Objective: Burnout is a common occurrence among healthcare providers and has been associated with provider wellness culture. However, this association has not been extensively studied among emergency medicine (EM) providers. We aim to determine the association between EM provider burnout and their culture of wellness, and to elicit the independent wellness culture domains most predictive of burnout prevention. Methods: This was a multi-center observational study. We enrolled EM physicians and advanced practice providers from sixteen different emergency departments (EDs). Provider wellness culture and burnout surveys were performed. The wellness culture domains included in this study are personal/organizational value alignment, provider appreciation, leadership quality, self-controlled scheduling, peer support, and family support. Correlations between each wellness culture domain and burnout were analyzed by Pearson correlation co-efficiency, and their associations were measured by multivariate logistic regression with adjustments of other confounders. Results: A total of 242 ED provider surveys were entered for final analysis. The overall burnout rate was 54% (130/242). Moderate correlations were found between burnout and two wellness culture domains (value alignment: r=-0.43, P<0.001 and provider appreciation: r=-0.49, P<0.001). The adjusted odds ratio of provider appreciation associated with burnout was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.25–0.77; P=0.004), adjusted odds ratio of family support was 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.95; P=0.025). Conclusion ED providers have a relatively high burnout rate. Provider burnout might have certain associations with wellness culture domains. Provider appreciation and family support seem to play important roles in burnout protection.

Objective: Burnout is a common occurrence among healthcare providers and has been associated with provider wellness culture. However, this association has not been extensively studied among emergency medicine (EM) providers. We aim to determine the association between EM provider burnout and their culture of wellness, and to elicit the independent wellness culture domains most predictive of burnout prevention. Methods: This was a multi-center observational study. We enrolled EM physicians and advanced practice providers from sixteen different emergency departments (EDs). Provider wellness culture and burnout surveys were performed. The wellness culture domains included in this study are personal/organizational value alignment, provider appreciation, leadership quality, self-controlled scheduling, peer support, and family support. Correlations between each wellness culture domain and burnout were analyzed by Pearson correlation co-efficiency, and their associations were measured by multivariate logistic regression with adjustments of other confounders. Results: A total of 242 ED provider surveys were entered for final analysis. The overall burnout rate was 54% (130/242). Moderate correlations were found between burnout and two wellness culture domains (value alignment: r=-0.43, P<0.001 and provider appreciation: r=-0.49, P<0.001). The adjusted odds ratio of provider appreciation associated with burnout was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.25–0.77; P=0.004), adjusted odds ratio of family support was 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.95; P=0.025). Conclusion ED providers have a relatively high burnout rate. Provider burnout might have certain associations with wellness culture domains. Provider appreciation and family support seem to play important roles in burnout protection.

Background: and Purpose Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. Our objective is to elucidate characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with cancer and CVT (CA-CVT). Methods: The 2016–2019 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried for patients with a primary diagnosis of CVT. Patients with a currently active diagnosis of malignancy (CA-CVT) were then identified. Demographics and comorbidities were compared between CA-CVT and CVT patients. Subgroup analyses explored patients with hematopoietic cancer and non-hematopoietic cancers. Stroke severity and treatment were explored. Inpatient outcomes studied were discharge disposition, length of stay, and mortality. Results: Between 2016 and 2019, 6,140 patients had a primary diagnosis code of CVT, and 370 (6.0%) patients had a coexisting malignancy. The most common malignancy was hematopoietic (n=195, 52.7%), followed by central nervous system (n=40, 10.8%), respiratory (n=40, 10.8%), and breast (n=40, 10.8%). These patients tended to be older than non-CA-CVT and were more likely to have coexisting comorbidities. CA-CVT patients had higher severity scores on the International Study of Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis Risk Score (ISCVT-RS) and increased complications. In a propensity-score matched cohort, there were no differences in inpatient outcomes. Conclusion Malignancy occurs in 6% of patients presenting with CVT and should be considered a potential comorbidity in instances where clear causes of hypercoagulabilty have not been identified. Malignancy was linked to higher mortality rates. Nonetheless, after adjusting for the severity of CVT, the outcomes for inpatients with cancer-associated CVT were comparable to those without cancer, indicating that the increased mortality associated with malignancy is probably due to more severe CVT conditions.

Background: and Purpose Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. Our objective is to elucidate characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with cancer and CVT (CA-CVT). Methods: The 2016–2019 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried for patients with a primary diagnosis of CVT. Patients with a currently active diagnosis of malignancy (CA-CVT) were then identified. Demographics and comorbidities were compared between CA-CVT and CVT patients. Subgroup analyses explored patients with hematopoietic cancer and non-hematopoietic cancers. Stroke severity and treatment were explored. Inpatient outcomes studied were discharge disposition, length of stay, and mortality. Results: Between 2016 and 2019, 6,140 patients had a primary diagnosis code of CVT, and 370 (6.0%) patients had a coexisting malignancy. The most common malignancy was hematopoietic (n=195, 52.7%), followed by central nervous system (n=40, 10.8%), respiratory (n=40, 10.8%), and breast (n=40, 10.8%). These patients tended to be older than non-CA-CVT and were more likely to have coexisting comorbidities. CA-CVT patients had higher severity scores on the International Study of Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis Risk Score (ISCVT-RS) and increased complications. In a propensity-score matched cohort, there were no differences in inpatient outcomes. Conclusion Malignancy occurs in 6% of patients presenting with CVT and should be considered a potential comorbidity in instances where clear causes of hypercoagulabilty have not been identified. Malignancy was linked to higher mortality rates. Nonetheless, after adjusting for the severity of CVT, the outcomes for inpatients with cancer-associated CVT were comparable to those without cancer, indicating that the increased mortality associated with malignancy is probably due to more severe CVT conditions.

Background: and Purpose Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. Our objective is to elucidate characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with cancer and CVT (CA-CVT). Methods: The 2016–2019 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried for patients with a primary diagnosis of CVT. Patients with a currently active diagnosis of malignancy (CA-CVT) were then identified. Demographics and comorbidities were compared between CA-CVT and CVT patients. Subgroup analyses explored patients with hematopoietic cancer and non-hematopoietic cancers. Stroke severity and treatment were explored. Inpatient outcomes studied were discharge disposition, length of stay, and mortality. Results: Between 2016 and 2019, 6,140 patients had a primary diagnosis code of CVT, and 370 (6.0%) patients had a coexisting malignancy. The most common malignancy was hematopoietic (n=195, 52.7%), followed by central nervous system (n=40, 10.8%), respiratory (n=40, 10.8%), and breast (n=40, 10.8%). These patients tended to be older than non-CA-CVT and were more likely to have coexisting comorbidities. CA-CVT patients had higher severity scores on the International Study of Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis Risk Score (ISCVT-RS) and increased complications. In a propensity-score matched cohort, there were no differences in inpatient outcomes. Conclusion Malignancy occurs in 6% of patients presenting with CVT and should be considered a potential comorbidity in instances where clear causes of hypercoagulabilty have not been identified. Malignancy was linked to higher mortality rates. Nonetheless, after adjusting for the severity of CVT, the outcomes for inpatients with cancer-associated CVT were comparable to those without cancer, indicating that the increased mortality associated with malignancy is probably due to more severe CVT conditions.

Background: and Purpose Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. Our objective is to elucidate characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with cancer and CVT (CA-CVT). Methods: The 2016–2019 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried for patients with a primary diagnosis of CVT. Patients with a currently active diagnosis of malignancy (CA-CVT) were then identified. Demographics and comorbidities were compared between CA-CVT and CVT patients. Subgroup analyses explored patients with hematopoietic cancer and non-hematopoietic cancers. Stroke severity and treatment were explored. Inpatient outcomes studied were discharge disposition, length of stay, and mortality. Results: Between 2016 and 2019, 6,140 patients had a primary diagnosis code of CVT, and 370 (6.0%) patients had a coexisting malignancy. The most common malignancy was hematopoietic (n=195, 52.7%), followed by central nervous system (n=40, 10.8%), respiratory (n=40, 10.8%), and breast (n=40, 10.8%). These patients tended to be older than non-CA-CVT and were more likely to have coexisting comorbidities. CA-CVT patients had higher severity scores on the International Study of Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis Risk Score (ISCVT-RS) and increased complications. In a propensity-score matched cohort, there were no differences in inpatient outcomes. Conclusion Malignancy occurs in 6% of patients presenting with CVT and should be considered a potential comorbidity in instances where clear causes of hypercoagulabilty have not been identified. Malignancy was linked to higher mortality rates. Nonetheless, after adjusting for the severity of CVT, the outcomes for inpatients with cancer-associated CVT were comparable to those without cancer, indicating that the increased mortality associated with malignancy is probably due to more severe CVT conditions.