmove period. There were 1593 respondents in the control group during the baseline period and 1049 respondents in the postmove period. For the units that moved, survey response rates were 28.5% prior to the move and 28.3% after the move. For the units that did not move, survey response rates were 20.9% prior to the move and 22.7% after the move. A majority of survey respondents on the nursing units that moved were white, male, and had private insurance (Table 1). There were no significant differences between respondents across these characteristics between the pre‐ and postmove periods. Mean age and LOS were also similar. For these units, there were 70.5% private rooms prior to the move and 100% after the move. For the unmoved units, 58.9% of the rooms were private in the baseline period and 72.7% were private in the study period. Similar to the units that moved, characteristics of the respondents on the unmoved units also did not differ significantly in the postmove period.

Patient Characteristics at Baseline and Postmove By Unit Status
Patient demographicsMoved Units (N=3,021)Unmoved Units (N=2,642)
PrePostP ValuePrePostP Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: APRDRG, all‐payer refined diagnosis‐related group; LOS, length of stay. *Scale from 1 to 4, where 1 is minor and 4 is extreme.

White75.3%78.2%0.0766.7%68.5%0.31
Mean age, y57.357.40.8457.357.10.81
Male54.3%53.0%0.4840.5%42.3%0.23
Self‐reported health      
Excellent or very good54.7%51.2%0.0438.7%39.5%0.11
Good27.8%32.0%29.3%32.2%
Fair or poor17.5%16.9%32.0%28.3%
Self‐reported language      
English96.0%97.2%0.0696.8%97.1%0.63
Other4.0%2.8%3.2%2.9%
Self‐reported education      
Less than high school5.8%5.0%0.2410.8%10.4%0.24
High school grad46.4%44.2%48.6%45.5%
College grad or more47.7%50.7%40.7%44.7%
Insurance type      
Medicaid6.7%5.5%0.1110.8%9.0%0.32
Medicare32.0%35.5%36.0%36.1%
Private insurance55.6%52.8%48.0%50.3%
Mean APRDRG complexity*2.12.10.092.32.30.14
Mean LOS4.75.00.124.95.00.77
Service      
Medicine15.4%16.2%0.5140.0%34.5%0.10
Surgery50.7%45.7%40.1%44.1%
Neurosciences20.3%24.1%6.0%6.0%
Obstetrics/gynecology7.5%8.2%5.7%5.6%

The move was associated with significant improvements in facility‐related satisfaction (Tables 2 and 3). The most prominent increases in satisfaction were with pleasantness of dcor (33.6% vs 66.2%), noise level (39.9% vs 59.3%), and visitor accommodation and comfort (50.0% vs 70.3 %). There was improvement in satisfaction related to cleanliness of the room (49.0% vs 68.6 %), but no significant increase in satisfaction with courtesy of the person cleaning the room (59.8% vs 67.7%) when compared with units that did move.

Changes in HCAHPS Patient Satisfaction Scores From Baseline to Postmove Period By Unit Status
Satisfaction DomainMoved UnitsUnmoved UnitsP Value of the Difference in Odds Ratio Between Moved and Unmoved Units
% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)
PrePostPrePost
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval. *Adjusted for age, race, sex, length of stay, complexity of illness, and insurance type.

FACILITY RELATED
Hospital environment       
Cleanliness of the room and bathroom61.070.81.62 (1.40‐1.90)64.069.21.24 (1.03‐1.48)0.03
Quietness of the room51.365.41.89 (1.63‐2.19)58.660.31.08 (0.90‐1.28)<0.0001
NONFACILITY RELATED
Nursing communication       
Nurses treated with courtesy/respect84.086.71.28 (1.05‐1.57)83.687.11.29 (1.02‐1.64)0.92
Nurses listened73.176.41.21 (1.03‐1.43)74.275.51.05 (0.86‐1.27)0.26
Nurses explained75.076.61.10 (0.94‐1.30)76.076.21.00 (0.82‐1.21)0.43
Physician communication       
Doctors treated with courtesy/respect89.590.51.13 (0.89‐1.42)84.987.31.20 (0.94‐1.53)0.77
Doctors listened81.481.00.93 (0.83‐1.19)77.777.10.94 (0.77‐1.15)0.68
Doctors explained79.279.01.00(0.84‐1.19)75.774.40.92 (0.76‐1.12)0.49
Other       
Help toileting as soon as you wanted61.863.71.08 (0.89‐1.32)62.360.60.92 (0.71‐1.18)0.31
Pain well controlled63.263.81.06 (0.90‐1.25)62.062.60.99 (0.81‐1.20)060
Staff do everything to help with pain77.780.11.19 (0.99‐1.44)76.875.70.90 (0.75‐1.13)0.07
Staff describe medicine side effects47.047.61.05 (0.89‐1.24)49.247.10.91 (0.74‐1.11)0.32
Tell you what new medicine was for76.476.41.02 (0.84‐1.25)77.178.81.09(0.85‐1.39)0.65
Overall
Rate hospital (010)75.083.31.71 (1.44‐2.05)75.777.61.06 (0.87‐1.29)0.006
Recommend hospital82.587.11.43 (1.18‐1.76)81.482.00.98 (0.79‐1.22)0.03
Changes in Press Ganey Patient Satisfaction Scores From Baseline to Postmove Period by Unit Status
Satisfaction DomainMoved UnitUnmoved UnitP Value of the Difference in Odds Ratio Between Moved and Unmoved Units
% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)
PrePostPrePost
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IV, intravenous. *Adjusted for age, race, sex, length of stay, complexity of illness, and insurance type.

FACILITY RELATED
Room       
Pleasantness of room dcor33.664.83.77 (3.24‐4.38)41.647.01.21 (1.02‐1.44)<0.0001
Room cleanliness49.068.62.35 (2.02‐2.73)51.659.11.32 (1.12‐1.58)<0.0001
Room temperature43.154.91.64 (1.43‐1.90)45.048.81.14 (0.96‐1.36)0.002
Noise level in and around the room40.259.22.23 (1.92‐2.58)45.547.61.07 (0.90‐1.22)<0.0001
Visitor related       
Accommodations and comfort of visitors50.070.32.44 (2.10‐2.83)55.359.11.14 (0.96‐1.35)<0.0001
NONFACILITY RELATED
Food       
Temperature of the food31.133.61.15 (0.99‐1.34)34.038.91.23 (1.02‐1.47)0.51
Quality of the food25.827.11.10 (0.93‐1.30)30.236.21.32 (1.10‐1.59)0.12
Courtesy of the person who served food63.962.30.93 (0.80‐1.10)66.061.40.82 (0.69‐0.98)0.26
Nursing       
Friendliness/courtesy of the nurses76.382.81.49 (1.26‐1.79)77.780.11.10 (0.90‐1.37)0.04
Promptness of response to call60.162.61.14 (0.98‐1.33)59.262.01.10 (0.91‐1.31)0.80
Nurses' attitude toward requests71.075.81.30 (1.11‐1.54)70.572.41.06 (0.88‐1.28)0.13
Attention to special/personal needs66.772.21.32 (1.13‐1.54)67.870.31.09 (0.91‐1.31)0.16
Nurses kept you informed64.372.21.46 (1.25‐1.70)65.869.81.17 (0.98‐1.41)0.88
Skill of the nurses75.379.51.28 (1.08‐1.52)74.378.61.23 (1.01‐1.51)0.89
Ancillary staff       
Courtesy of the person cleaning the room59.867.71.41 (1.21‐1.65)61.266.51.24 (1.03‐1.49)0.28
Courtesy of the person who took blood66.568.11.10 (0.94‐1.28)63.263.10.96 (0.76‐1.08)0.34
Courtesy of the person who started the IV70.071.71.09 (0.93‐1.28)66.669.31.11 (0.92‐1.33)0.88
Visitor related       
Staff attitude toward visitors68.179.41.84 (1.56‐2.18)70.372.21.06 (0.87‐1.28)<0.0001
Physician       
Time physician spent with you55.058.91.20 (1.04‐1.39)53.255.91.10 (0.92‐1.30)0.46
Physician concern questions/worries67.270.71.20 (1.03‐1.40)64.366.11.05 (0.88‐1.26)0.31
Physician kept you informed65.367.51.12 (0.96‐1.30)61.663.21.05 (0.88‐1.25)0.58
Friendliness/courtesy of physician76.378.11.11 (0.93‐1.31)71.073.31.08 (0.90‐1.31)0.89
Skill of physician85.488.51.35 (1.09‐1.68)78.081.01.15 (0.93‐1.43)0.34
Discharge       
Extent felt ready for discharge62.066.71.23 (1.07‐1.44)59.262.31.10 (0.92‐1.30)0.35
Speed of discharge process50.754.21.16 (1.01‐1.33)47.850.01.07 (0.90‐1.27)0.49
Instructions for care at home66.471.11.25 (1.06‐1.46)64.067.71.16 (0.97‐1.39)0.54
Staff concern for your privacy65.371.81.37 (1.17‐0.85)63.666.21.10 (0.91‐1.31)0.07
Miscellaneous       
How well your pain was controlled64.266.51.14 (0.97‐1.32)60.262.61.07 (0.89‐1.28)0.66
Staff addressed emotional needs60.063.41.19 (1.02‐1.38)55.160.21.20 (1.01‐1.42)0.90
Response to concerns/complaints61.164.51.19 (1.02‐1.38)57.260.11.10 (0.92‐1.31)0.57
Overall
Staff worked together to care for you72.677.21.29 (1.10‐1.52)70.373.21.13 (0.93‐1.37)0.30
Likelihood of recommending hospital79.184.31.44 (1.20‐1.74)76.379.21.14 (0.93‐1.39)0.10
Overall rating of care given76.883.01.50 (1.25‐1.80)74.777.21.10 (0.90‐1.34)0.03

With regard to nonfacility‐related satisfaction, there were statistically higher scores in several nursing, physician, and discharge‐related satisfaction domains after the move. However, these changes were not associated with the move to the new clinical building as they were not significantly different from improvements on the unmoved units. Among nonfacility‐related items, only staff attitude toward visitors showed significant improvement (68.1% vs 79.4%). There was a significant improvement in hospital rating (75.0% vs 83.3% in the moved units and 75.7% vs 77.6% in the unmoved units). However, the other 3 measures of overall satisfaction did not show significant improvement associated with the move to the new clinical building when compared to the concurrent controls.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to our hypothesis and a belief held by many, we found that patients appeared able to distinguish their experience with hospital environment from their experience with providers and other services. Improvement in hospital facilities with incorporation of patient‐centered features was associated with improvements that were largely limited to increases in satisfaction with quietness, cleanliness, temperature, and dcor of the room along with visitor‐related satisfaction. Notably, there was no significant improvement in satisfaction related to physicians, nurses, housekeeping, and other service staff. There was improvement in satisfaction with staff attitude toward visitors, but this can be attributed to availability of visitor‐friendly facilities. There was a significant improvement in 1 of the 4 measures of overall satisfaction. Our findings also support the construct validity of HCAHPS and Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys.

Ours is one of the largest studies on patient satisfaction related to patient‐centered design features in the inpatient acute care setting. Swan et al. also studied patients in an acute inpatient setting and compared satisfaction related to appealing versus typical hospital rooms. Patients were matched for case mix, insurance, gender, types of medical services received and LOS, and were served by the same set of physicians and similar food service and housekeeping staff.[26] Unlike our study, they found improved satisfaction related to physicians, housekeeping staff, food service staff, meals, and overall satisfaction. However, the study had some limitations. In particular, the study sample was self‐selected because the patients in this group were required to pay an extra daily fee to utilize the appealing room. Additionally, there were only 177 patients across the 2 groups, and the actual differences in satisfaction scores were small. Our sample was larger and patients in the study group were admitted to units in the new clinical buildings by the same criteria as they were admitted to the historic building prior to the move, and there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the comparison groups.

Jansen et al. also found broad improvements in patient satisfaction in a study of over 309 maternity unit patients in a new construction, all private‐room maternity unit with more appealing design elements and comfort features for visitors.[7] Improved satisfaction was noted with the physical environment, nursing care, assistance with feeding, respect for privacy, and discharge planning. However, it is difficult to extrapolate the results of this study to other settings, as maternity unit patients constitute a unique patient demographic with unique care needs. Additionally, when compared with patients in the control group, the patients in the study group were cared for by nurses who had a lower workload and who were not assigned other patients with more complex needs. Because nursing availability may be expected to impact satisfaction with clinical domains, the impact of private and appealing room may very well have been limited to improved satisfaction with the physical environment.

Despite the widespread belief among healthcare leadership that facility renovation or expansion is a vital strategy for improving patient satisfaction, our study shows that this may not be a dominant factor.[27] In fact, the Planetree model showed that improvement in satisfaction related to physical environment and nursing care was associated with implementation of both patient‐centered design features as well as with utilization of nurses that were trained to provide personalized care, educate patients, and involve patients and family.[28] It is more likely that provider‐level interventions will have a greater impact on provider level and overall satisfaction. This idea is supported by a recent JD Powers study suggesting that facilities represent only 19% of overall satisfaction in the inpatient setting.[35]

Although our study focused on patient‐centered design features, several renovation and construction projects have also focused on design features that improve patient safety and provider satisfaction, workflow, efficiency, productivity, stress, and time spent in direct care.[9] Interventions in these areas may lead to improvement in patient outcomes and perhaps lead to improvement in patient satisfaction; however, this relationship has not been well established at present.

In an era of cost containment, healthcare administrators are faced with high‐priced interventions, competing needs, limited resources, low profit margins, and often unclear evidence on cost‐effectiveness and return on investment of healthcare design features. Benefits are related to competitive advantage, higher reputation, patient retention, decreased malpractice costs, and increased Medicare payments through VBP programs that incentivize improved performance on quality metrics and patient satisfaction surveys. Our study supports the idea that a significant improvement in patient satisfaction related to creature comforts can be achieved with investment in patient‐centered design features. However, our findings also suggest that institutions should perform an individualized cost‐benefit analysis related to improvements in this narrow area of patient satisfaction. In our study, incorporation of patient‐centered design features resulted in improvement on 2 VBP HCAHPS measures, and its contribution toward total performance score under the VBP program would be limited.

Strengths of our study include the use of concurrent controls and our ability to capitalize on a natural experiment in which care teams remained constant before and after a move to a new clinical building. However, our study has some limitations. It was conducted at a single tertiary care academic center that predominantly serves an inner city population and referral patients seeking specialized care. Drivers of patient satisfaction may be different in community hospitals, and a different relationship may be observed between patient‐centered design and domains of patient satisfaction in this setting. Further studies in different hospital settings are needed to confirm our findings. Additionally, we were limited by the low response rate of the surveys. However, this is a widespread problem with all patient satisfaction research utilizing voluntary surveys, and our response rates are consistent with those previously reported.[34, 36, 37, 38] Furthermore, low response rates have not impeded the implementation of pay‐for‐performance programs on a national scale using HCHAPS.

In conclusion, our study suggests that hospitals should not use outdated facilities as an excuse for achievement of suboptimal satisfaction scores. Patients respond positively to creature comforts, pleasing surroundings, and visitor‐friendly facilities but can distinguish these positive experiences from experiences in other patient satisfaction domains. In our study, the move to a higher‐amenity building had only a modest impact on overall patient satisfaction, perhaps because clinical care is the primary driver of this outcome. Contrary to belief held by some hospital leaders, major strides in overall satisfaction across the board and other subdomains of satisfaction likely require intervention in areas other than facility renovation and expansion.

Disclosures

Zishan Siddiqui, MD, was supported by the Osler Center of Clinical Excellence Faculty Scholarship Grant. Funds from Johns Hopkins Hospitalist Scholars Program supported the research project. The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.

Hospitals are expensive and complex facilities to build and renovate. It is estimated $200 billion is being spent in the United States during this decade on hospital construction and renovation, and further expenditures in this area are expected.[1] Aging hospital infrastructure, competition, and health system expansion have motivated institutions to invest in renovation and new hospital building construction.[2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] There is a trend toward patient‐centered design in new hospital construction. Features of this trend include same‐handed design (ie, rooms on a unit have all beds oriented in the same direction and do not share headwalls); use of sound absorbent materials to reduced ambient noise[7, 8, 9]; rooms with improved view and increased natural lighting to reduce anxiety, decrease delirium, and increase sense of wellbeing[10, 11, 12]; incorporation of natural elements like gardens, water features, and art[12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]; single‐patient rooms to reduce transmission of infection and enhance privacy and visitor comfort[7, 19, 20]; presence of comfortable waiting rooms and visitor accommodations to enhance comfort and family participation[21, 22, 23]; and hotel‐like amenities such as on‐demand entertainment and room service menus.[24, 25]

There is a belief among some hospital leaders that patients are generally unable to distinguish their positive experience with a pleasing healthcare environment from their positive experience with care, and thus improving facilities will lead to improved satisfaction across the board.[26, 27] In a controlled study of hospitalized patients, appealing rooms were associated with increased satisfaction with services including housekeeping and food service staff, meals, as well as physicians and overall satisfaction.[26] A 2012 survey of hospital leadership found that expanding and renovating facilities was considered a top priority in improving patient satisfaction, with 82% of the respondents stating that this was important.[27]

Despite these attitudes, the impact of patient‐centered design on patient satisfaction is not well understood. Studies have shown that renovations and hospital construction that incorporates noise reduction strategies, positive distraction, patient and caregiver control, attractive waiting rooms, improved patient room appearance, private rooms, and large windows result in improved satisfaction with nursing, noise level, unit environment and cleanliness, perceived wait time, discharge preparedness, and overall care. [7, 19, 20, 23, 28] However, these studies were limited by small sample size, inclusion of a narrow group of patients (eg, ambulatory, obstetric, geriatric rehabilitation, intensive care unit), and concurrent use of interventions other than design improvement (eg, nurse and patient education). Many of these studies did not use the ubiquitous Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys.

We sought to determine the changes in patient satisfaction that occurred during a natural experiment, in which clinical units (comprising stable nursing, physician, and unit teams) were relocated from an historic clinical building to a new clinical building that featured patient‐centered design, using HCAHPS and Press Ganey surveys and a large study population. We hypothesized that new building features would positively impact both facility related (eg, noise level), nonfacility related (eg, physician and housekeeping service related), and overall satisfaction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected Press Ganey and HCAPHS patient satisfaction survey data for a single academic tertiary care hospital.[29] The research project was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board.

Participants

All patients discharged from 12 clinical units that relocated to the new clinical building and returned patient satisfaction surveys served as study patients. The moved units included the coronary care unit, cardiac step down unit, medical intensive care unit, neuro critical care unit, surgical intensive care unit, orthopedic unit, neurology unit, neurosurgery unit, obstetrics units, gynecology unit, urology unit, cardiothoracic surgery unit, and the transplant surgery and renal transplant unit. Patients on clinical units that did not move served as concurrent controls.

Exposure

Patients admitted to the new clinical building experienced several patient‐centered design features. These features included easy access to healing gardens with a water feature, soaring lobbies, a collection of more than 500 works of art, well‐decorated and light‐filled patient rooms with sleeping accommodations for family members, sound‐absorbing features in patient care corridors ranging from acoustical ceiling tiles to a quiet nurse‐call system, and an interactive television network with Internet, movies, and games. All patients during the baseline period and control patients during the study period were located in typical patient rooms with standard hospital amenities. No other major patient satisfaction interventions were initiated during the pre‐ or postperiod in either arm of the study; ongoing patient satisfaction efforts (such as unit‐based customer care representatives) were deployed broadly and not restricted to the new clinical building. Clinical teams comprised of physicians, nurses, and ancillary staff did not change significantly after the move.

Time Periods

The move to new clinical building occurred on May 1, 2012. After allowing for a 15‐day washout period, the postmove period included Press Ganey and HCAHPS surveys returned for discharges that occurred during a 7.5‐month period between May 15, 2102 and December 31, 2012. Baseline data included Press Ganey and HCAHPS surveys returned for discharges in the preceding 12 months (May 1, 2011 to April 30, 2012). Sensitivity analysis using only 7.5 months of baseline data did not reveal any significant difference when compared with 12‐month baseline data, and we report only data from the 12‐month baseline period.

Instruments

Press Ganey and HCAHPS patient satisfaction surveys were sent via mail in the same envelope. Fifty percent of the discharged patients were randomized to receive the surveys. The Press Ganey survey contained 33 items covering across several subdomains including room, meal, nursing, physician, ancillary staff, visitor, discharge, and overall satisfaction. The HCAHPS survey contained 29 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)‐mandated items, of which 21 are related to patient satisfaction. The development and testing and methods for administration and reporting of the HCAHPS survey have been previously described.[30, 31] Press Ganey patient satisfaction survey results have been reported in the literature.[32, 33]

Outcome Variables

Press Ganey and HCAHPS patient satisfaction survey responses were the primary outcome variables of the study. The survey items were categorized as facility related (eg, noise level), nonfacility related (eg, physician and nursing staff satisfaction), and overall satisfaction related.

Covariates

Age, sex, length of stay (LOS), insurance type, and all‐payer refined diagnosis‐related groupassociated illness complexity were included as covariates.

Statistical Analysis

Percent top‐box scores were calculated for each survey item as the percent of patients who responded very good for a given item on Press Ganey survey items and always or definitely yes or 9 or 10 on HCAHPS survey items. CMS utilizes percent top‐box scores to calculate payments under the Value Based Purchasing (VBP) program and to report the results publicly. Numerous studies have also reported percent top‐box scores for HCAHPS survey results.[31, 32, 33, 34]

Odds ratios of premove versus postmove percentage of top‐box scores, adjusted for age, sex, LOS, complexity of illness, and insurance type were determined using logistic regression for the units that moved. Similar scores were calculated for unmoved units to detect secular trends. To determine whether the differences between the moved and unmoved units were significant, we introduced the interaction term (moved vs unmoved unit status) (pre‐ vs postmove time period) into the logistic regression models and examined the adjusted P value for this term. All statistical analysis was performed using SAS Institute Inc.'s (Cary, NC) JMP Pro 10.0.0.

RESULTS

The study included 1648 respondents in the moved units in the baseline period (ie, units designated to move to a new clinical building) and 1373 respondents in the postmove period. There were 1593 respondents in the control group during the baseline period and 1049 respondents in the postmove period. For the units that moved, survey response rates were 28.5% prior to the move and 28.3% after the move. For the units that did not move, survey response rates were 20.9% prior to the move and 22.7% after the move. A majority of survey respondents on the nursing units that moved were white, male, and had private insurance (Table 1). There were no significant differences between respondents across these characteristics between the pre‐ and postmove periods. Mean age and LOS were also similar. For these units, there were 70.5% private rooms prior to the move and 100% after the move. For the unmoved units, 58.9% of the rooms were private in the baseline period and 72.7% were private in the study period. Similar to the units that moved, characteristics of the respondents on the unmoved units also did not differ significantly in the postmove period.

Patient Characteristics at Baseline and Postmove By Unit Status
Patient demographicsMoved Units (N=3,021)Unmoved Units (N=2,642)
PrePostP ValuePrePostP Value
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: APRDRG, all‐payer refined diagnosis‐related group; LOS, length of stay. *Scale from 1 to 4, where 1 is minor and 4 is extreme.

White75.3%78.2%0.0766.7%68.5%0.31
Mean age, y57.357.40.8457.357.10.81
Male54.3%53.0%0.4840.5%42.3%0.23
Self‐reported health      
Excellent or very good54.7%51.2%0.0438.7%39.5%0.11
Good27.8%32.0%29.3%32.2%
Fair or poor17.5%16.9%32.0%28.3%
Self‐reported language      
English96.0%97.2%0.0696.8%97.1%0.63
Other4.0%2.8%3.2%2.9%
Self‐reported education      
Less than high school5.8%5.0%0.2410.8%10.4%0.24
High school grad46.4%44.2%48.6%45.5%
College grad or more47.7%50.7%40.7%44.7%
Insurance type      
Medicaid6.7%5.5%0.1110.8%9.0%0.32
Medicare32.0%35.5%36.0%36.1%
Private insurance55.6%52.8%48.0%50.3%
Mean APRDRG complexity*2.12.10.092.32.30.14
Mean LOS4.75.00.124.95.00.77
Service      
Medicine15.4%16.2%0.5140.0%34.5%0.10
Surgery50.7%45.7%40.1%44.1%
Neurosciences20.3%24.1%6.0%6.0%
Obstetrics/gynecology7.5%8.2%5.7%5.6%

The move was associated with significant improvements in facility‐related satisfaction (Tables 2 and 3). The most prominent increases in satisfaction were with pleasantness of dcor (33.6% vs 66.2%), noise level (39.9% vs 59.3%), and visitor accommodation and comfort (50.0% vs 70.3 %). There was improvement in satisfaction related to cleanliness of the room (49.0% vs 68.6 %), but no significant increase in satisfaction with courtesy of the person cleaning the room (59.8% vs 67.7%) when compared with units that did move.

Changes in HCAHPS Patient Satisfaction Scores From Baseline to Postmove Period By Unit Status
Satisfaction DomainMoved UnitsUnmoved UnitsP Value of the Difference in Odds Ratio Between Moved and Unmoved Units
% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)
PrePostPrePost
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval. *Adjusted for age, race, sex, length of stay, complexity of illness, and insurance type.

FACILITY RELATED
Hospital environment       
Cleanliness of the room and bathroom61.070.81.62 (1.40‐1.90)64.069.21.24 (1.03‐1.48)0.03
Quietness of the room51.365.41.89 (1.63‐2.19)58.660.31.08 (0.90‐1.28)<0.0001
NONFACILITY RELATED
Nursing communication       
Nurses treated with courtesy/respect84.086.71.28 (1.05‐1.57)83.687.11.29 (1.02‐1.64)0.92
Nurses listened73.176.41.21 (1.03‐1.43)74.275.51.05 (0.86‐1.27)0.26
Nurses explained75.076.61.10 (0.94‐1.30)76.076.21.00 (0.82‐1.21)0.43
Physician communication       
Doctors treated with courtesy/respect89.590.51.13 (0.89‐1.42)84.987.31.20 (0.94‐1.53)0.77
Doctors listened81.481.00.93 (0.83‐1.19)77.777.10.94 (0.77‐1.15)0.68
Doctors explained79.279.01.00(0.84‐1.19)75.774.40.92 (0.76‐1.12)0.49
Other       
Help toileting as soon as you wanted61.863.71.08 (0.89‐1.32)62.360.60.92 (0.71‐1.18)0.31
Pain well controlled63.263.81.06 (0.90‐1.25)62.062.60.99 (0.81‐1.20)060
Staff do everything to help with pain77.780.11.19 (0.99‐1.44)76.875.70.90 (0.75‐1.13)0.07
Staff describe medicine side effects47.047.61.05 (0.89‐1.24)49.247.10.91 (0.74‐1.11)0.32
Tell you what new medicine was for76.476.41.02 (0.84‐1.25)77.178.81.09(0.85‐1.39)0.65
Overall
Rate hospital (010)75.083.31.71 (1.44‐2.05)75.777.61.06 (0.87‐1.29)0.006
Recommend hospital82.587.11.43 (1.18‐1.76)81.482.00.98 (0.79‐1.22)0.03
Changes in Press Ganey Patient Satisfaction Scores From Baseline to Postmove Period by Unit Status
Satisfaction DomainMoved UnitUnmoved UnitP Value of the Difference in Odds Ratio Between Moved and Unmoved Units
% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)% Top BoxAdjusted Odds Ratio* (95% CI)
PrePostPrePost
  • NOTE: Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IV, intravenous. *Adjusted for age, race, sex, length of stay, complexity of illness, and insurance type.

FACILITY RELATED
Room       
Pleasantness of room dcor33.664.83.77 (3.24‐4.38)41.647.01.21 (1.02‐1.44)<0.0001
Room cleanliness49.068.62.35 (2.02‐2.73)51.659.11.32 (1.12‐1.58)<0.0001
Room temperature43.154.91.64 (1.43‐1.90)45.048.81.14 (0.96‐1.36)0.002
Noise level in and around the room40.259.22.23 (1.92‐2.58)45.547.61.07 (0.90‐1.22)<0.0001
Visitor related       
Accommodations and comfort of visitors50.070.32.44 (2.10‐2.83)55.359.11.14 (0.96‐1.35)<0.0001
NONFACILITY RELATED
Food       
Temperature of the food31.133.61.15 (0.99‐1.34)34.038.91.23 (1.02‐1.47)0.51
Quality of the food25.827.11.10 (0.93‐1.30)30.236.21.32 (1.10‐1.59)0.12
Courtesy of the person who served food63.962.30.93 (0.80‐1.10)66.061.40.82 (0.69‐0.98)0.26
Nursing       
Friendliness/courtesy of the nurses76.382.81.49 (1.26‐1.79)77.780.11.10 (0.90‐1.37)0.04
Promptness of response to call60.162.61.14 (0.98‐1.33)59.262.01.10 (0.91‐1.31)0.80
Nurses' attitude toward requests71.075.81.30 (1.11‐1.54)70.572.41.06 (0.88‐1.28)0.13
Attention to special/personal needs66.772.21.32 (1.13‐1.54)67.870.31.09 (0.91‐1.31)0.16
Nurses kept you informed64.372.21.46 (1.25‐1.70)65.869.81.17 (0.98‐1.41)0.88
Skill of the nurses75.379.51.28 (1.08‐1.52)74.378.61.23 (1.01‐1.51)0.89
Ancillary staff       
Courtesy of the person cleaning the room59.867.71.41 (1.21‐1.65)61.266.51.24 (1.03‐1.49)0.28
Courtesy of the person who took blood66.568.11.10 (0.94‐1.28)63.263.10.96 (0.76‐1.08)0.34
Courtesy of the person who started the IV70.071.71.09 (0.93‐1.28)66.669.31.11 (0.92‐1.33)0.88
Visitor related       
Staff attitude toward visitors68.179.41.84 (1.56‐2.18)70.372.21.06 (0.87‐1.28)<0.0001
Physician       
Time physician spent with you55.058.91.20 (1.04‐1.39)53.255.91.10 (0.92‐1.30)0.46
Physician concern questions/worries67.270.71.20 (1.03‐1.40)64.366.11.05 (0.88‐1.26)0.31
Physician kept you informed65.367.51.12 (0.96‐1.30)61.663.21.05 (0.88‐1.25)0.58
Friendliness/courtesy of physician76.378.11.11 (0.93‐1.31)71.073.31.08 (0.90‐1.31)0.89
Skill of physician85.488.51.35 (1.09‐1.68)78.081.01.15 (0.93‐1.43)0.34
Discharge       
Extent felt ready for discharge62.066.71.23 (1.07‐1.44)59.262.31.10 (0.92‐1.30)0.35
Speed of discharge process50.754.21.16 (1.01‐1.33)47.850.01.07 (0.90‐1.27)0.49
Instructions for care at home66.471.11.25 (1.06‐1.46)64.067.71.16 (0.97‐1.39)0.54
Staff concern for your privacy65.371.81.37 (1.17‐0.85)63.666.21.10 (0.91‐1.31)0.07
Miscellaneous       
How well your pain was controlled64.266.51.14 (0.97‐1.32)60.262.61.07 (0.89‐1.28)0.66
Staff addressed emotional needs60.063.41.19 (1.02‐1.38)55.160.21.20 (1.01‐1.42)0.90
Response to concerns/complaints61.164.51.19 (1.02‐1.38)57.260.11.10 (0.92‐1.31)0.57
Overall
Staff worked together to care for you72.677.21.29 (1.10‐1.52)70.373.21.13 (0.93‐1.37)0.30
Likelihood of recommending hospital79.184.31.44 (1.20‐1.74)76.379.21.14 (0.93‐1.39)0.10
Overall rating of care given76.883.01.50 (1.25‐1.80)74.777.21.10 (0.90‐1.34)0.03

With regard to nonfacility‐related satisfaction, there were statistically higher scores in several nursing, physician, and discharge‐related satisfaction domains after the move. However, these changes were not associated with the move to the new clinical building as they were not significantly different from improvements on the unmoved units. Among nonfacility‐related items, only staff attitude toward visitors showed significant improvement (68.1% vs 79.4%). There was a significant improvement in hospital rating (75.0% vs 83.3% in the moved units and 75.7% vs 77.6% in the unmoved units). However, the other 3 measures of overall satisfaction did not show significant improvement associated with the move to the new clinical building when compared to the concurrent controls.

DISCUSSION

Contrary to our hypothesis and a belief held by many, we found that patients appeared able to distinguish their experience with hospital environment from their experience with providers and other services. Improvement in hospital facilities with incorporation of patient‐centered features was associated with improvements that were largely limited to increases in satisfaction with quietness, cleanliness, temperature, and dcor of the room along with visitor‐related satisfaction. Notably, there was no significant improvement in satisfaction related to physicians, nurses, housekeeping, and other service staff. There was improvement in satisfaction with staff attitude toward visitors, but this can be attributed to availability of visitor‐friendly facilities. There was a significant improvement in 1 of the 4 measures of overall satisfaction. Our findings also support the construct validity of HCAHPS and Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys.

Ours is one of the largest studies on patient satisfaction related to patient‐centered design features in the inpatient acute care setting. Swan et al. also studied patients in an acute inpatient setting and compared satisfaction related to appealing versus typical hospital rooms. Patients were matched for case mix, insurance, gender, types of medical services received and LOS, and were served by the same set of physicians and similar food service and housekeeping staff.[26] Unlike our study, they found improved satisfaction related to physicians, housekeeping staff, food service staff, meals, and overall satisfaction. However, the study had some limitations. In particular, the study sample was self‐selected because the patients in this group were required to pay an extra daily fee to utilize the appealing room. Additionally, there were only 177 patients across the 2 groups, and the actual differences in satisfaction scores were small. Our sample was larger and patients in the study group were admitted to units in the new clinical buildings by the same criteria as they were admitted to the historic building prior to the move, and there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the comparison groups.

Jansen et al. also found broad improvements in patient satisfaction in a study of over 309 maternity unit patients in a new construction, all private‐room maternity unit with more appealing design elements and comfort features for visitors.[7] Improved satisfaction was noted with the physical environment, nursing care, assistance with feeding, respect for privacy, and discharge planning. However, it is difficult to extrapolate the results of this study to other settings, as maternity unit patients constitute a unique patient demographic with unique care needs. Additionally, when compared with patients in the control group, the patients in the study group were cared for by nurses who had a lower workload and who were not assigned other patients with more complex needs. Because nursing availability may be expected to impact satisfaction with clinical domains, the impact of private and appealing room may very well have been limited to improved satisfaction with the physical environment.

Despite the widespread belief among healthcare leadership that facility renovation or expansion is a vital strategy for improving patient satisfaction, our study shows that this may not be a dominant factor.[27] In fact, the Planetree model showed that improvement in satisfaction related to physical environment and nursing care was associated with implementation of both patient‐centered design features as well as with utilization of nurses that were trained to provide personalized care, educate patients, and involve patients and family.[28] It is more likely that provider‐level interventions will have a greater impact on provider level and overall satisfaction. This idea is supported by a recent JD Powers study suggesting that facilities represent only 19% of overall satisfaction in the inpatient setting.[35]

Although our study focused on patient‐centered design features, several renovation and construction projects have also focused on design features that improve patient safety and provider satisfaction, workflow, efficiency, productivity, stress, and time spent in direct care.[9] Interventions in these areas may lead to improvement in patient outcomes and perhaps lead to improvement in patient satisfaction; however, this relationship has not been well established at present.

In an era of cost containment, healthcare administrators are faced with high‐priced interventions, competing needs, limited resources, low profit margins, and often unclear evidence on cost‐effectiveness and return on investment of healthcare design features. Benefits are related to competitive advantage, higher reputation, patient retention, decreased malpractice costs, and increased Medicare payments through VBP programs that incentivize improved performance on quality metrics and patient satisfaction surveys. Our study supports the idea that a significant improvement in patient satisfaction related to creature comforts can be achieved with investment in patient‐centered design features. However, our findings also suggest that institutions should perform an individualized cost‐benefit analysis related to improvements in this narrow area of patient satisfaction. In our study, incorporation of patient‐centered design features resulted in improvement on 2 VBP HCAHPS measures, and its contribution toward total performance score under the VBP program would be limited.

Strengths of our study include the use of concurrent controls and our ability to capitalize on a natural experiment in which care teams remained constant before and after a move to a new clinical building. However, our study has some limitations. It was conducted at a single tertiary care academic center that predominantly serves an inner city population and referral patients seeking specialized care. Drivers of patient satisfaction may be different in community hospitals, and a different relationship may be observed between patient‐centered design and domains of patient satisfaction in this setting. Further studies in different hospital settings are needed to confirm our findings. Additionally, we were limited by the low response rate of the surveys. However, this is a widespread problem with all patient satisfaction research utilizing voluntary surveys, and our response rates are consistent with those previously reported.[34, 36, 37, 38] Furthermore, low response rates have not impeded the implementation of pay‐for‐performance programs on a national scale using HCHAPS.

In conclusion, our study suggests that hospitals should not use outdated facilities as an excuse for achievement of suboptimal satisfaction scores. Patients respond positively to creature comforts, pleasing surroundings, and visitor‐friendly facilities but can distinguish these positive experiences from experiences in other patient satisfaction domains. In our study, the move to a higher‐amenity building had only a modest impact on overall patient satisfaction, perhaps because clinical care is the primary driver of this outcome. Contrary to belief held by some hospital leaders, major strides in overall satisfaction across the board and other subdomains of satisfaction likely require intervention in areas other than facility renovation and expansion.

Disclosures

Zishan Siddiqui, MD, was supported by the Osler Center of Clinical Excellence Faculty Scholarship Grant. Funds from Johns Hopkins Hospitalist Scholars Program supported the research project. The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.

References
  1. Czarnecki R, Havrilak C. Create a blueprint for successful hospital construction. Nurs Manage. 2006;37(6):3944.
  2. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center website. Facts at a glance. Available at: http://www.wrnmmc.capmed.mil/About%20Us/SitePages/Facts.aspx. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  3. Silvis JK. Keys to collaboration. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/keys‐collaboration. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  4. Galling R. A tale of 4 hospitals. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/tale‐4‐hospitals. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  5. Horwitz‐Bennett B. Gateway to the east. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/gateway‐east. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  6. Silvis JK. Lessons learned. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/lessons‐learned. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  7. Janssen PA, Klein MC, Harris SJ, Soolsma J, Seymour LC. Single room maternity care and client satisfaction. Birth. 2000;27(4):235243.
  8. Watkins N, Kennedy M, Ducharme M, Padula C. Same‐handed and mirrored unit configurations: is there a difference in patient and nurse outcomes? J Nurs Adm. 2011;41(6):273279.
  9. Joseph A, Kirk Hamilton D. The Pebble Projects: coordinated evidence‐based case studies. Build Res Inform. 2008;36(2):129145.
  10. Ulrich R, Lunden O, Eltinge J. Effects of exposure to nature and abstract pictures on patients recovering from open heart surgery. J Soc Psychophysiol Res. 1993;30:7.
  11. Cavaliere F, D'Ambrosio F, Volpe C, Masieri S. Postoperative delirium. Curr Drug Targets. 2005;6(7):807814.
  12. Keep PJ. Stimulus deprivation in windowless rooms. Anaesthesia. 1977;32(7):598602.
  13. Sherman SA, Varni JW, Ulrich RS, Malcarne VL. Post‐occupancy evaluation of healing gardens in a pediatric cancer center. Landsc Urban Plan. 2005;73(2):167183.
  14. Marcus CC. Healing gardens in hospitals. Interdiscip Des Res J. 2007;1(1):127.
  15. Warner SB, Baron JH. Restorative gardens. BMJ. 1993;306(6885):10801081.
  16. Ulrich RS. Effects of interior design on wellness: theory and recent scientific research. J Health Care Inter Des. 1991;3:97109.
  17. Beauchemin KM, Hays P. Sunny hospital rooms expedite recovery from severe and refractory depressions. J Affect Disord. 1996;40(1‐2):4951.
  18. Macnaughton J. Art in hospital spaces: the role of hospitals in an aestheticised society. Int J Cult Policy. 2007;13(1):85101.
  19. Hahn JE, Jones MR, Waszkiewicz M. Renovation of a semiprivate patient room. Bowman Center Geriatric Rehabilitation Unit. Nurs Clin North Am 1995;30(1):97115.
  20. Jongerden IP, Slooter AJ, Peelen LM, et al. (2013). Effect of intensive care environment on family and patient satisfaction: a before‐after study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(9):16261634.
  21. Leather P, Beale D, Santos A, Watts J, Lee L. Outcomes of environmental appraisal of different hospital waiting areas. Environ Behav. 2003;35(6):842869.
  22. Samuels O. Redesigning the neurocritical care unit to enhance family participation and improve outcomes. Cleve Clin J Med. 2009;76(suppl 2):S70S74.
  23. Becker F, Douglass S. The ecology of the patient visit: physical attractiveness, waiting times, and perceived quality of care. J Ambul Care Manage. 2008;31(2):128141.
  24. Scalise D. Patient satisfaction and the new consumer. Hosp Health Netw. 2006;80(57):5962.
  25. Bush H. Patient satisfaction. Hospitals embrace hotel‐like amenities. Hosp Health Netw. 2007;81(11):2426.
  26. Swan JE, Richardson LD, Hutton JD. Do appealing hospital rooms increase patient evaluations of physicians, nurses, and hospital services? Health Care Manage Rev. 2003;28(3):254264.
  27. Zeis M. Patient experience and HCAHPS: little consensus on a top priority. Health Leaders Media website. Available at http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/intelligence/detail.cfm?content_id=28289334(2):125133.
  28. Centers for Medicare 67:2737.
  29. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems. Summary analysis. http://www.hcahpsonline.org/SummaryAnalyses.aspx. Accessed October 1, 2014.
  30. Centers for Medicare 44(2 pt 1):501518.
  31. J.D. Power and Associates. Patient satisfaction influenced more by hospital staff than by the hospital facilities. Available at: http://www.jdpower.com/press‐releases/2012‐national‐patient‐experience‐study#sthash.gSv6wAdc.dpuf. Accessed December 10, 2013.
  32. Murray‐García JL, Selby JV, Schmittdiel J, Grumbach K, Quesenberry CP. Racial and ethnic differences in a patient survey: patients' values, ratings, and reports regarding physician primary care performance in a large health maintenance organization. Med Care. 2000;38(3): 300310.
  33. Chatterjee P, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Patient experience in safety‐net hospitals implications for improving care and Value‐Based Purchasing patient experience in safety‐net hospitals. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(16):12041210.
  34. Siddiqui ZK, Wu AW, Kurbanova N, Qayyum R. Comparison of Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient satisfaction scores for specialty hospitals and general medical hospitals: confounding effect of survey response rate. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(9):590593.
References
  1. Czarnecki R, Havrilak C. Create a blueprint for successful hospital construction. Nurs Manage. 2006;37(6):3944.
  2. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center website. Facts at a glance. Available at: http://www.wrnmmc.capmed.mil/About%20Us/SitePages/Facts.aspx. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  3. Silvis JK. Keys to collaboration. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/keys‐collaboration. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  4. Galling R. A tale of 4 hospitals. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/tale‐4‐hospitals. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  5. Horwitz‐Bennett B. Gateway to the east. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/gateway‐east. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  6. Silvis JK. Lessons learned. Healthcare Design website. Available at: http://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/building‐ideas/lessons‐learned. Accessed June 19, 2013.
  7. Janssen PA, Klein MC, Harris SJ, Soolsma J, Seymour LC. Single room maternity care and client satisfaction. Birth. 2000;27(4):235243.
  8. Watkins N, Kennedy M, Ducharme M, Padula C. Same‐handed and mirrored unit configurations: is there a difference in patient and nurse outcomes? J Nurs Adm. 2011;41(6):273279.
  9. Joseph A, Kirk Hamilton D. The Pebble Projects: coordinated evidence‐based case studies. Build Res Inform. 2008;36(2):129145.
  10. Ulrich R, Lunden O, Eltinge J. Effects of exposure to nature and abstract pictures on patients recovering from open heart surgery. J Soc Psychophysiol Res. 1993;30:7.
  11. Cavaliere F, D'Ambrosio F, Volpe C, Masieri S. Postoperative delirium. Curr Drug Targets. 2005;6(7):807814.
  12. Keep PJ. Stimulus deprivation in windowless rooms. Anaesthesia. 1977;32(7):598602.
  13. Sherman SA, Varni JW, Ulrich RS, Malcarne VL. Post‐occupancy evaluation of healing gardens in a pediatric cancer center. Landsc Urban Plan. 2005;73(2):167183.
  14. Marcus CC. Healing gardens in hospitals. Interdiscip Des Res J. 2007;1(1):127.
  15. Warner SB, Baron JH. Restorative gardens. BMJ. 1993;306(6885):10801081.
  16. Ulrich RS. Effects of interior design on wellness: theory and recent scientific research. J Health Care Inter Des. 1991;3:97109.
  17. Beauchemin KM, Hays P. Sunny hospital rooms expedite recovery from severe and refractory depressions. J Affect Disord. 1996;40(1‐2):4951.
  18. Macnaughton J. Art in hospital spaces: the role of hospitals in an aestheticised society. Int J Cult Policy. 2007;13(1):85101.
  19. Hahn JE, Jones MR, Waszkiewicz M. Renovation of a semiprivate patient room. Bowman Center Geriatric Rehabilitation Unit. Nurs Clin North Am 1995;30(1):97115.
  20. Jongerden IP, Slooter AJ, Peelen LM, et al. (2013). Effect of intensive care environment on family and patient satisfaction: a before‐after study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(9):16261634.
  21. Leather P, Beale D, Santos A, Watts J, Lee L. Outcomes of environmental appraisal of different hospital waiting areas. Environ Behav. 2003;35(6):842869.
  22. Samuels O. Redesigning the neurocritical care unit to enhance family participation and improve outcomes. Cleve Clin J Med. 2009;76(suppl 2):S70S74.
  23. Becker F, Douglass S. The ecology of the patient visit: physical attractiveness, waiting times, and perceived quality of care. J Ambul Care Manage. 2008;31(2):128141.
  24. Scalise D. Patient satisfaction and the new consumer. Hosp Health Netw. 2006;80(57):5962.
  25. Bush H. Patient satisfaction. Hospitals embrace hotel‐like amenities. Hosp Health Netw. 2007;81(11):2426.
  26. Swan JE, Richardson LD, Hutton JD. Do appealing hospital rooms increase patient evaluations of physicians, nurses, and hospital services? Health Care Manage Rev. 2003;28(3):254264.
  27. Zeis M. Patient experience and HCAHPS: little consensus on a top priority. Health Leaders Media website. Available at http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/intelligence/detail.cfm?content_id=28289334(2):125133.
  28. Centers for Medicare 67:2737.
  29. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems. Summary analysis. http://www.hcahpsonline.org/SummaryAnalyses.aspx. Accessed October 1, 2014.
  30. Centers for Medicare 44(2 pt 1):501518.
  31. J.D. Power and Associates. Patient satisfaction influenced more by hospital staff than by the hospital facilities. Available at: http://www.jdpower.com/press‐releases/2012‐national‐patient‐experience‐study#sthash.gSv6wAdc.dpuf. Accessed December 10, 2013.
  32. Murray‐García JL, Selby JV, Schmittdiel J, Grumbach K, Quesenberry CP. Racial and ethnic differences in a patient survey: patients' values, ratings, and reports regarding physician primary care performance in a large health maintenance organization. Med Care. 2000;38(3): 300310.
  33. Chatterjee P, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Patient experience in safety‐net hospitals implications for improving care and Value‐Based Purchasing patient experience in safety‐net hospitals. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(16):12041210.
  34. Siddiqui ZK, Wu AW, Kurbanova N, Qayyum R. Comparison of Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient satisfaction scores for specialty hospitals and general medical hospitals: confounding effect of survey response rate. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(9):590593.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(3)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 10(3)
Page Number
165-171
Page Number
165-171
Article Type
Display Headline
Changes in patient satisfaction related to hospital renovation: Experience with a new clinical building
Display Headline
Changes in patient satisfaction related to hospital renovation: Experience with a new clinical building
Sections
Article Source

© 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Zishan K. Siddiqui, MD, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe St., Nelson 215, Baltimore, MD 21287; Telephone: 443‐287‐3631; Fax: 410‐502‐0923; E‐mail: [email protected]
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media
Media Files

What Is This Large, Oddly Pigmented “Freckle”?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/13/2016 - 12:08
Display Headline
What Is This Large, Oddly Pigmented “Freckle”?

A 79-year-old man presents for a routine skin check, in the context of his 40-year history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. He grew up on a farm and then became a farmer himself, spending almost every day in the sun (usually without a hat). His skin burned easily but would take on a “tan” by the start of summer.

In the succeeding years, he developed so many skin cancers (and had them removed) that he lost count. All were basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas, predominately manifesting on his face, arms, and ears. Several required Mohs surgery for removal.

EXAMINATION
Abundant evidence of excessive sun exposure is seen on the patient’s skin: actinic keratoses on the forehead, ears, and neck, and multiple solar lentigines on the face, neck, and arms. On his left neck, below the ear, is a large, oddly pigmented, dark macular patch. Dermatoscopic examination reveals focal pigmentary clumping and streaming, which prompts the decision to perform an incisional biopsy. The darkest and most irregular part of the lesion is taken as a sample. The pathology report shows lentigo maligna.

What is lentigo maligna?

 

 

DISCUSSION
Lentigo maligna (LM), also known as Hutchinson freckle, is a type of melanoma in situ that is typically seen on sun-exposed skin. It has indistinct margins with predominantly brown and black coloration. LM is usually seen on older, mostly fair-skinned patients who have a history of extensive sun exposure. Its preferred sites include the face, ears, neck, and upper extremities.

LM is, by definition, entirely superficial and therefore safe. Its main significance is that it can become focally invasive to the dermis, a phenomenon termed lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM). When that occurs, the clusters of spindle-shaped atypical cells can then progress to a vertical growth phase, resulting in intravascular invasion that eventuates in metastasis.

LMs grow so slowly that they often escape detection; they are sometimes mistaken for solar lentigines (SL). They can “collide” with SLs or other benign lesions (eg, seborrheic keratoses), which can effectively camouflage them. Suspicion is usually triggered by change (color, size) in a lesion.

Biopsy is the only method of detection. In this case, the central portion of this large, oddly pigmented and bordered, multicolored patch was excised and the darkest, most irregular part of the lesion collected. This is the gold standard for biopsy of a potential melanoma. A large deep shave biopsy (“saucerization”) would have accomplished the same thing; studies show that neither process will cause metastasis. The main mistake to avoid is performing a single punch biopsy, which risks a false-negative result.

The definitive surgical approach is to remove the lesion with a 1-cm margin around it and into the underlying adipose layer. The wound can either be left to heal by secondary intention or closed primarily. Either way, this patient’s prognosis is excellent, unless the final pathology report indicates focal invasion. With a patient of this age, the LM could have been left alone—although, once discovered, LM is irresistibly compelling to treat.

TAKE-HOME LEARNING POINTS
• Lentigo maligna (LM) is a type of melanoma in situ with the potential to progress to lentigo maligna melanoma, an invasive form of early melanoma.

• LM is common on sun-exposed skin of older patients with a history of excessive sun exposure.

• Faces, ears, arms, and necks are common areas for LM to manifest.

• Biopsy of suspected melanoma should incorporate a significant portion of the darkest, most irregular part of the lesion; it can be done by incisional technique or deep saucerization.

• LM is also known as Hutchinson freckle, since it often resembles a large, irregularly bordered and pigmented freckle.

Author and Disclosure Information

 

Joe R. Monroe, MPAS, PA

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
W3
Legacy Keywords
lentigo maligna, melanoma, melanoma in situ, lentigo maligna melanoma, Hutchinson freckle, metastatis, skin cancer, biopsy, Mohs surgery
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Joe R. Monroe, MPAS, PA

Author and Disclosure Information

 

Joe R. Monroe, MPAS, PA

Related Articles

A 79-year-old man presents for a routine skin check, in the context of his 40-year history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. He grew up on a farm and then became a farmer himself, spending almost every day in the sun (usually without a hat). His skin burned easily but would take on a “tan” by the start of summer.

In the succeeding years, he developed so many skin cancers (and had them removed) that he lost count. All were basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas, predominately manifesting on his face, arms, and ears. Several required Mohs surgery for removal.

EXAMINATION
Abundant evidence of excessive sun exposure is seen on the patient’s skin: actinic keratoses on the forehead, ears, and neck, and multiple solar lentigines on the face, neck, and arms. On his left neck, below the ear, is a large, oddly pigmented, dark macular patch. Dermatoscopic examination reveals focal pigmentary clumping and streaming, which prompts the decision to perform an incisional biopsy. The darkest and most irregular part of the lesion is taken as a sample. The pathology report shows lentigo maligna.

What is lentigo maligna?

 

 

DISCUSSION
Lentigo maligna (LM), also known as Hutchinson freckle, is a type of melanoma in situ that is typically seen on sun-exposed skin. It has indistinct margins with predominantly brown and black coloration. LM is usually seen on older, mostly fair-skinned patients who have a history of extensive sun exposure. Its preferred sites include the face, ears, neck, and upper extremities.

LM is, by definition, entirely superficial and therefore safe. Its main significance is that it can become focally invasive to the dermis, a phenomenon termed lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM). When that occurs, the clusters of spindle-shaped atypical cells can then progress to a vertical growth phase, resulting in intravascular invasion that eventuates in metastasis.

LMs grow so slowly that they often escape detection; they are sometimes mistaken for solar lentigines (SL). They can “collide” with SLs or other benign lesions (eg, seborrheic keratoses), which can effectively camouflage them. Suspicion is usually triggered by change (color, size) in a lesion.

Biopsy is the only method of detection. In this case, the central portion of this large, oddly pigmented and bordered, multicolored patch was excised and the darkest, most irregular part of the lesion collected. This is the gold standard for biopsy of a potential melanoma. A large deep shave biopsy (“saucerization”) would have accomplished the same thing; studies show that neither process will cause metastasis. The main mistake to avoid is performing a single punch biopsy, which risks a false-negative result.

The definitive surgical approach is to remove the lesion with a 1-cm margin around it and into the underlying adipose layer. The wound can either be left to heal by secondary intention or closed primarily. Either way, this patient’s prognosis is excellent, unless the final pathology report indicates focal invasion. With a patient of this age, the LM could have been left alone—although, once discovered, LM is irresistibly compelling to treat.

TAKE-HOME LEARNING POINTS
• Lentigo maligna (LM) is a type of melanoma in situ with the potential to progress to lentigo maligna melanoma, an invasive form of early melanoma.

• LM is common on sun-exposed skin of older patients with a history of excessive sun exposure.

• Faces, ears, arms, and necks are common areas for LM to manifest.

• Biopsy of suspected melanoma should incorporate a significant portion of the darkest, most irregular part of the lesion; it can be done by incisional technique or deep saucerization.

• LM is also known as Hutchinson freckle, since it often resembles a large, irregularly bordered and pigmented freckle.

A 79-year-old man presents for a routine skin check, in the context of his 40-year history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. He grew up on a farm and then became a farmer himself, spending almost every day in the sun (usually without a hat). His skin burned easily but would take on a “tan” by the start of summer.

In the succeeding years, he developed so many skin cancers (and had them removed) that he lost count. All were basal cell or squamous cell carcinomas, predominately manifesting on his face, arms, and ears. Several required Mohs surgery for removal.

EXAMINATION
Abundant evidence of excessive sun exposure is seen on the patient’s skin: actinic keratoses on the forehead, ears, and neck, and multiple solar lentigines on the face, neck, and arms. On his left neck, below the ear, is a large, oddly pigmented, dark macular patch. Dermatoscopic examination reveals focal pigmentary clumping and streaming, which prompts the decision to perform an incisional biopsy. The darkest and most irregular part of the lesion is taken as a sample. The pathology report shows lentigo maligna.

What is lentigo maligna?

 

 

DISCUSSION
Lentigo maligna (LM), also known as Hutchinson freckle, is a type of melanoma in situ that is typically seen on sun-exposed skin. It has indistinct margins with predominantly brown and black coloration. LM is usually seen on older, mostly fair-skinned patients who have a history of extensive sun exposure. Its preferred sites include the face, ears, neck, and upper extremities.

LM is, by definition, entirely superficial and therefore safe. Its main significance is that it can become focally invasive to the dermis, a phenomenon termed lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM). When that occurs, the clusters of spindle-shaped atypical cells can then progress to a vertical growth phase, resulting in intravascular invasion that eventuates in metastasis.

LMs grow so slowly that they often escape detection; they are sometimes mistaken for solar lentigines (SL). They can “collide” with SLs or other benign lesions (eg, seborrheic keratoses), which can effectively camouflage them. Suspicion is usually triggered by change (color, size) in a lesion.

Biopsy is the only method of detection. In this case, the central portion of this large, oddly pigmented and bordered, multicolored patch was excised and the darkest, most irregular part of the lesion collected. This is the gold standard for biopsy of a potential melanoma. A large deep shave biopsy (“saucerization”) would have accomplished the same thing; studies show that neither process will cause metastasis. The main mistake to avoid is performing a single punch biopsy, which risks a false-negative result.

The definitive surgical approach is to remove the lesion with a 1-cm margin around it and into the underlying adipose layer. The wound can either be left to heal by secondary intention or closed primarily. Either way, this patient’s prognosis is excellent, unless the final pathology report indicates focal invasion. With a patient of this age, the LM could have been left alone—although, once discovered, LM is irresistibly compelling to treat.

TAKE-HOME LEARNING POINTS
• Lentigo maligna (LM) is a type of melanoma in situ with the potential to progress to lentigo maligna melanoma, an invasive form of early melanoma.

• LM is common on sun-exposed skin of older patients with a history of excessive sun exposure.

• Faces, ears, arms, and necks are common areas for LM to manifest.

• Biopsy of suspected melanoma should incorporate a significant portion of the darkest, most irregular part of the lesion; it can be done by incisional technique or deep saucerization.

• LM is also known as Hutchinson freckle, since it often resembles a large, irregularly bordered and pigmented freckle.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(2)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 25(2)
Page Number
W3
Page Number
W3
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
What Is This Large, Oddly Pigmented “Freckle”?
Display Headline
What Is This Large, Oddly Pigmented “Freckle”?
Legacy Keywords
lentigo maligna, melanoma, melanoma in situ, lentigo maligna melanoma, Hutchinson freckle, metastatis, skin cancer, biopsy, Mohs surgery
Legacy Keywords
lentigo maligna, melanoma, melanoma in situ, lentigo maligna melanoma, Hutchinson freckle, metastatis, skin cancer, biopsy, Mohs surgery
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Conference News Update—Radiological Society of North America 2015

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 09:55
Display Headline
Conference News Update—Radiological Society of North America 2015

DTI Reveals Changes in Brain Connections in Early Alzheimer’s Disease
Changes in brain connections visible on MRI could represent an imaging biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease, according to a study presented at the meeting.

As many as five million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease, and this number is expected to increase to 14 million by 2050, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventive treatments may be most effective before Alzheimer’s disease is diagnosed, such as when a person is experiencing mild cognitive impairment.

Previous efforts at early detection have focused on beta amyloid. For the current study, researchers looked at the brain’s structural connectome, a map of white matter tracts that carry signals between various areas of the brain.

“The structural connectome provides us with a way to characterize and measure these connections and how they change through disease or age,” said Jeffrey W. Prescott, MD, PhD, a radiology resident at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and a coauthor of the study.

Dr. Prescott and colleagues analyzed data for 102 patients enrolled in a national study called the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2. The patients had undergone diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which assesses the integrity of white matter tracts in the brain by measuring how easy it is for water to move along them. “Water prefers moving along the defined physical connections between regions in the brain, which makes DTI a great tool for evaluating the structural connectome,” said Dr. Prescott.

The researchers compared changes in the structural connectome with results from florbetapir PET imaging, a technique that measures the amount of beta amyloid plaque in the brain. The results showed a strong association between florbetapir uptake and decreases in the strength of the structural connectome in each of the five areas of the brain studied.

“This study ties together two of the major changes in the Alzheimer’s brain—structural tissue changes and pathologic amyloid plaque deposition—and suggests a promising role for DTI as a possible diagnostic adjunct,” said Dr. Prescott.

Based on these findings, DTI may have a role in assessing brain damage in early Alzheimer’s disease and in monitoring the effect of new therapies.

“Traditionally, Alzheimer’s disease is believed to exert its effects on thinking via damage to the brain’s gray matter, where most of the nerve cells are concentrated,” said Jeffrey R. Petrella, MD, Professor of Radiology at Duke University and senior author of the research. “This study suggests that amyloid deposition in the gray matter affects the associated white matter connections, which are essential for conducting messages across the billions of nerve cells in the brain, allowing for all aspects of mental function.”

“We suspect that as amyloid plaque load in the gray matter increases, the brain’s white matter starts to break down or malfunction and lose its ability to move water and neurochemicals efficiently,” added Dr. Prescott.

The researchers plan to continue studying this cohort of patients over time to gain a better understanding of how the disease evolves in individual patients. They also intend to incorporate functional imaging into their research to learn about how the relationship between function and structure changes with increasing amyloid burden.

Asymptomatic Atherosclerosis May Be Associated With Cognitive Impairment
A buildup of plaque in the body’s major arteries is associated with mild cognitive impairment, according to a study of approximately 2,000 adults conducted at the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center.

“It is well established that plaque buildup in the arteries is a predictor of heart disease, but the relationship between atherosclerosis and brain health is less clear,” said Christopher D. Maroules, MD, a radiology resident at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “Our findings suggest that atherosclerosis not only affects the heart, but also brain health.”

Researchers analyzed the test results of 1,903 participants (mean age, 44) in the Dallas Heart Study, a multiethnic population-based study of adults from Dallas County, Texas. The participants included men and women who had no symptoms of cardiovascular disease.

Study participants completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a 30-point standardized test for detecting mild cognitive impairment, and underwent MRI of the brain to measure white matter hyperintensity volume. Bright white spots known as high signal intensity areas on a brain MRI indicate abnormal changes within the white matter.

“Increased white matter hyperintensity volume is part of the normal aging process,” explained Dr. Maroules. “But excessive white matter hyperintensity volume is a marker for cognitive impairment.”

Study participants also underwent imaging exams to measure the buildup of plaque in the arteries in three distinct vascular areas of the body. They underwent MRI to measure wall thickness in the carotid arteries and in the abdominal aorta, and received CT to measure coronary artery calcium.

 

 

Using the results, researchers performed a statistical regression to understand the relationship between the incidence of atherosclerosis and mild cognitive impairment. After adjusting for traditional risk factors for atherosclerosis, including age, ethnicity, male sex, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, and BMI, the investigators found independent relationships between atherosclerosis in all three vascular areas of the body and cognitive health, as measured by MoCA scores, and white matter hyperintensity volume on MRI.

Individuals in the highest quartile of internal carotid wall thickness were 21% more likely to have cognitive impairment, as indicated by a low MoCA score. An increasing coronary artery calcium score was predictive of large white matter intensity volume on MRI.

“These results underscore the importance of identifying atherosclerosis in its early stages, not just to help preserve heart function, but also to preserve cognition and brain health,” said Dr. Maroules. The MRI and CT imaging techniques provide valuable prognostic information about an individual’s downstream health risks, he added.

“Plaque buildup in blood vessels throughout the body offers us a window into brain health. Imaging with CT and MRI has an important role in identifying patients who are at a higher risk for cognitive impairment.”

A Season of High School Football Without Concussion May Cause Brain Changes
Some high school football players exhibit measurable brain changes after a single season of play, even in the absence of concussion, according to a study presented at the meeting.

“This study adds to the growing body of evidence that a season of play in a contact sport can affect the brain in the absence of clinical findings,” said Christopher T. Whitlow, MD, PhD, MHA, Associate Professor of Radiology at Wake Forest School of Medicine and radiologist at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

In recent years, various reports have suggested the potential effects that participation in youth sports may have on the developing brain. Most of these studies have looked at brain changes as a result of concussion, however. Dr. Whitlow and colleagues set out to determine whether head impacts withstood in the course of a season of high school football produce white matter changes in the brain in the absence of clinically diagnosed concussion.

The researchers studied 24 high school football players between the ages of 16 and 18. For all games and practices, players were monitored with Head Impact Telemetry System (HITs) helmet-mounted accelerometers, which are used in youth and collegiate football to assess the frequency and severity of helmet impacts.

Risk-weighted cumulative exposure was computed from the HITs data and represented the risk of concussion over the course of the season. These data, along with the total number of impacts, were used to categorize the players as heavy hitters or light hitters. The researchers identified nine of the 24 participants as heavy hitters and 15 as light hitters. None of the players had concussion during the season.

All players underwent pre- and post-season evaluation with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the brain. Diffusion tensor imaging measures fractional anisotropy, which indicates the movement of water molecules along axons. In healthy white matter, the direction of water movement is fairly uniform, and fractional anisotropy is high. When water movement is more random, fractional anisotropy values decrease, thus suggesting microstructural abnormalities.

The results showed that both groups demonstrated global increases of fractional anisotropy over time, likely reflecting the effects of brain development. However, the heavy-hitter group showed statistically significant areas of decreased fractional anisotropy post-season in specific areas of the brain, including the splenium of the corpus callosum and deep white matter tracts.

“Our study found that players experiencing greater levels of head impacts have more fractional anisotropy loss, compared with players with lower impact exposure,” said Dr. Whitlow. “Similar brain MRI changes have been previously associated with mild traumatic brain injury. However, it is unclear whether or not these effects will be associated with any negative long-term consequences.” These findings are preliminary, and more study needs to be performed, concluded Dr. Whitlow.

Mild Coronary Artery Disease Increases Risk of Cardiovascular Events
Patients with diabetes and mild coronary artery disease have the same relative risk for a heart attack or other major adverse heart event as patients with diabetes and serious single-vessel obstructive disease, according to a long-term study.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver analyzed data from the Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation For Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter (CONFIRM) Registry, which was developed to examine the prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for predicting adverse cardiac events related to coronary artery disease. The registry, which has CCTA data for 40,000 patients from 17 centers around the world, now has five-year follow-up data for 14,000 patients.

 

 

“The CONFIRM Registry is the largest long-term data set available and allowed us to evaluate the long-term prognostic value of CCTA in diabetic patients,” said Jonathan Leipsic, MD, vice chairman of the Department of Radiology at the University of British Columbia and study coauthor.

The researchers analyzed data for 1,823 patients with diabetes who underwent CCTA to detect and determine the extent of coronary artery disease. Men and women (median age, 61.7) in the study were categorized as having no coronary artery disease, mild disease (ie, coronary artery narrowed by less than 50%), or obstructive disease (ie, obstruction of more than 50% of the artery). Over a 5.2-year follow-up period, 246 deaths occurred, representing 13.5% of the total study group.

Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) data were available for 973 patients. During the follow-up period, 295 (30.3%) of the patients had a MACE, such as heart attack or a coronary revascularization.

The researchers found that both obstructive and mild, or nonobstructive, coronary artery disease, as determined by CCTA, were associated with patient deaths and MACE. Most importantly, the researchers found that the relative risk for death or MACE for a patient with mild coronary artery disease was comparable to that of patients with single vessel obstructive disease.

“Until now, two-year follow-up studies suggested that a diabetic patient with mild or nonobstructive coronary artery disease had a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and death than patients with obstructive disease,” said Philipp Blanke, MD, a radiologist at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital and a coauthor of the study. “Our five-year follow-up data suggest that nonobstructive and obstructive coronary artery disease, as detected by cardiac CTA in diabetic patients, are both associated with higher rates of mortality.”

Researchers need a better understanding of the evolution of plaque in the arteries and of patient response to therapies, said Dr. Leipsic. “Cardiac CT angiography is helpful for identifying diabetic patients who are at higher risk for heart events and who may benefit from more aggressive therapy to help modify that risk,” he added.

Patients Prefer Direct Access to Imaging Records
Patients value direct, independent access to their medical exams, researchers reported.

Giampaolo Greco, PhD, MPH, Assistant Professor in the Department of Population Health Science and Policy at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, and colleagues set out to evaluate patient and provider satisfaction with RSNA Image Share, an Internet-based interoperable image exchange system that gives patients ownership of their imaging exams and control over access to their imaging records. The network enables radiology sites to make results of imaging exams available for patients to incorporate in personal health record (PHR) accounts they can use to securely store, manage, and share their imaging records. Sites also can use the network to send patient imaging records to other participating sites to support better informed care.

For the study, patients undergoing radiologic exams at four academic centers were eligible to establish online PHR accounts using the RSNA Image Share network. Patients could then use their PHR accounts to maintain and share their images with selected providers, creating a detailed medical history accessible through any secure Internet connection.

Between July 2012 and August 2013, the study enrolled 2,562 patients, mean age 50.4, including a significant representation of older individuals. Older individuals have the highest healthcare utilization and often experience or perceive a significant barrier in using information technology.

The median number of exams uploaded per patient was six. Study participants were provided a brief survey to assess patient and physician experience with the exchange of images, and 502 patients completed and returned their surveys. Of these respondents, 448 patients identified the method used at the visit to share images: Internet, CDs, both Internet and CDs, or other, and 165 included a section completed by their physician.

Nearly all (96%) of the patients responded positively to having direct access to their medical images, and 78% viewed their images independently. There was no difference between Internet and CD users in satisfaction with privacy and security and timeliness of access to medical images. A greater percentage of Internet users reported being able to access their images without difficulty, compared with CD users (88.3% vs 77.5%).

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 23(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
16-17
Legacy Keywords
DTI, FA, Neurology Reviews, concussion, cognitive impairment, white matter hyperintensities
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Related Articles

DTI Reveals Changes in Brain Connections in Early Alzheimer’s Disease
Changes in brain connections visible on MRI could represent an imaging biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease, according to a study presented at the meeting.

As many as five million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease, and this number is expected to increase to 14 million by 2050, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventive treatments may be most effective before Alzheimer’s disease is diagnosed, such as when a person is experiencing mild cognitive impairment.

Previous efforts at early detection have focused on beta amyloid. For the current study, researchers looked at the brain’s structural connectome, a map of white matter tracts that carry signals between various areas of the brain.

“The structural connectome provides us with a way to characterize and measure these connections and how they change through disease or age,” said Jeffrey W. Prescott, MD, PhD, a radiology resident at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and a coauthor of the study.

Dr. Prescott and colleagues analyzed data for 102 patients enrolled in a national study called the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2. The patients had undergone diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which assesses the integrity of white matter tracts in the brain by measuring how easy it is for water to move along them. “Water prefers moving along the defined physical connections between regions in the brain, which makes DTI a great tool for evaluating the structural connectome,” said Dr. Prescott.

The researchers compared changes in the structural connectome with results from florbetapir PET imaging, a technique that measures the amount of beta amyloid plaque in the brain. The results showed a strong association between florbetapir uptake and decreases in the strength of the structural connectome in each of the five areas of the brain studied.

“This study ties together two of the major changes in the Alzheimer’s brain—structural tissue changes and pathologic amyloid plaque deposition—and suggests a promising role for DTI as a possible diagnostic adjunct,” said Dr. Prescott.

Based on these findings, DTI may have a role in assessing brain damage in early Alzheimer’s disease and in monitoring the effect of new therapies.

“Traditionally, Alzheimer’s disease is believed to exert its effects on thinking via damage to the brain’s gray matter, where most of the nerve cells are concentrated,” said Jeffrey R. Petrella, MD, Professor of Radiology at Duke University and senior author of the research. “This study suggests that amyloid deposition in the gray matter affects the associated white matter connections, which are essential for conducting messages across the billions of nerve cells in the brain, allowing for all aspects of mental function.”

“We suspect that as amyloid plaque load in the gray matter increases, the brain’s white matter starts to break down or malfunction and lose its ability to move water and neurochemicals efficiently,” added Dr. Prescott.

The researchers plan to continue studying this cohort of patients over time to gain a better understanding of how the disease evolves in individual patients. They also intend to incorporate functional imaging into their research to learn about how the relationship between function and structure changes with increasing amyloid burden.

Asymptomatic Atherosclerosis May Be Associated With Cognitive Impairment
A buildup of plaque in the body’s major arteries is associated with mild cognitive impairment, according to a study of approximately 2,000 adults conducted at the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center.

“It is well established that plaque buildup in the arteries is a predictor of heart disease, but the relationship between atherosclerosis and brain health is less clear,” said Christopher D. Maroules, MD, a radiology resident at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “Our findings suggest that atherosclerosis not only affects the heart, but also brain health.”

Researchers analyzed the test results of 1,903 participants (mean age, 44) in the Dallas Heart Study, a multiethnic population-based study of adults from Dallas County, Texas. The participants included men and women who had no symptoms of cardiovascular disease.

Study participants completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a 30-point standardized test for detecting mild cognitive impairment, and underwent MRI of the brain to measure white matter hyperintensity volume. Bright white spots known as high signal intensity areas on a brain MRI indicate abnormal changes within the white matter.

“Increased white matter hyperintensity volume is part of the normal aging process,” explained Dr. Maroules. “But excessive white matter hyperintensity volume is a marker for cognitive impairment.”

Study participants also underwent imaging exams to measure the buildup of plaque in the arteries in three distinct vascular areas of the body. They underwent MRI to measure wall thickness in the carotid arteries and in the abdominal aorta, and received CT to measure coronary artery calcium.

 

 

Using the results, researchers performed a statistical regression to understand the relationship between the incidence of atherosclerosis and mild cognitive impairment. After adjusting for traditional risk factors for atherosclerosis, including age, ethnicity, male sex, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, and BMI, the investigators found independent relationships between atherosclerosis in all three vascular areas of the body and cognitive health, as measured by MoCA scores, and white matter hyperintensity volume on MRI.

Individuals in the highest quartile of internal carotid wall thickness were 21% more likely to have cognitive impairment, as indicated by a low MoCA score. An increasing coronary artery calcium score was predictive of large white matter intensity volume on MRI.

“These results underscore the importance of identifying atherosclerosis in its early stages, not just to help preserve heart function, but also to preserve cognition and brain health,” said Dr. Maroules. The MRI and CT imaging techniques provide valuable prognostic information about an individual’s downstream health risks, he added.

“Plaque buildup in blood vessels throughout the body offers us a window into brain health. Imaging with CT and MRI has an important role in identifying patients who are at a higher risk for cognitive impairment.”

A Season of High School Football Without Concussion May Cause Brain Changes
Some high school football players exhibit measurable brain changes after a single season of play, even in the absence of concussion, according to a study presented at the meeting.

“This study adds to the growing body of evidence that a season of play in a contact sport can affect the brain in the absence of clinical findings,” said Christopher T. Whitlow, MD, PhD, MHA, Associate Professor of Radiology at Wake Forest School of Medicine and radiologist at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

In recent years, various reports have suggested the potential effects that participation in youth sports may have on the developing brain. Most of these studies have looked at brain changes as a result of concussion, however. Dr. Whitlow and colleagues set out to determine whether head impacts withstood in the course of a season of high school football produce white matter changes in the brain in the absence of clinically diagnosed concussion.

The researchers studied 24 high school football players between the ages of 16 and 18. For all games and practices, players were monitored with Head Impact Telemetry System (HITs) helmet-mounted accelerometers, which are used in youth and collegiate football to assess the frequency and severity of helmet impacts.

Risk-weighted cumulative exposure was computed from the HITs data and represented the risk of concussion over the course of the season. These data, along with the total number of impacts, were used to categorize the players as heavy hitters or light hitters. The researchers identified nine of the 24 participants as heavy hitters and 15 as light hitters. None of the players had concussion during the season.

All players underwent pre- and post-season evaluation with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the brain. Diffusion tensor imaging measures fractional anisotropy, which indicates the movement of water molecules along axons. In healthy white matter, the direction of water movement is fairly uniform, and fractional anisotropy is high. When water movement is more random, fractional anisotropy values decrease, thus suggesting microstructural abnormalities.

The results showed that both groups demonstrated global increases of fractional anisotropy over time, likely reflecting the effects of brain development. However, the heavy-hitter group showed statistically significant areas of decreased fractional anisotropy post-season in specific areas of the brain, including the splenium of the corpus callosum and deep white matter tracts.

“Our study found that players experiencing greater levels of head impacts have more fractional anisotropy loss, compared with players with lower impact exposure,” said Dr. Whitlow. “Similar brain MRI changes have been previously associated with mild traumatic brain injury. However, it is unclear whether or not these effects will be associated with any negative long-term consequences.” These findings are preliminary, and more study needs to be performed, concluded Dr. Whitlow.

Mild Coronary Artery Disease Increases Risk of Cardiovascular Events
Patients with diabetes and mild coronary artery disease have the same relative risk for a heart attack or other major adverse heart event as patients with diabetes and serious single-vessel obstructive disease, according to a long-term study.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver analyzed data from the Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation For Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter (CONFIRM) Registry, which was developed to examine the prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for predicting adverse cardiac events related to coronary artery disease. The registry, which has CCTA data for 40,000 patients from 17 centers around the world, now has five-year follow-up data for 14,000 patients.

 

 

“The CONFIRM Registry is the largest long-term data set available and allowed us to evaluate the long-term prognostic value of CCTA in diabetic patients,” said Jonathan Leipsic, MD, vice chairman of the Department of Radiology at the University of British Columbia and study coauthor.

The researchers analyzed data for 1,823 patients with diabetes who underwent CCTA to detect and determine the extent of coronary artery disease. Men and women (median age, 61.7) in the study were categorized as having no coronary artery disease, mild disease (ie, coronary artery narrowed by less than 50%), or obstructive disease (ie, obstruction of more than 50% of the artery). Over a 5.2-year follow-up period, 246 deaths occurred, representing 13.5% of the total study group.

Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) data were available for 973 patients. During the follow-up period, 295 (30.3%) of the patients had a MACE, such as heart attack or a coronary revascularization.

The researchers found that both obstructive and mild, or nonobstructive, coronary artery disease, as determined by CCTA, were associated with patient deaths and MACE. Most importantly, the researchers found that the relative risk for death or MACE for a patient with mild coronary artery disease was comparable to that of patients with single vessel obstructive disease.

“Until now, two-year follow-up studies suggested that a diabetic patient with mild or nonobstructive coronary artery disease had a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and death than patients with obstructive disease,” said Philipp Blanke, MD, a radiologist at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital and a coauthor of the study. “Our five-year follow-up data suggest that nonobstructive and obstructive coronary artery disease, as detected by cardiac CTA in diabetic patients, are both associated with higher rates of mortality.”

Researchers need a better understanding of the evolution of plaque in the arteries and of patient response to therapies, said Dr. Leipsic. “Cardiac CT angiography is helpful for identifying diabetic patients who are at higher risk for heart events and who may benefit from more aggressive therapy to help modify that risk,” he added.

Patients Prefer Direct Access to Imaging Records
Patients value direct, independent access to their medical exams, researchers reported.

Giampaolo Greco, PhD, MPH, Assistant Professor in the Department of Population Health Science and Policy at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, and colleagues set out to evaluate patient and provider satisfaction with RSNA Image Share, an Internet-based interoperable image exchange system that gives patients ownership of their imaging exams and control over access to their imaging records. The network enables radiology sites to make results of imaging exams available for patients to incorporate in personal health record (PHR) accounts they can use to securely store, manage, and share their imaging records. Sites also can use the network to send patient imaging records to other participating sites to support better informed care.

For the study, patients undergoing radiologic exams at four academic centers were eligible to establish online PHR accounts using the RSNA Image Share network. Patients could then use their PHR accounts to maintain and share their images with selected providers, creating a detailed medical history accessible through any secure Internet connection.

Between July 2012 and August 2013, the study enrolled 2,562 patients, mean age 50.4, including a significant representation of older individuals. Older individuals have the highest healthcare utilization and often experience or perceive a significant barrier in using information technology.

The median number of exams uploaded per patient was six. Study participants were provided a brief survey to assess patient and physician experience with the exchange of images, and 502 patients completed and returned their surveys. Of these respondents, 448 patients identified the method used at the visit to share images: Internet, CDs, both Internet and CDs, or other, and 165 included a section completed by their physician.

Nearly all (96%) of the patients responded positively to having direct access to their medical images, and 78% viewed their images independently. There was no difference between Internet and CD users in satisfaction with privacy and security and timeliness of access to medical images. A greater percentage of Internet users reported being able to access their images without difficulty, compared with CD users (88.3% vs 77.5%).

DTI Reveals Changes in Brain Connections in Early Alzheimer’s Disease
Changes in brain connections visible on MRI could represent an imaging biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease, according to a study presented at the meeting.

As many as five million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease, and this number is expected to increase to 14 million by 2050, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventive treatments may be most effective before Alzheimer’s disease is diagnosed, such as when a person is experiencing mild cognitive impairment.

Previous efforts at early detection have focused on beta amyloid. For the current study, researchers looked at the brain’s structural connectome, a map of white matter tracts that carry signals between various areas of the brain.

“The structural connectome provides us with a way to characterize and measure these connections and how they change through disease or age,” said Jeffrey W. Prescott, MD, PhD, a radiology resident at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and a coauthor of the study.

Dr. Prescott and colleagues analyzed data for 102 patients enrolled in a national study called the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2. The patients had undergone diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which assesses the integrity of white matter tracts in the brain by measuring how easy it is for water to move along them. “Water prefers moving along the defined physical connections between regions in the brain, which makes DTI a great tool for evaluating the structural connectome,” said Dr. Prescott.

The researchers compared changes in the structural connectome with results from florbetapir PET imaging, a technique that measures the amount of beta amyloid plaque in the brain. The results showed a strong association between florbetapir uptake and decreases in the strength of the structural connectome in each of the five areas of the brain studied.

“This study ties together two of the major changes in the Alzheimer’s brain—structural tissue changes and pathologic amyloid plaque deposition—and suggests a promising role for DTI as a possible diagnostic adjunct,” said Dr. Prescott.

Based on these findings, DTI may have a role in assessing brain damage in early Alzheimer’s disease and in monitoring the effect of new therapies.

“Traditionally, Alzheimer’s disease is believed to exert its effects on thinking via damage to the brain’s gray matter, where most of the nerve cells are concentrated,” said Jeffrey R. Petrella, MD, Professor of Radiology at Duke University and senior author of the research. “This study suggests that amyloid deposition in the gray matter affects the associated white matter connections, which are essential for conducting messages across the billions of nerve cells in the brain, allowing for all aspects of mental function.”

“We suspect that as amyloid plaque load in the gray matter increases, the brain’s white matter starts to break down or malfunction and lose its ability to move water and neurochemicals efficiently,” added Dr. Prescott.

The researchers plan to continue studying this cohort of patients over time to gain a better understanding of how the disease evolves in individual patients. They also intend to incorporate functional imaging into their research to learn about how the relationship between function and structure changes with increasing amyloid burden.

Asymptomatic Atherosclerosis May Be Associated With Cognitive Impairment
A buildup of plaque in the body’s major arteries is associated with mild cognitive impairment, according to a study of approximately 2,000 adults conducted at the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center.

“It is well established that plaque buildup in the arteries is a predictor of heart disease, but the relationship between atherosclerosis and brain health is less clear,” said Christopher D. Maroules, MD, a radiology resident at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “Our findings suggest that atherosclerosis not only affects the heart, but also brain health.”

Researchers analyzed the test results of 1,903 participants (mean age, 44) in the Dallas Heart Study, a multiethnic population-based study of adults from Dallas County, Texas. The participants included men and women who had no symptoms of cardiovascular disease.

Study participants completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a 30-point standardized test for detecting mild cognitive impairment, and underwent MRI of the brain to measure white matter hyperintensity volume. Bright white spots known as high signal intensity areas on a brain MRI indicate abnormal changes within the white matter.

“Increased white matter hyperintensity volume is part of the normal aging process,” explained Dr. Maroules. “But excessive white matter hyperintensity volume is a marker for cognitive impairment.”

Study participants also underwent imaging exams to measure the buildup of plaque in the arteries in three distinct vascular areas of the body. They underwent MRI to measure wall thickness in the carotid arteries and in the abdominal aorta, and received CT to measure coronary artery calcium.

 

 

Using the results, researchers performed a statistical regression to understand the relationship between the incidence of atherosclerosis and mild cognitive impairment. After adjusting for traditional risk factors for atherosclerosis, including age, ethnicity, male sex, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, and BMI, the investigators found independent relationships between atherosclerosis in all three vascular areas of the body and cognitive health, as measured by MoCA scores, and white matter hyperintensity volume on MRI.

Individuals in the highest quartile of internal carotid wall thickness were 21% more likely to have cognitive impairment, as indicated by a low MoCA score. An increasing coronary artery calcium score was predictive of large white matter intensity volume on MRI.

“These results underscore the importance of identifying atherosclerosis in its early stages, not just to help preserve heart function, but also to preserve cognition and brain health,” said Dr. Maroules. The MRI and CT imaging techniques provide valuable prognostic information about an individual’s downstream health risks, he added.

“Plaque buildup in blood vessels throughout the body offers us a window into brain health. Imaging with CT and MRI has an important role in identifying patients who are at a higher risk for cognitive impairment.”

A Season of High School Football Without Concussion May Cause Brain Changes
Some high school football players exhibit measurable brain changes after a single season of play, even in the absence of concussion, according to a study presented at the meeting.

“This study adds to the growing body of evidence that a season of play in a contact sport can affect the brain in the absence of clinical findings,” said Christopher T. Whitlow, MD, PhD, MHA, Associate Professor of Radiology at Wake Forest School of Medicine and radiologist at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

In recent years, various reports have suggested the potential effects that participation in youth sports may have on the developing brain. Most of these studies have looked at brain changes as a result of concussion, however. Dr. Whitlow and colleagues set out to determine whether head impacts withstood in the course of a season of high school football produce white matter changes in the brain in the absence of clinically diagnosed concussion.

The researchers studied 24 high school football players between the ages of 16 and 18. For all games and practices, players were monitored with Head Impact Telemetry System (HITs) helmet-mounted accelerometers, which are used in youth and collegiate football to assess the frequency and severity of helmet impacts.

Risk-weighted cumulative exposure was computed from the HITs data and represented the risk of concussion over the course of the season. These data, along with the total number of impacts, were used to categorize the players as heavy hitters or light hitters. The researchers identified nine of the 24 participants as heavy hitters and 15 as light hitters. None of the players had concussion during the season.

All players underwent pre- and post-season evaluation with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the brain. Diffusion tensor imaging measures fractional anisotropy, which indicates the movement of water molecules along axons. In healthy white matter, the direction of water movement is fairly uniform, and fractional anisotropy is high. When water movement is more random, fractional anisotropy values decrease, thus suggesting microstructural abnormalities.

The results showed that both groups demonstrated global increases of fractional anisotropy over time, likely reflecting the effects of brain development. However, the heavy-hitter group showed statistically significant areas of decreased fractional anisotropy post-season in specific areas of the brain, including the splenium of the corpus callosum and deep white matter tracts.

“Our study found that players experiencing greater levels of head impacts have more fractional anisotropy loss, compared with players with lower impact exposure,” said Dr. Whitlow. “Similar brain MRI changes have been previously associated with mild traumatic brain injury. However, it is unclear whether or not these effects will be associated with any negative long-term consequences.” These findings are preliminary, and more study needs to be performed, concluded Dr. Whitlow.

Mild Coronary Artery Disease Increases Risk of Cardiovascular Events
Patients with diabetes and mild coronary artery disease have the same relative risk for a heart attack or other major adverse heart event as patients with diabetes and serious single-vessel obstructive disease, according to a long-term study.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver analyzed data from the Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation For Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter (CONFIRM) Registry, which was developed to examine the prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for predicting adverse cardiac events related to coronary artery disease. The registry, which has CCTA data for 40,000 patients from 17 centers around the world, now has five-year follow-up data for 14,000 patients.

 

 

“The CONFIRM Registry is the largest long-term data set available and allowed us to evaluate the long-term prognostic value of CCTA in diabetic patients,” said Jonathan Leipsic, MD, vice chairman of the Department of Radiology at the University of British Columbia and study coauthor.

The researchers analyzed data for 1,823 patients with diabetes who underwent CCTA to detect and determine the extent of coronary artery disease. Men and women (median age, 61.7) in the study were categorized as having no coronary artery disease, mild disease (ie, coronary artery narrowed by less than 50%), or obstructive disease (ie, obstruction of more than 50% of the artery). Over a 5.2-year follow-up period, 246 deaths occurred, representing 13.5% of the total study group.

Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) data were available for 973 patients. During the follow-up period, 295 (30.3%) of the patients had a MACE, such as heart attack or a coronary revascularization.

The researchers found that both obstructive and mild, or nonobstructive, coronary artery disease, as determined by CCTA, were associated with patient deaths and MACE. Most importantly, the researchers found that the relative risk for death or MACE for a patient with mild coronary artery disease was comparable to that of patients with single vessel obstructive disease.

“Until now, two-year follow-up studies suggested that a diabetic patient with mild or nonobstructive coronary artery disease had a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and death than patients with obstructive disease,” said Philipp Blanke, MD, a radiologist at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital and a coauthor of the study. “Our five-year follow-up data suggest that nonobstructive and obstructive coronary artery disease, as detected by cardiac CTA in diabetic patients, are both associated with higher rates of mortality.”

Researchers need a better understanding of the evolution of plaque in the arteries and of patient response to therapies, said Dr. Leipsic. “Cardiac CT angiography is helpful for identifying diabetic patients who are at higher risk for heart events and who may benefit from more aggressive therapy to help modify that risk,” he added.

Patients Prefer Direct Access to Imaging Records
Patients value direct, independent access to their medical exams, researchers reported.

Giampaolo Greco, PhD, MPH, Assistant Professor in the Department of Population Health Science and Policy at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, and colleagues set out to evaluate patient and provider satisfaction with RSNA Image Share, an Internet-based interoperable image exchange system that gives patients ownership of their imaging exams and control over access to their imaging records. The network enables radiology sites to make results of imaging exams available for patients to incorporate in personal health record (PHR) accounts they can use to securely store, manage, and share their imaging records. Sites also can use the network to send patient imaging records to other participating sites to support better informed care.

For the study, patients undergoing radiologic exams at four academic centers were eligible to establish online PHR accounts using the RSNA Image Share network. Patients could then use their PHR accounts to maintain and share their images with selected providers, creating a detailed medical history accessible through any secure Internet connection.

Between July 2012 and August 2013, the study enrolled 2,562 patients, mean age 50.4, including a significant representation of older individuals. Older individuals have the highest healthcare utilization and often experience or perceive a significant barrier in using information technology.

The median number of exams uploaded per patient was six. Study participants were provided a brief survey to assess patient and physician experience with the exchange of images, and 502 patients completed and returned their surveys. Of these respondents, 448 patients identified the method used at the visit to share images: Internet, CDs, both Internet and CDs, or other, and 165 included a section completed by their physician.

Nearly all (96%) of the patients responded positively to having direct access to their medical images, and 78% viewed their images independently. There was no difference between Internet and CD users in satisfaction with privacy and security and timeliness of access to medical images. A greater percentage of Internet users reported being able to access their images without difficulty, compared with CD users (88.3% vs 77.5%).

References

References

Issue
Neurology Reviews - 23(2)
Issue
Neurology Reviews - 23(2)
Page Number
16-17
Page Number
16-17
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Conference News Update—Radiological Society of North America 2015
Display Headline
Conference News Update—Radiological Society of North America 2015
Legacy Keywords
DTI, FA, Neurology Reviews, concussion, cognitive impairment, white matter hyperintensities
Legacy Keywords
DTI, FA, Neurology Reviews, concussion, cognitive impairment, white matter hyperintensities
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Xerosis is significant risk during targeted anticancer treatments

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 09:09
Display Headline
Xerosis is significant risk during targeted anticancer treatments

Patients receiving targeted anticancer treatments are at a significant risk of developing xerosis, or abnormal dryness, according to Dr. Johannah Valentine and her associates.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials involving 58 targeted agents, nearly 18% of all patients developed xerosis, with 1% of patients developing high-grade xerosis. The incidence may be affected by age, concomitant medications, comorbidities, and underlying malignancies or skin conditions, and reporting may vary among physicians and institutions, the researchers said.

Patients should be counseled and treated early for this symptom to prevent suboptimal dosing and quality-of-life impairment, the investigators recommended.

Read the full article at the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2014.12.010).

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
xerosis, cancer, targeted, treatment
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Patients receiving targeted anticancer treatments are at a significant risk of developing xerosis, or abnormal dryness, according to Dr. Johannah Valentine and her associates.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials involving 58 targeted agents, nearly 18% of all patients developed xerosis, with 1% of patients developing high-grade xerosis. The incidence may be affected by age, concomitant medications, comorbidities, and underlying malignancies or skin conditions, and reporting may vary among physicians and institutions, the researchers said.

Patients should be counseled and treated early for this symptom to prevent suboptimal dosing and quality-of-life impairment, the investigators recommended.

Read the full article at the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2014.12.010).

Patients receiving targeted anticancer treatments are at a significant risk of developing xerosis, or abnormal dryness, according to Dr. Johannah Valentine and her associates.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials involving 58 targeted agents, nearly 18% of all patients developed xerosis, with 1% of patients developing high-grade xerosis. The incidence may be affected by age, concomitant medications, comorbidities, and underlying malignancies or skin conditions, and reporting may vary among physicians and institutions, the researchers said.

Patients should be counseled and treated early for this symptom to prevent suboptimal dosing and quality-of-life impairment, the investigators recommended.

Read the full article at the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2014.12.010).

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Xerosis is significant risk during targeted anticancer treatments
Display Headline
Xerosis is significant risk during targeted anticancer treatments
Legacy Keywords
xerosis, cancer, targeted, treatment
Legacy Keywords
xerosis, cancer, targeted, treatment
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

LISTEN NOW: Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, Explains Hospitalists' Role in Improving the U.S. Healthcare System

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 12:11
Display Headline
LISTEN NOW: Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, Explains Hospitalists' Role in Improving the U.S. Healthcare System

Patient-safety guru Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, senior vice president for patient safety and quality at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, talks about hospitalists’ role in improving the American healthcare system.

Audio / Podcast
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(02)
Publications
Topics
Sections
Audio / Podcast
Audio / Podcast

Patient-safety guru Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, senior vice president for patient safety and quality at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, talks about hospitalists’ role in improving the American healthcare system.

Patient-safety guru Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, senior vice president for patient safety and quality at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, talks about hospitalists’ role in improving the American healthcare system.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(02)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(02)
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
LISTEN NOW: Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, Explains Hospitalists' Role in Improving the U.S. Healthcare System
Display Headline
LISTEN NOW: Peter Pronovost, MD, PhD, Explains Hospitalists' Role in Improving the U.S. Healthcare System
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

LISTEN NOW: Ron Greeno Discusses Key Policy Issues Facing Hospitalists

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 12:11
Display Headline
LISTEN NOW: Ron Greeno Discusses Key Policy Issues Facing Hospitalists

SHM Public Policy Committee Chair Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, talks about policy issues facing hospitalist, and how "Hill Day 2015" works as an advocacy tool.

Dr. Greeno

Audio / Podcast
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(02)
Publications
Sections
Audio / Podcast
Audio / Podcast

SHM Public Policy Committee Chair Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, talks about policy issues facing hospitalist, and how "Hill Day 2015" works as an advocacy tool.

Dr. Greeno

SHM Public Policy Committee Chair Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, talks about policy issues facing hospitalist, and how "Hill Day 2015" works as an advocacy tool.

Dr. Greeno

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(02)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(02)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
LISTEN NOW: Ron Greeno Discusses Key Policy Issues Facing Hospitalists
Display Headline
LISTEN NOW: Ron Greeno Discusses Key Policy Issues Facing Hospitalists
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

LISTEN NOW: HM15 Course Director Explains How You Can Maximize SHM's Annual Meeting

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 12:11
Display Headline
LISTEN NOW: HM15 Course Director Explains How You Can Maximize SHM's Annual Meeting

HM15 Course Director Efren Manjarrez, MD, SFHM, talks about getting new and younger hospitalists involved in the annual meeting, as well as how to get the most out of the largest hospitalist-focused confab in the nation.

Audio / Podcast
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(02)
Publications
Sections
Audio / Podcast
Audio / Podcast

HM15 Course Director Efren Manjarrez, MD, SFHM, talks about getting new and younger hospitalists involved in the annual meeting, as well as how to get the most out of the largest hospitalist-focused confab in the nation.

HM15 Course Director Efren Manjarrez, MD, SFHM, talks about getting new and younger hospitalists involved in the annual meeting, as well as how to get the most out of the largest hospitalist-focused confab in the nation.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(02)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(02)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
LISTEN NOW: HM15 Course Director Explains How You Can Maximize SHM's Annual Meeting
Display Headline
LISTEN NOW: HM15 Course Director Explains How You Can Maximize SHM's Annual Meeting
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Should APA have endorsed the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act?

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 04/16/2018 - 13:38
Display Headline
Should APA have endorsed the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act?

After the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, we saw an unprecedented amount of proposed legislation at both the state and national levels. The legislation was aimed at fixing whatever it is that is broken in our country that either causes or allows a young man to kill more than two dozen innocent people. Some legislators focused on gun control, while others focused on changing the mental health system, with the idea that the shooter’s actions were caused by his untreated mental illness.

Dr. Dinah Miller

Rep. Tim Murphy, Ph.D., has the distinction of being the only clinical psychologist in Congress, so it’s certainly understandable that he would focus on making long-overdue changes to our troubled mental health system. In addition, Rep. Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, has a strong history of voting against legislation that would curb gun rights, and he carries an “A” grade from the National Rifle Association. When Rep. Murphy publicly promised the families of the Newtown victims that he would enact change, it was clear that his passion was for changing the mental health system. In 2013, Rep. Murphy, with bipartisan support, proposed The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act.

The Murphy bill proposed sweeping and complex changes, and the text was 135 pages long. A major component of the bill was to create a position for an assistant secretary for mental health and substance use disorders within the Department of Health & Human Services to coordinate federal programs and ensure that evidence-based treatments were being used.

The bill also called for shifting money from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to the National Institute of Mental Health in the wake of recent thought that SAMHSA has become insensitive to severe mental illness and too oriented toward a recovery model that carries a vague antipsychiatry sentiment.

From there, the issues of patients’ rights versus a doctor-knows-best sentiment have influenced the act, as though one can’t be in favor of both. Perhaps the most controversial requirements include a provision that mandates all states to have outpatient civil commitment programs and a provision that says that health care providers may release information to caretakers of patients with psychiatric disorders without the patient’s consent if the information is felt to be necessary for the patient’s safety or welfare.

This last point is likely to be interpreted as suggesting that psychiatric patients don’t have the same right to confidentiality that other patients have, which would be true. It has the potential to be stigmatizing and infantilizing, and there are people who will not seek care because of the perception this creates. In addition, it may create tension between family members who feel the law now entitles them to information and psychiatrists who don’t see this is as necessary or who fear that releasing information will damage the therapeutic relationship.

Many components of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act have been applauded universally, but the American Psychiatric Association did not formally support the bill, and an opposing bill was proposed in Congress by Rep. Ron Barber, a Democrat from Arizona who took Gabrielle Giffords’ seat after an assassination attempt by a mentally ill man left her unable to serve. Both bills died when the congressional session ended in December, and Mr. Barber lost a re-election bid and has not returned to Congress.

A new Congress has convened, and Rep. Murphy will be re-introducing the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act with numerous changes. Although the APA did not endorse the previous legislation, the association last week announced, with unanimous backing by the Board of Trustees, its support for the Murphy bill.

“We are pleased that Chairman Murphy is refining and reintroducing his comprehensive mental health reform bill, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” APA President Paul Summergrad said in the last week of January. At an event in early February, he said that he intends to add reforms that align well with APA priorities, including boosting the psychiatric workforce and monitoring and enforcement of mental health parity.

“In December the APA Board of Trustees carefully reviewed its strategy, principles and options for reform and unanimously voted to fully support the efforts of Chairman Murphy and his lead Democratic cosponsor, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. Their efforts are historic in scope, and we are hopeful that Congress will through the legislative process act to pass comprehensive mental health reform with the bipartisan support it deserves.”

Still, I heard the news and was terribly disappointed in the APA. The decision to support this sweeping legislation was made without a vote by the Assembly, with the knowledge that some of these issues are quite polarizing. In addition to the HIPAA disqualification, the issue of outpatient civil commitment, in particular, is controversial. Although proponents are quick to point to research that show its benefits – the research has been done specifically on Kendra’s Law in New York, where $125 million was placed into that state’s mental health system to shore up services – we don’t have the research to know if what helps is providing more services or strong-armed coercion. The text of the bill will be released in the coming weeks. At the very least, couldn’t the APA have waited to see exactly what it is we endorsed?

 

 

Dr. Miller is writing a book on involuntary psychiatric care.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Legacy Keywords
murphy's law, newtown, mental health
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

After the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, we saw an unprecedented amount of proposed legislation at both the state and national levels. The legislation was aimed at fixing whatever it is that is broken in our country that either causes or allows a young man to kill more than two dozen innocent people. Some legislators focused on gun control, while others focused on changing the mental health system, with the idea that the shooter’s actions were caused by his untreated mental illness.

Dr. Dinah Miller

Rep. Tim Murphy, Ph.D., has the distinction of being the only clinical psychologist in Congress, so it’s certainly understandable that he would focus on making long-overdue changes to our troubled mental health system. In addition, Rep. Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, has a strong history of voting against legislation that would curb gun rights, and he carries an “A” grade from the National Rifle Association. When Rep. Murphy publicly promised the families of the Newtown victims that he would enact change, it was clear that his passion was for changing the mental health system. In 2013, Rep. Murphy, with bipartisan support, proposed The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act.

The Murphy bill proposed sweeping and complex changes, and the text was 135 pages long. A major component of the bill was to create a position for an assistant secretary for mental health and substance use disorders within the Department of Health & Human Services to coordinate federal programs and ensure that evidence-based treatments were being used.

The bill also called for shifting money from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to the National Institute of Mental Health in the wake of recent thought that SAMHSA has become insensitive to severe mental illness and too oriented toward a recovery model that carries a vague antipsychiatry sentiment.

From there, the issues of patients’ rights versus a doctor-knows-best sentiment have influenced the act, as though one can’t be in favor of both. Perhaps the most controversial requirements include a provision that mandates all states to have outpatient civil commitment programs and a provision that says that health care providers may release information to caretakers of patients with psychiatric disorders without the patient’s consent if the information is felt to be necessary for the patient’s safety or welfare.

This last point is likely to be interpreted as suggesting that psychiatric patients don’t have the same right to confidentiality that other patients have, which would be true. It has the potential to be stigmatizing and infantilizing, and there are people who will not seek care because of the perception this creates. In addition, it may create tension between family members who feel the law now entitles them to information and psychiatrists who don’t see this is as necessary or who fear that releasing information will damage the therapeutic relationship.

Many components of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act have been applauded universally, but the American Psychiatric Association did not formally support the bill, and an opposing bill was proposed in Congress by Rep. Ron Barber, a Democrat from Arizona who took Gabrielle Giffords’ seat after an assassination attempt by a mentally ill man left her unable to serve. Both bills died when the congressional session ended in December, and Mr. Barber lost a re-election bid and has not returned to Congress.

A new Congress has convened, and Rep. Murphy will be re-introducing the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act with numerous changes. Although the APA did not endorse the previous legislation, the association last week announced, with unanimous backing by the Board of Trustees, its support for the Murphy bill.

“We are pleased that Chairman Murphy is refining and reintroducing his comprehensive mental health reform bill, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” APA President Paul Summergrad said in the last week of January. At an event in early February, he said that he intends to add reforms that align well with APA priorities, including boosting the psychiatric workforce and monitoring and enforcement of mental health parity.

“In December the APA Board of Trustees carefully reviewed its strategy, principles and options for reform and unanimously voted to fully support the efforts of Chairman Murphy and his lead Democratic cosponsor, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. Their efforts are historic in scope, and we are hopeful that Congress will through the legislative process act to pass comprehensive mental health reform with the bipartisan support it deserves.”

Still, I heard the news and was terribly disappointed in the APA. The decision to support this sweeping legislation was made without a vote by the Assembly, with the knowledge that some of these issues are quite polarizing. In addition to the HIPAA disqualification, the issue of outpatient civil commitment, in particular, is controversial. Although proponents are quick to point to research that show its benefits – the research has been done specifically on Kendra’s Law in New York, where $125 million was placed into that state’s mental health system to shore up services – we don’t have the research to know if what helps is providing more services or strong-armed coercion. The text of the bill will be released in the coming weeks. At the very least, couldn’t the APA have waited to see exactly what it is we endorsed?

 

 

Dr. Miller is writing a book on involuntary psychiatric care.

After the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, we saw an unprecedented amount of proposed legislation at both the state and national levels. The legislation was aimed at fixing whatever it is that is broken in our country that either causes or allows a young man to kill more than two dozen innocent people. Some legislators focused on gun control, while others focused on changing the mental health system, with the idea that the shooter’s actions were caused by his untreated mental illness.

Dr. Dinah Miller

Rep. Tim Murphy, Ph.D., has the distinction of being the only clinical psychologist in Congress, so it’s certainly understandable that he would focus on making long-overdue changes to our troubled mental health system. In addition, Rep. Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, has a strong history of voting against legislation that would curb gun rights, and he carries an “A” grade from the National Rifle Association. When Rep. Murphy publicly promised the families of the Newtown victims that he would enact change, it was clear that his passion was for changing the mental health system. In 2013, Rep. Murphy, with bipartisan support, proposed The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act.

The Murphy bill proposed sweeping and complex changes, and the text was 135 pages long. A major component of the bill was to create a position for an assistant secretary for mental health and substance use disorders within the Department of Health & Human Services to coordinate federal programs and ensure that evidence-based treatments were being used.

The bill also called for shifting money from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to the National Institute of Mental Health in the wake of recent thought that SAMHSA has become insensitive to severe mental illness and too oriented toward a recovery model that carries a vague antipsychiatry sentiment.

From there, the issues of patients’ rights versus a doctor-knows-best sentiment have influenced the act, as though one can’t be in favor of both. Perhaps the most controversial requirements include a provision that mandates all states to have outpatient civil commitment programs and a provision that says that health care providers may release information to caretakers of patients with psychiatric disorders without the patient’s consent if the information is felt to be necessary for the patient’s safety or welfare.

This last point is likely to be interpreted as suggesting that psychiatric patients don’t have the same right to confidentiality that other patients have, which would be true. It has the potential to be stigmatizing and infantilizing, and there are people who will not seek care because of the perception this creates. In addition, it may create tension between family members who feel the law now entitles them to information and psychiatrists who don’t see this is as necessary or who fear that releasing information will damage the therapeutic relationship.

Many components of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act have been applauded universally, but the American Psychiatric Association did not formally support the bill, and an opposing bill was proposed in Congress by Rep. Ron Barber, a Democrat from Arizona who took Gabrielle Giffords’ seat after an assassination attempt by a mentally ill man left her unable to serve. Both bills died when the congressional session ended in December, and Mr. Barber lost a re-election bid and has not returned to Congress.

A new Congress has convened, and Rep. Murphy will be re-introducing the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act with numerous changes. Although the APA did not endorse the previous legislation, the association last week announced, with unanimous backing by the Board of Trustees, its support for the Murphy bill.

“We are pleased that Chairman Murphy is refining and reintroducing his comprehensive mental health reform bill, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” APA President Paul Summergrad said in the last week of January. At an event in early February, he said that he intends to add reforms that align well with APA priorities, including boosting the psychiatric workforce and monitoring and enforcement of mental health parity.

“In December the APA Board of Trustees carefully reviewed its strategy, principles and options for reform and unanimously voted to fully support the efforts of Chairman Murphy and his lead Democratic cosponsor, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. Their efforts are historic in scope, and we are hopeful that Congress will through the legislative process act to pass comprehensive mental health reform with the bipartisan support it deserves.”

Still, I heard the news and was terribly disappointed in the APA. The decision to support this sweeping legislation was made without a vote by the Assembly, with the knowledge that some of these issues are quite polarizing. In addition to the HIPAA disqualification, the issue of outpatient civil commitment, in particular, is controversial. Although proponents are quick to point to research that show its benefits – the research has been done specifically on Kendra’s Law in New York, where $125 million was placed into that state’s mental health system to shore up services – we don’t have the research to know if what helps is providing more services or strong-armed coercion. The text of the bill will be released in the coming weeks. At the very least, couldn’t the APA have waited to see exactly what it is we endorsed?

 

 

Dr. Miller is writing a book on involuntary psychiatric care.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Should APA have endorsed the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act?
Display Headline
Should APA have endorsed the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act?
Legacy Keywords
murphy's law, newtown, mental health
Legacy Keywords
murphy's law, newtown, mental health
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Kaempferol

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 09:09
Display Headline
Kaempferol

Kaempferol (3,5,7,4’-tetrahydroxyflavone; C15H10O6) is among the natural flavonols found in green tea, broccoli, cabbage, kale, endive, beans, leeks, tomatoes, grapes, apples, grapefruit, berries, and propolis, as well as myriad other plant sources, including Brassica and species (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006;54:2951-6; Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 2014;7:958-67; Biochem. Pharmacol. 2010;80:2042-9; Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 2012;60:1171-5; J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2013 June 27 [doi:10.1111/jdv.12204]).

It is one of the most commonly found dietary flavonoids and is also present in beer, particularly hops (Carcinogenesis 2010;31:1338-43; J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2013 June 27 [doi:10.1111/jdv.12204]). Significantly, kaempferol is known to exhibit anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, cytoprotective, and antiapoptotic activity (Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 2014;7:958-67; Biochem. Pharmacol. 2010;80:2042-9; Exp. Mol. Med. 2008;40:208-19), and is believed to play a role in protecting plants from ultraviolet (UV)-induced damage (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012;60:6966-76).

Skin protection: antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity

Among 35 flavonoids tested by Cos et al. in 2001 for lipid peroxidation-inhibiting activity, kaempferol was identified as having the highest antioxidant selectivity index (Planta Med. 2001;67:515-9).

Work by Kim et al. in 2002 revealed that four kaempferol glycosides are key active ingredients in the flowers of Prunus persica, which has long been used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat skin disorders (J. Cosmet. Sci. 2002;53:27-34). Kim and colleagues have also shown in animal studies that the topical application of P. persica may be effective at thwarting UVB-induced skin damage (J. Cosmet. Sci. 2002;53:27-34).

In addition, kaempferol is a key component in Punica granatum, which has been found to act as an effective protector against UVB-induced photodamage and aging in cultured skin fibroblasts (Int. J. Dermatol. 2010;49:276-82).

In various tests on the effects of natural flavonoids on matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1 activity and expression, Lim et al. reported in 2007 that kaempferol and quercetin potently inhibited recombinant human MMP-1, and both flavonols along with apigenin and wogonin were found to be strong inhibitors of MMP-1 induction in 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate–treated human dermal fibroblasts. All four flavonoids also suppressed the activation of activator protein (AP)-1. Kaempferol also hindered p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) activation. The investigators concluded that kaempferol is among the flavonoids or plant extracts containing them that may be useful as an agent to protect against photoaging and to treat some cutaneous inflammatory conditions (Planta Med. 2007;73:1267-74).

In 2010, Park et al. demonstrated that kaempferol alleviated burn injuries in mice and that expression of tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) induced by burn injuries was reduced by kaempferol. They concluded that their findings suggest the possible application of kaempferol to treat thermal burn–induced skin injuries (BMB Rep. 2010;43:46-51).

Anti-inflammatory as well as depigmenting activity was found by Rho et al. in 2011 to be associated with kaempferol and kaempferol rhamnosides isolated from Hibiscus cannabinus (Molecules 2011;16:3338-44).

In 2014, Kim et al. found that extracts of Aceriphyllum rossii (native to Korea and China) and its active constituents, quercetin and kaempferol, blocked secretion of beta-hexosaminidase and histamine; lowered the production and mRNA expression of interleukin-4 and TNF-alpha; and reduced prostaglandin E2 and leukotriene B4 synthesis as well as the expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and 5-lipoxygenase. These and other findings led the investigators to conclude that A. rossii and its active ingredients kaempferol and quercetin may be effective agents for the treatment of immediate-type hypersensitivity (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014;62:3750-8).

Anticancer activity

Lee et al. reported in 2010 that the inhibition by kaempferol of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) activity, a key factor in carcinogenesis, and its concomitant effects may account for the chemopreventive activity of the flavonol (Carcinogenesis 2010;31:1338-43).

At the end of that year, Lee et al. found that kaempferol inhibited UVB-induced COX-2 protein expression in mouse skin epidermal JB6 P+ cells, by blocking Src kinase activity and attenuated the UVB-induced transcriptional activities of COX-2 gene and the transcription factor AP-1. They concluded that kaempferol exerts robust chemopreventive activity against skin cancer by suppressing Src (Biochem. Pharmacol. 2010;80:2042-9).

In 2014, Yao et al. found that kaempferol acted as a safe and potent inhibitor of solar ultraviolet-induced mouse skin carcinogenesis that acted by targeting RSK2 and MSK1 (Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 2014;7:958-67).

Significantly, in terms of topical delivery, Chao et al. recently showed that submicron emulsions are effective carriers for the transdermal delivery of kaempferol (Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 2012;60:1171-5).

Conclusion

Kaempferol is one among the many natural flavonols found to exert significant salutary effects. Evidence suggests reasons for confidence that kaempferol can play a role in skin health. More research is necessary to determine the effectiveness of topical products intended to harness the benefits of this flavonoid as proper formulation is challenging.

 

 

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). She has contributed to the Cosmeceutical Critique column in Dermatology News since January 2001. Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
Kaempferol
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Kaempferol (3,5,7,4’-tetrahydroxyflavone; C15H10O6) is among the natural flavonols found in green tea, broccoli, cabbage, kale, endive, beans, leeks, tomatoes, grapes, apples, grapefruit, berries, and propolis, as well as myriad other plant sources, including Brassica and species (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006;54:2951-6; Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 2014;7:958-67; Biochem. Pharmacol. 2010;80:2042-9; Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 2012;60:1171-5; J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2013 June 27 [doi:10.1111/jdv.12204]).

It is one of the most commonly found dietary flavonoids and is also present in beer, particularly hops (Carcinogenesis 2010;31:1338-43; J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2013 June 27 [doi:10.1111/jdv.12204]). Significantly, kaempferol is known to exhibit anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, cytoprotective, and antiapoptotic activity (Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 2014;7:958-67; Biochem. Pharmacol. 2010;80:2042-9; Exp. Mol. Med. 2008;40:208-19), and is believed to play a role in protecting plants from ultraviolet (UV)-induced damage (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012;60:6966-76).

Skin protection: antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity

Among 35 flavonoids tested by Cos et al. in 2001 for lipid peroxidation-inhibiting activity, kaempferol was identified as having the highest antioxidant selectivity index (Planta Med. 2001;67:515-9).

Work by Kim et al. in 2002 revealed that four kaempferol glycosides are key active ingredients in the flowers of Prunus persica, which has long been used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat skin disorders (J. Cosmet. Sci. 2002;53:27-34). Kim and colleagues have also shown in animal studies that the topical application of P. persica may be effective at thwarting UVB-induced skin damage (J. Cosmet. Sci. 2002;53:27-34).

In addition, kaempferol is a key component in Punica granatum, which has been found to act as an effective protector against UVB-induced photodamage and aging in cultured skin fibroblasts (Int. J. Dermatol. 2010;49:276-82).

In various tests on the effects of natural flavonoids on matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1 activity and expression, Lim et al. reported in 2007 that kaempferol and quercetin potently inhibited recombinant human MMP-1, and both flavonols along with apigenin and wogonin were found to be strong inhibitors of MMP-1 induction in 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate–treated human dermal fibroblasts. All four flavonoids also suppressed the activation of activator protein (AP)-1. Kaempferol also hindered p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) activation. The investigators concluded that kaempferol is among the flavonoids or plant extracts containing them that may be useful as an agent to protect against photoaging and to treat some cutaneous inflammatory conditions (Planta Med. 2007;73:1267-74).

In 2010, Park et al. demonstrated that kaempferol alleviated burn injuries in mice and that expression of tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) induced by burn injuries was reduced by kaempferol. They concluded that their findings suggest the possible application of kaempferol to treat thermal burn–induced skin injuries (BMB Rep. 2010;43:46-51).

Anti-inflammatory as well as depigmenting activity was found by Rho et al. in 2011 to be associated with kaempferol and kaempferol rhamnosides isolated from Hibiscus cannabinus (Molecules 2011;16:3338-44).

In 2014, Kim et al. found that extracts of Aceriphyllum rossii (native to Korea and China) and its active constituents, quercetin and kaempferol, blocked secretion of beta-hexosaminidase and histamine; lowered the production and mRNA expression of interleukin-4 and TNF-alpha; and reduced prostaglandin E2 and leukotriene B4 synthesis as well as the expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and 5-lipoxygenase. These and other findings led the investigators to conclude that A. rossii and its active ingredients kaempferol and quercetin may be effective agents for the treatment of immediate-type hypersensitivity (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014;62:3750-8).

Anticancer activity

Lee et al. reported in 2010 that the inhibition by kaempferol of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) activity, a key factor in carcinogenesis, and its concomitant effects may account for the chemopreventive activity of the flavonol (Carcinogenesis 2010;31:1338-43).

At the end of that year, Lee et al. found that kaempferol inhibited UVB-induced COX-2 protein expression in mouse skin epidermal JB6 P+ cells, by blocking Src kinase activity and attenuated the UVB-induced transcriptional activities of COX-2 gene and the transcription factor AP-1. They concluded that kaempferol exerts robust chemopreventive activity against skin cancer by suppressing Src (Biochem. Pharmacol. 2010;80:2042-9).

In 2014, Yao et al. found that kaempferol acted as a safe and potent inhibitor of solar ultraviolet-induced mouse skin carcinogenesis that acted by targeting RSK2 and MSK1 (Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 2014;7:958-67).

Significantly, in terms of topical delivery, Chao et al. recently showed that submicron emulsions are effective carriers for the transdermal delivery of kaempferol (Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 2012;60:1171-5).

Conclusion

Kaempferol is one among the many natural flavonols found to exert significant salutary effects. Evidence suggests reasons for confidence that kaempferol can play a role in skin health. More research is necessary to determine the effectiveness of topical products intended to harness the benefits of this flavonoid as proper formulation is challenging.

 

 

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). She has contributed to the Cosmeceutical Critique column in Dermatology News since January 2001. Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.

Kaempferol (3,5,7,4’-tetrahydroxyflavone; C15H10O6) is among the natural flavonols found in green tea, broccoli, cabbage, kale, endive, beans, leeks, tomatoes, grapes, apples, grapefruit, berries, and propolis, as well as myriad other plant sources, including Brassica and species (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006;54:2951-6; Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 2014;7:958-67; Biochem. Pharmacol. 2010;80:2042-9; Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 2012;60:1171-5; J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2013 June 27 [doi:10.1111/jdv.12204]).

It is one of the most commonly found dietary flavonoids and is also present in beer, particularly hops (Carcinogenesis 2010;31:1338-43; J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2013 June 27 [doi:10.1111/jdv.12204]). Significantly, kaempferol is known to exhibit anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, cytoprotective, and antiapoptotic activity (Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 2014;7:958-67; Biochem. Pharmacol. 2010;80:2042-9; Exp. Mol. Med. 2008;40:208-19), and is believed to play a role in protecting plants from ultraviolet (UV)-induced damage (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012;60:6966-76).

Skin protection: antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity

Among 35 flavonoids tested by Cos et al. in 2001 for lipid peroxidation-inhibiting activity, kaempferol was identified as having the highest antioxidant selectivity index (Planta Med. 2001;67:515-9).

Work by Kim et al. in 2002 revealed that four kaempferol glycosides are key active ingredients in the flowers of Prunus persica, which has long been used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat skin disorders (J. Cosmet. Sci. 2002;53:27-34). Kim and colleagues have also shown in animal studies that the topical application of P. persica may be effective at thwarting UVB-induced skin damage (J. Cosmet. Sci. 2002;53:27-34).

In addition, kaempferol is a key component in Punica granatum, which has been found to act as an effective protector against UVB-induced photodamage and aging in cultured skin fibroblasts (Int. J. Dermatol. 2010;49:276-82).

In various tests on the effects of natural flavonoids on matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1 activity and expression, Lim et al. reported in 2007 that kaempferol and quercetin potently inhibited recombinant human MMP-1, and both flavonols along with apigenin and wogonin were found to be strong inhibitors of MMP-1 induction in 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate–treated human dermal fibroblasts. All four flavonoids also suppressed the activation of activator protein (AP)-1. Kaempferol also hindered p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) activation. The investigators concluded that kaempferol is among the flavonoids or plant extracts containing them that may be useful as an agent to protect against photoaging and to treat some cutaneous inflammatory conditions (Planta Med. 2007;73:1267-74).

In 2010, Park et al. demonstrated that kaempferol alleviated burn injuries in mice and that expression of tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) induced by burn injuries was reduced by kaempferol. They concluded that their findings suggest the possible application of kaempferol to treat thermal burn–induced skin injuries (BMB Rep. 2010;43:46-51).

Anti-inflammatory as well as depigmenting activity was found by Rho et al. in 2011 to be associated with kaempferol and kaempferol rhamnosides isolated from Hibiscus cannabinus (Molecules 2011;16:3338-44).

In 2014, Kim et al. found that extracts of Aceriphyllum rossii (native to Korea and China) and its active constituents, quercetin and kaempferol, blocked secretion of beta-hexosaminidase and histamine; lowered the production and mRNA expression of interleukin-4 and TNF-alpha; and reduced prostaglandin E2 and leukotriene B4 synthesis as well as the expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and 5-lipoxygenase. These and other findings led the investigators to conclude that A. rossii and its active ingredients kaempferol and quercetin may be effective agents for the treatment of immediate-type hypersensitivity (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014;62:3750-8).

Anticancer activity

Lee et al. reported in 2010 that the inhibition by kaempferol of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) activity, a key factor in carcinogenesis, and its concomitant effects may account for the chemopreventive activity of the flavonol (Carcinogenesis 2010;31:1338-43).

At the end of that year, Lee et al. found that kaempferol inhibited UVB-induced COX-2 protein expression in mouse skin epidermal JB6 P+ cells, by blocking Src kinase activity and attenuated the UVB-induced transcriptional activities of COX-2 gene and the transcription factor AP-1. They concluded that kaempferol exerts robust chemopreventive activity against skin cancer by suppressing Src (Biochem. Pharmacol. 2010;80:2042-9).

In 2014, Yao et al. found that kaempferol acted as a safe and potent inhibitor of solar ultraviolet-induced mouse skin carcinogenesis that acted by targeting RSK2 and MSK1 (Cancer Prev. Res. (Phila) 2014;7:958-67).

Significantly, in terms of topical delivery, Chao et al. recently showed that submicron emulsions are effective carriers for the transdermal delivery of kaempferol (Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 2012;60:1171-5).

Conclusion

Kaempferol is one among the many natural flavonols found to exert significant salutary effects. Evidence suggests reasons for confidence that kaempferol can play a role in skin health. More research is necessary to determine the effectiveness of topical products intended to harness the benefits of this flavonoid as proper formulation is challenging.

 

 

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). She has contributed to the Cosmeceutical Critique column in Dermatology News since January 2001. Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Kaempferol
Display Headline
Kaempferol
Legacy Keywords
Kaempferol
Legacy Keywords
Kaempferol
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Combo shows early promise for T-cell lymphomas

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 02/04/2015 - 07:00
Display Headline
Combo shows early promise for T-cell lymphomas

Michelle Fanale, MD

Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—Preclinical and early phase 1 results suggest the aurora A kinase inhibitor alisertib and the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor romidepsin have synergistic activity against T-cell lymphomas.

In the preclinical study, the drugs showed synergy in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) cell lines and a benefit over monotherapy in vivo.

In the phase 1 study, romidepsin and alisertib produced clinical benefits in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Unfortunately, there are currently no good markers for predicting which patients might benefit from this type of combination, potentially because the drugs have multivariate mechanisms of action, said Michelle Fanale, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

She presented data on romidepsin and alisertib in combination at the 7th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

Dr Fanale said she was inspired to test the combination (in a phase 1 trial) after researchers reported promising results with the aurora kinase inhibitors MK-0457 and MK-5108 in combination with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat (Kretzner et al, Cancer Research 2011).

She noted that aurora kinase inhibitors work mainly through actions at the G2-M transition point, while HDAC inhibitors induce G1-S transition. HDAC inhibitors can also degrade aurora A and B kinases, and the drugs modify kinetochore assembly through hyperacetylation of pericentromeric histones.

“When you actually treat with an HDAC inhibitor by itself, you’re basically getting an increase of this sub-G1 population,” Dr Fanale said. “When you treat with your aurora kinase inhibitor by itself, you’re clearly getting an increase of cells that are arresting at G2/M.”

“When you treat with the combination, you’re actually getting a further increase in the sub-G1, denoting dead cells, and then you’re further getting some increase of cells spreading out now through the G2/M portion as well.”

Preclinical research

Dr Fanale presented preclinical results showing that alisertib is highly synergistic with romidepsin in T-cell, but not B-cell, lymphoma. She was not involved in the research, which was also presented at the recent ASH Annual Meeting (Zullo et al, ASH 2014, abst 4493).

The researchers administered romidepsin at IC10-20 concentrations, with increasing concentrations of alisertib, and incubated cells for 72 hours. A synergy coefficient less than 1 denoted synergy.

The combination demonstrated synergy in the HH (CTCL) cell line when alisertib was given at 100 nM or 1000 nM (0.68 and 0.40, respectively) but not at 50 nM (1.05).

Likewise, the combination demonstrated synergy in the H9 (CTCL) cell line when alisertib was given at 100 nM or 1000 nM (0.66 and 0.46, respectively) but not at 50 nM (1.1).

Romidepsin was shown to cause a mild increase in the percent of cells in G1 compared with alisertib, which significantly increased the percent of cells in G2/M arrest. And live cell imaging showed marked cytokinesis failure following treatment.

“When looking at further markers for apoptosis, when giving the combination, there’s further increase in caspase 3 and PARP cleavage, as well as other pro-apoptotic proteins, including PUMA, and a decrease in the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-xL,” Dr Fanale noted.

She also pointed out that, in an in vivo xenograft model, alisertib and romidepsin produced significantly better results than those observed with monotherapy or in controls.

Phase 1 trial

The phase 1 trial of romidepsin and alisertib in combination included patients with aggressive B- and T-cell lymphomas (NCT01897012; Fanale et al, ASH 2014, abst 1744).

Twelve patients have been enrolled to date. Ninety-two percent of patients had primary refractory disease, they had a median of 3.5 prior lines of therapy (range, 1 to 7), and none of the patients had received a stem cell transplant.

 

 

The patients received treatment as follows:

  • Alisertib at 20 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 6 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 20 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 8 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 20 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 10 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 40 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 10 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 40 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 12 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 40 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 14 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8.

The maximum-tolerated dose has not yet been reached. The main side effect was reversible myelosuppression. In the 24 cycles administered, patients experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia (62.5%), anemia (29%), and thrombocytopenia (48%).

Dr Fanale noted that 3 of the 4 patients with T-cell lymphomas had some level of clinical benefit after therapy.

One patient, a heavily pretreated patient with PTCL who was treated at the lowest dose, had a complete response lasting 10 months. The patient had received 7 prior lines of therapy, including romidepsin alone.

Two other patients had stable disease, one with PTCL and one with an overlap diagnosis of B-cell and T-cell lymphoma. The PTCL patient went on to receive a matched, unrelated-donor transplant and is doing well, Dr Fanale said.

“We’ve taken a pause from this clinical trial,” she added. “We plan to reopen it toward T-cell lymphoma patients, potentially exclusively, . . . and also potentially to change a bit of the dosing schema with both romidepsin and alisertib.”

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Michelle Fanale, MD

Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—Preclinical and early phase 1 results suggest the aurora A kinase inhibitor alisertib and the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor romidepsin have synergistic activity against T-cell lymphomas.

In the preclinical study, the drugs showed synergy in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) cell lines and a benefit over monotherapy in vivo.

In the phase 1 study, romidepsin and alisertib produced clinical benefits in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Unfortunately, there are currently no good markers for predicting which patients might benefit from this type of combination, potentially because the drugs have multivariate mechanisms of action, said Michelle Fanale, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

She presented data on romidepsin and alisertib in combination at the 7th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

Dr Fanale said she was inspired to test the combination (in a phase 1 trial) after researchers reported promising results with the aurora kinase inhibitors MK-0457 and MK-5108 in combination with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat (Kretzner et al, Cancer Research 2011).

She noted that aurora kinase inhibitors work mainly through actions at the G2-M transition point, while HDAC inhibitors induce G1-S transition. HDAC inhibitors can also degrade aurora A and B kinases, and the drugs modify kinetochore assembly through hyperacetylation of pericentromeric histones.

“When you actually treat with an HDAC inhibitor by itself, you’re basically getting an increase of this sub-G1 population,” Dr Fanale said. “When you treat with your aurora kinase inhibitor by itself, you’re clearly getting an increase of cells that are arresting at G2/M.”

“When you treat with the combination, you’re actually getting a further increase in the sub-G1, denoting dead cells, and then you’re further getting some increase of cells spreading out now through the G2/M portion as well.”

Preclinical research

Dr Fanale presented preclinical results showing that alisertib is highly synergistic with romidepsin in T-cell, but not B-cell, lymphoma. She was not involved in the research, which was also presented at the recent ASH Annual Meeting (Zullo et al, ASH 2014, abst 4493).

The researchers administered romidepsin at IC10-20 concentrations, with increasing concentrations of alisertib, and incubated cells for 72 hours. A synergy coefficient less than 1 denoted synergy.

The combination demonstrated synergy in the HH (CTCL) cell line when alisertib was given at 100 nM or 1000 nM (0.68 and 0.40, respectively) but not at 50 nM (1.05).

Likewise, the combination demonstrated synergy in the H9 (CTCL) cell line when alisertib was given at 100 nM or 1000 nM (0.66 and 0.46, respectively) but not at 50 nM (1.1).

Romidepsin was shown to cause a mild increase in the percent of cells in G1 compared with alisertib, which significantly increased the percent of cells in G2/M arrest. And live cell imaging showed marked cytokinesis failure following treatment.

“When looking at further markers for apoptosis, when giving the combination, there’s further increase in caspase 3 and PARP cleavage, as well as other pro-apoptotic proteins, including PUMA, and a decrease in the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-xL,” Dr Fanale noted.

She also pointed out that, in an in vivo xenograft model, alisertib and romidepsin produced significantly better results than those observed with monotherapy or in controls.

Phase 1 trial

The phase 1 trial of romidepsin and alisertib in combination included patients with aggressive B- and T-cell lymphomas (NCT01897012; Fanale et al, ASH 2014, abst 1744).

Twelve patients have been enrolled to date. Ninety-two percent of patients had primary refractory disease, they had a median of 3.5 prior lines of therapy (range, 1 to 7), and none of the patients had received a stem cell transplant.

 

 

The patients received treatment as follows:

  • Alisertib at 20 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 6 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 20 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 8 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 20 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 10 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 40 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 10 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 40 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 12 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 40 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 14 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8.

The maximum-tolerated dose has not yet been reached. The main side effect was reversible myelosuppression. In the 24 cycles administered, patients experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia (62.5%), anemia (29%), and thrombocytopenia (48%).

Dr Fanale noted that 3 of the 4 patients with T-cell lymphomas had some level of clinical benefit after therapy.

One patient, a heavily pretreated patient with PTCL who was treated at the lowest dose, had a complete response lasting 10 months. The patient had received 7 prior lines of therapy, including romidepsin alone.

Two other patients had stable disease, one with PTCL and one with an overlap diagnosis of B-cell and T-cell lymphoma. The PTCL patient went on to receive a matched, unrelated-donor transplant and is doing well, Dr Fanale said.

“We’ve taken a pause from this clinical trial,” she added. “We plan to reopen it toward T-cell lymphoma patients, potentially exclusively, . . . and also potentially to change a bit of the dosing schema with both romidepsin and alisertib.”

Michelle Fanale, MD

Photo by Larry Young

SAN FRANCISCO—Preclinical and early phase 1 results suggest the aurora A kinase inhibitor alisertib and the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor romidepsin have synergistic activity against T-cell lymphomas.

In the preclinical study, the drugs showed synergy in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) cell lines and a benefit over monotherapy in vivo.

In the phase 1 study, romidepsin and alisertib produced clinical benefits in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

Unfortunately, there are currently no good markers for predicting which patients might benefit from this type of combination, potentially because the drugs have multivariate mechanisms of action, said Michelle Fanale, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

She presented data on romidepsin and alisertib in combination at the 7th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum.

Dr Fanale said she was inspired to test the combination (in a phase 1 trial) after researchers reported promising results with the aurora kinase inhibitors MK-0457 and MK-5108 in combination with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat (Kretzner et al, Cancer Research 2011).

She noted that aurora kinase inhibitors work mainly through actions at the G2-M transition point, while HDAC inhibitors induce G1-S transition. HDAC inhibitors can also degrade aurora A and B kinases, and the drugs modify kinetochore assembly through hyperacetylation of pericentromeric histones.

“When you actually treat with an HDAC inhibitor by itself, you’re basically getting an increase of this sub-G1 population,” Dr Fanale said. “When you treat with your aurora kinase inhibitor by itself, you’re clearly getting an increase of cells that are arresting at G2/M.”

“When you treat with the combination, you’re actually getting a further increase in the sub-G1, denoting dead cells, and then you’re further getting some increase of cells spreading out now through the G2/M portion as well.”

Preclinical research

Dr Fanale presented preclinical results showing that alisertib is highly synergistic with romidepsin in T-cell, but not B-cell, lymphoma. She was not involved in the research, which was also presented at the recent ASH Annual Meeting (Zullo et al, ASH 2014, abst 4493).

The researchers administered romidepsin at IC10-20 concentrations, with increasing concentrations of alisertib, and incubated cells for 72 hours. A synergy coefficient less than 1 denoted synergy.

The combination demonstrated synergy in the HH (CTCL) cell line when alisertib was given at 100 nM or 1000 nM (0.68 and 0.40, respectively) but not at 50 nM (1.05).

Likewise, the combination demonstrated synergy in the H9 (CTCL) cell line when alisertib was given at 100 nM or 1000 nM (0.66 and 0.46, respectively) but not at 50 nM (1.1).

Romidepsin was shown to cause a mild increase in the percent of cells in G1 compared with alisertib, which significantly increased the percent of cells in G2/M arrest. And live cell imaging showed marked cytokinesis failure following treatment.

“When looking at further markers for apoptosis, when giving the combination, there’s further increase in caspase 3 and PARP cleavage, as well as other pro-apoptotic proteins, including PUMA, and a decrease in the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-xL,” Dr Fanale noted.

She also pointed out that, in an in vivo xenograft model, alisertib and romidepsin produced significantly better results than those observed with monotherapy or in controls.

Phase 1 trial

The phase 1 trial of romidepsin and alisertib in combination included patients with aggressive B- and T-cell lymphomas (NCT01897012; Fanale et al, ASH 2014, abst 1744).

Twelve patients have been enrolled to date. Ninety-two percent of patients had primary refractory disease, they had a median of 3.5 prior lines of therapy (range, 1 to 7), and none of the patients had received a stem cell transplant.

 

 

The patients received treatment as follows:

  • Alisertib at 20 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 6 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 20 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 8 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 20 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 10 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 40 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 10 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 40 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 12 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8
  • Alisertib at 40 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and romidepsin at 14 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8.

The maximum-tolerated dose has not yet been reached. The main side effect was reversible myelosuppression. In the 24 cycles administered, patients experienced grade 3/4 neutropenia (62.5%), anemia (29%), and thrombocytopenia (48%).

Dr Fanale noted that 3 of the 4 patients with T-cell lymphomas had some level of clinical benefit after therapy.

One patient, a heavily pretreated patient with PTCL who was treated at the lowest dose, had a complete response lasting 10 months. The patient had received 7 prior lines of therapy, including romidepsin alone.

Two other patients had stable disease, one with PTCL and one with an overlap diagnosis of B-cell and T-cell lymphoma. The PTCL patient went on to receive a matched, unrelated-donor transplant and is doing well, Dr Fanale said.

“We’ve taken a pause from this clinical trial,” she added. “We plan to reopen it toward T-cell lymphoma patients, potentially exclusively, . . . and also potentially to change a bit of the dosing schema with both romidepsin and alisertib.”

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Combo shows early promise for T-cell lymphomas
Display Headline
Combo shows early promise for T-cell lymphomas
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica