Publications by authors named "Jennifer E MacFarlan"

4 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

A prospective, head-to-head comparison of 2 EUS-guided liver biopsy needles in vivo.

Gastrointest Endosc 2021 May 9;93(5):1133-1138. Epub 2020 Oct 9.

Department of Gastroenterology, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA.

Background And Aims: Procedural standardization in endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is necessary to obtain core biopsy specimens for accurate diagnosis. The objective of this study was to directly compare the diagnostic yield of 2 EUS-LB fine-needle biopsy (FNB) systems in vivo.

Methods: In this prospective, single-center study, 108 adult patients undergoing EUS-LB over a 1-year period were included. Each EUS-LB consisted of an EGD, followed by EUS-guided biopsy of the left lobe of the liver sequentially using 2 different 19-gauge needles: the fork-tip (SharkCore) and Franseen (Acquire) FNB systems. Specimens were then reviewed by a GI histopathologist to determine diagnostic adequacy as well as the number of complete portal tracts, specimen length, and degree of fragmentation.

Results: In 79.4% of cases, the fork-tip FNB system yielded a final diagnosis compared with 97.2% of the Franseen FNB specimens (P < .001). The mean number of complete portal tracts in the fork-tip FNB samples was 7.07 compared with 9.59 in the Franseen FNB samples (P < .001). The mean specimen length was 13.86 mm for the fork-tip FNB and 15.81 mm for the Franseen FNB (P = .004). Cores were intact in 47.6% of the fork-tip FNB samples and in 75.2% of the Franseen FNB samples (P = .004).

Conclusions: In EUS-LB, we found that the 19-gauge Franseen FNB system resulted in a statistically significant increase in diagnostic adequacy compared with biopsy using the fork-tip FNB system.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.09.050DOI Listing
May 2021

Emergency Department Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (ED STEADI) Program.

J Emerg Med 2020 Jul 7;59(1):1-11. Epub 2020 May 7.

Department of Emergency and Hospital Medicine, Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network/University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Background: Falls are among the leading cause of emergency department (ED) visits.

Objective: We set out to determine whether using a bedside decision aid could decrease falls.

Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted on those aged ≥ 65 years who were being discharged home and screened positive for a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) fall risk factor. Control-arm subjects were given a CDC brochure about falls. The active-arm subjects received a personalized decision aid intervention. Both groups were followed up via telephone.

Results: A total of 200 subjects were enrolled and, after exclusions, 184 patients were analyzed. There were 76 male (41.3%) and 108 female (58.7%) subjects; 14% of the subjects chose to have their medications reviewed, 13.6% chose to have an eye examination, 22.8% chose to begin an exercise program, and the majority (44.6%) chose to have a home safety evaluation. Patients in the intervention arm chose more interventions to complete compared to control-arm subjects (p < 0.0001), but did not complete more interventions (p = 0.3387) and did not experience fewer falls compared to the control arm (p = 0.5675). At study conclusion, 73 subjects reported at least one fall during the study.

Conclusions: Overall, in this study, subjects who had their fall-risk interventions facilitated by a decision tool chose to participate in interventions more than control subjects. However, they did not complete the interventions or fall less often than their counterparts in the control arm. Future study is needed to determine the effect of CDC screening guidelines and interventions facilitated by a decision aid on fall outcomes and their application in the ED population.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.04.019DOI Listing
July 2020

Clinical and Demographic Parameters of Patients Treated Using a Sepsis Protocol.

Clin Ther 2019 06 11;41(6):1020-1028. Epub 2019 May 11.

Department of Emergency and Hospital Medicine, Lehigh Valley Hospital and Health Network, Allentown, PA, USA. Electronic address:

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate potential differences by sex in the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients treated utilizing a sepsis electronic bundle order set. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality were also assessed.

Methods: Data on patients in whom the sepsis order set was initiated in the emergency department over a 16-month period were entered into the hospital database. Data were analyzed for differences by sex in demographic and clinical factors, treatment modalities, and in-hospital mortality. The Bonferroni correction was applied to account for multiple comparisons; α was set at 0.006 for sex differences.

Findings: A total of 2204 patients were included. Male and female cohorts were similar with regard to a variety of demographic and clinical factors, including age, Emergency Severity Index (ESI) levels 1 and 2, time to disposition, appropriateness of antibiotics, and total fluids given by weight. The ESI is an assessment score ranging from 1 to 5 (1 is emergent). There were modest differences in the source of infection (genitourinary was 4% more common in women; P = 0.03) and mode of arrival (men were 4% more likely to arrive by ambulance; P = 0.03). These differences did not achieve our predefined α of 0.006 when the Bonferroni correction was applied. Factors associated with in-hospital mortality were advanced age, arrival by ambulance, and an ESI level of 1 or 2 (all, P < 0.01).

Implications: Women were more likely to have a genitourinary cause of sepsis and less likely to arrive by ambulance. Risk factors of in-hospital mortality were older age, arrival by ambulance, and an ESI level of 1 or 2, but not sex.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.03.016DOI Listing
June 2019

Emergency Medicine Resident Self-assessment of Clinical Teaching Compared to Student Evaluation Using a Previously Validated Rubric.

Clin Ther 2018 08 29;40(8):1375-1383. Epub 2018 Jul 29.

Department of Emergency and Hospital Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network; Faculty at University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida. Electronic address:

Purpose: The quality of clinical teaching in the emergency department from the students' perspective has not been previously described in the literature. Our goals were to assess senior residents' teaching ability from the resident/teacher and student/learner viewpoints for any correlation, and to explore any gender association. The secondary goal was to evaluate the possible impact of gender on the resident/student dyad, an interaction that has previously been studied only in the faculty/student pairing.

Methods: After approval by an institutional review board, a 1-year, grant-funded, single-site, prospective study was implemented at a regional medical campus that sponsors a 4-year dually approved emergency medicine residency. The residency hosts both medical school students (MSs) and physician's assistant students (PAs). Each student and senior resident working concurrently completed a previously validated ER Scale, which measured residents' teaching performance in 4 categories: Didactic, Clinical, Approachable, and Helpful. Students evaluated residents' teaching, while residents self-assessed their performance. The participants' demographic characteristics gathered included prior knowledge of or exposure to clinical teaching models. Gender was self-reported by participants. The analysis accounted for multiple observations by comparing participants' mean scores.

Findings: Ninety-nine subjects were enrolled; none withdrew consent. Thirty-seven residents (11 women) and 62 students (39 women) from 25 MSs and 6 PA schools were enrolled, completing 517 teaching assessments. Students evaluated residents more favorably in all ER Scale categories than did residents on self-assessments (P < 0.0001). This difference was significant in all subgroup comparisons (types of school versus postgraduate years [PGYs]). Residents' evaluations by type of student (MS vs PA) did not show a significant difference. PGY 3 residents assessed themselves higher in all categories than did PGY 4 residents, with Approachability reaching significance (P = 0.0105). Male residents self-assessed their teaching consistently higher than did female residents, significantly so on Clinical (P = 0.0300). Students' evaluations of the residents' teaching skills by residents' gender did not reveal gender differences.

Implications: MS and PA students evaluated teaching by EM senior residents statistically significantly higher than did EM residents on self-evaluation when using the ER Scale. Students did not evaluate residents' teaching with any difference by gender, although male residents routinely self-assessed their teaching abilities more positively than did female residents. These findings suggest that, if residency programs utilize resident self-evaluation for programmatic evaluation, the gender of the resident may impact self-scoring. This cohort may inform future study of resident teaching in the emergency department, such as the design of future resident-as-teacher curricula.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.06.013DOI Listing
August 2018