Objective: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in adult patient populations has grown rapidly with wide variation in practices and outcomes. We evaluated the impact on patient outcomes, resource use, and costs of an initiative to coordinate and standardize best practices across ECMO programs within a large integrated health care system.

Methods: The ECMO Collaborative Project brought clinicians and service-line leaders from 4 programs within a single health care system together with operational subject matter experts tasked with developing and implementing standardized guidelines, order sets, and an internal database to support an automated quarterly report card. Patient outcomes, resource use, and financial measures were compared for the 16 months before (January 2017 to April 2018; "precollaborative," n = 185) versus the 14 months after (November 2018 to December 2019, "postcollaborative," n = 243) a 6-month implementation and blanking period. Subset analyses were performed for venoarterial ECMO, venovenous ECMO, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Results: Survival to discharge/transfer increased significantly (in-hospital mortality hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.58-0.99) for the postcollaborative versus the precollaborative period (107/185, 57.8% vs 113/243, 46.5%, P = .03), predominantly due to improvement among patients receiving venoarterial ECMO (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.91). The percentage of patients successfully weaned from ECMO increased from 58.9% (109/185) to 70% (170/243), P = .02. Complication rates decreased by 40% (incidence rate ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72). No significant changes were observed in ECMO duration, intensive care unit or hospital length of stay, or cost-per-case; payment-per-case and contribution-margin-per-case both decreased significantly.

Conclusions: The ECMO Collaborative Project improved survival to discharge/transfer, weaning rates and complications, without additional costs, through coordination and standardization across ECMO programs within a health care system.

Objective: Although previous studies have identified variation in quality lung cancer care, existing quality metrics may not fully capture the complexity of cancer care. The Thoracic Surgery Outcomes Research Network recently developed quality measures to address this. We evaluated baseline adherence to these measures and identified factors associated with adherence.

Methods: Patients with pathologic stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer from 2010 to 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Patient-level and hospital-level adherence to 7 quality measures was calculated. Goal hospital adherence threshold was 85%. Factors influencing adherence were identified using multilevel logistic regression.

Results: We identified 253,182 patients from 1324 hospitals. Lymph node sampling was performed in 91% of patients nationally, but only 76% of hospitals met the 85% adherence mark. Similarly, 89% of T1b (seventh edition staging) tumors had anatomic resection, with 69% hospital-level adherence. Sixty-nine percent of pathologic stage II patients were recommended chemotherapy, with only 23% hospitals adherent. Eighty-three percent of patients had biopsy before primary radiation, with 64% hospitals adherent. Higher volume and academic institutions were associated with nonadherence to adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy measures. Conversely, lower volume and nonacademic institutions were associated with inadequate nodal sampling and nonanatomic resection.

Conclusions: Significant gaps continue to exist in the delivery of quality care to patients with early-stage lung cancer. High-volume academic hospitals had higher adherence for surgical care measures, but lower rates for coordination of care measures. This requires further investigation, but suggests targets for quality improvement may vary by institution type.

Objectives/hypothesis: Intubation with inappropriately sized endotracheal tubes (ETT) can cause long-term tracheal and laryngeal injuries often requiring surgical intervention. Although tracheal size has been demonstrated to vary based on height and sex, it is unclear whether these guidelines are regularly implemented in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. The objective of this study is to determine the rate of appropriate ETT size selection in patients undergoing intubation and assess provider decision making in ETT size selection.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Methods: The study population was all patients who underwent endotracheal intubation over a two-week period at a tertiary academic medical center. Data were collected on patient age, gender, height, BMI, comorbidities, ETT size, duration of intubation, bronchoscopies, and type of practitioner who performed the intubation. A height-based nomogram for ETT size selection was used to determine the recommended ETT size for each patient.

Results: One hundred five patients met the inclusion criteria. 22% of patients were intubated with an inappropriately large tube, defined as 1.0 mm larger than the recommended size. Women were more likely to be intubated with an inappropriately large ETT (OR = 13.58, P = .001), as were patients with height less than 160 cm (OR = 141, P = .001). Other factors related to disease severity, anticipation for bronchoscopy, and BMI were not risk factors for the use of inappropriately large ETT.

Conclusions: Although there is compelling evidence that height is a strong predictor of tracheal morphology and appropriate ETT size, height-based guidelines have yet to be universally adopted for ETT size selection. Laryngoscope, 131:1967-1971, 2021.

Objectives: Our aim in this study was to assess the impact of the Diabetes Canada Dissemination & Implementation strategy on population-level prescription rates of blood glucose test strips.

Methods: We extracted all diabetes-related drugs and test strip claims in Manitoba and Saskatchewan between January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2015 from the Canadian Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System. The primary outcome was the proportion of the cohort in each quarter who had been dispensed strips in accordance with the Diabetes Canada 2013 guidelines. We conducted an interrupted time-series analysis examining prescribing trends overall and by drug groups.

Results: The overall average sample size per quarter was 57,576 (standard deviation [SD]=12,320) and 49,533 (SD=10,206) individuals; the average age was 62.1 (SD=0.3) and 63.8 (SD=0.3) years, and the average proportion of total beneficiaries in the sample was 12.7% (SD=1.9%) and 12.6% (SD=1.7%) for Manitoba and Saskatchewan, respectively. On average preintervention, 27.9% (SD=0.68%, Manitoba) and 31.9% (SD=0.73%, Saskatchewan) of the sampled patients used strips according to the guidelines. On average postintervention, 26.5% (SD=0.29%, Manitoba) and 30.6% (SD=0.53%, Saskatchewan) of the patients used strips according to the guidelines. None of the interrupted time-series models reached statistical significance (p values ranging from 0.44 to 0.98 for Manitoba and 0.13 to 0.81 for Saskatchewan, depending on drug group).

Conclusions: The guideline and its Dissemination & Implementation strategy did not change strip prescribing. Potential reasons include complexity of the recommendations, lack of penetrance to primary care physicians and/or disagreement with recommendations.

Background: Reports on emergency surgery performed soon after a COVID-19 infection that are not controlled for premorbid risk-factors show increased 30-day mortality and pulmonary complications. This contributed to a virtual cessation of elective surgery during the pandemic surge. To inform evidence-based guidance on the decisions for surgery during the recovery phase of the pandemic, we compare 30-day outcomes in patients testing positive for COVID-19 before their operation, to contemporary propensity-matched COVID-19 negative patients undergoing the same procedures.

Methods: This prospective multicentre study included all patients undergoing surgery at 170 Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals across the United States. COVID-19 positive patients were propensity matched to COVID-19 negative patients on demographic and procedural factors. We compared 30-day outcomes between COVID-19 positive and negative patients, and the effect of time from testing positive to the date of procedure (≤10 days, 11-30 days and >30 days) on outcomes.

Results: Between March 1 and August 15, 2020, 449 COVID-19 positive and 51,238 negative patients met inclusion criteria. Propensity matching yielded 432 COVID-19 positive and 1256 negative patients among whom half underwent elective surgery. Infected patients had longer hospital stays (median seven days), higher rates of pneumonia (20.6%), ventilator requirement (7.6%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, 17.1%), septic shock (13.7%), and ischemic stroke (5.8%), while mortality, reoperations and readmissions were not significantly different. Higher odds for ventilation and stroke persisted even when surgery was delayed 11-30 days, and for pneumonia, ARDS, and septic shock >30 days after a positive test.

Discussion: 30-day pulmonary, septic, and ischaemic complications are increased in COVID-19 positive, compared to propensity score matched negative patients. Odds for several complications persist despite a delay beyond ten days after testing positive. Individualized risk-stratification by pulmonary and atherosclerotic comorbidities should be considered when making decisions for delaying surgery in infected patients.

Background: Practice guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We examined guideline adherence in a healthcare system serving a region with socioeconomic disparities and poor cancer outcomes.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of factors associated with guideline adherence.

Results: 63.1% of stage II/III LARC patients received NCR. Factors associated with adherence included white race (OR = 2.15, p = 0.024), private insurance (OR = 2.70, p = 0.005), employed status (OR = 2.30, p = 0.031), age at diagnosis (OR = 0.74, p = 0.032), appropriate local staging (OR = 9.17, p < 0.0001), and diagnosis later in the study period (OR per 1 year = 1.20, p = 0.006). By multivariate analysis, private insurance (OR = 2.51, p = 0.023), younger age (OR per 10 years = 0.72, p = 0.048) and appropriate local staging (OR = 6.67, p < 0.0001) were associated with adherence.

Conclusion: Guideline adherence for LARC in our system is low and is impacted by employment, race and insurance status. Standard of care compliance remains an important target for improvement efforts in this underserved region of the nation's Mid-South.

Background: COVID-19 has caused a backlog of endoscopic procedures; colonoscopy must now be prioritized to those who would benefit most. We determined the proportion of screening and surveillance colonoscopies appropriate for rescheduling to a future year through strict adoption of US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines.

Methods: We conducted a single-center observational study of patients scheduled for "open-access colonoscopy"-ordered by a primary care provider without being seen in gastroenterology clinic-over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each chart was reviewed to appropriately assign a surveillance year per USMSTF guidelines including demographics, colonoscopy history and family history. When guidelines recommended a range of colonoscopy intervals, both a "conservative" and "liberal" guideline adherence were assessed.

Results: We delayed 769 "open-access" screening or surveillance colonoscopies due to COVID-19. Between 14.8% (conservative) and 20.7% (liberal), colonoscopies were appropriate for rescheduling to a future year. Conversely, 415 (54.0%) patients were overdue for colonoscopy. Family history of CRC was associated with being scheduled too early for both screening (OR 3.9; CI 1.9-8.2) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.6, CI 1.0-6.5). The most common reasons a colonoscopy was inappropriately scheduled this year were failure to use new surveillance colonoscopy intervals (28.9%), incorrectly applied family history guidelines (27.2%) and recommending early surveillance colonoscopy after recent normal colonoscopy (19.3%).

Conclusion: Up to one-fifth of patients scheduled for "open-access" colonoscopy can be rescheduled into a future year based on USMSTF guidelines. Rigorously applying guidelines could judiciously allocate colonoscopy resources as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: To assess the appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening with ultrasound (US) and potential cost savings by adhering to guidelines and reviewing prior imaging.

Methods: Screening aortic US performed in Nova Scotia from January 1 to April 30, 2019, were reviewed. Patient sex, age, risk factors, and study result (negative, <2.5 cm; ectatic, 2.5-2.9 cm; positive for AAA, ≥3 cm) were recorded. Previous imaging tests were reviewed for the presence/absence of aortic ectasia or aneurysm. Appropriateness was based on the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) and the Canadian Society of Vascular Surgery (CSVS) guidelines. The number of potentially averted US, subsequent missed positive findings, and cost savings (over the 4-month period) were calculated according to: 1) each guideline; and 2) each guideline combined with review of imaging done 0 to 5 years and 0 to 10 years previously.

Results: There were 17 (4.6%) of 369 ectatic aortas and 18 (4.9%) of 369 AAAs. The number of potentially averted examinations, missed ectatic aortas, missed AAAs, and cost savings were as follows, respectively: CTFPHC, 222 (60.2%) of 369, 8, 7, and CAD$20 501.70; CSVS, 117 (31.7%) of 369, 4, 2, and CAD$10 804.95. The model that would yield the greatest cost savings and fewest missed positive findings was the combination of CSVS guidelines with review of prior imaging within 5 years; this would avert 189 (51.2%) of 369 examinations, save CAD$17 454.15 over 4 months, and miss only 2 AAAs and 2 ectatic aortas.

Conclusion: Over half of aortic US screening tests can be safely averted by adhering to CSVS guidelines and reviewing imaging performed within 5 years.

Aims: Nordic countries share fairly similar food culture and geographical location as well as common nutrition recommendations. The aim of this paper was to review the latest data on vitamin D status and intake and to describe the national supplementation and food fortification policies to achieve adequate vitamin D intake in the Nordic countries. Methods: The data are based on results derived from a literature search presented in a workshop held in Helsinki in November 2018 and completed by recent studies. Results: Vitamin D policies and the implementation of the recommendations differ among the Nordic countries. Vitamin D fortification policies can be mandatory or voluntary and widespread, moderate or non-existent. Vitamin D supplementation recommendations differ, ranging from all age groups being advised to take supplements to only infants. In the general adult population of the Nordic countries, vitamin D status and intake are better than in the risk groups that are not consuming vitamin D supplements or foods containing vitamin D. Non-Western immigrant populations in all Nordic countries share the problem of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency. Conclusions: Despite the common nutrition recommendations, there are differences between the Nordic countries in the implementation of the recommendations and policies to achieve adequate vitamin D intake and status. There is a need for wider Nordic collaboration studies as well as strategies to improve vitamin D status, especially in risk groups.