ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To inform the pathology and laboratory field of the most recent national wage data. Historically, the results of this biennial survey have served as a basis for additional research on laboratory recruitment, retention, education, marketing, certification, and advocacy. METHODS: The 2021 Wage Survey was conducted through collaboration between the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) Institute of Science, Technology, and Policy in Washington, DC, and the ASCP Board of Certification in Chicago, IL. RESULTS: Compared with 2019, results show that mean hourly wage for staff-level personnel increased for only two occupations-cytologist and medical laboratory scientist/medical technologist/clinical laboratory scientist-after adjusting for inflation. Geographically, laboratory professionals from urban areas continue to earn more than their rural counterparts. Most respondents reported no change in their salaries during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic had a significant effect on staffing, workload, and work-life balance of many laboratory professionals. Even with the salary increases reported from the results of this survey, it is evident that the increases have not kept up with the current inflation. Focus on visibility, recruitment and retention, and diversity are essential to develop long- and short-term solutions.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pathology, Clinical , Humans , United States , Laboratories , Salaries and Fringe Benefits , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required healthcare systems and hospitals to rapidly modify standard practice, including antimicrobial stewardship services. Our study examines the impact of COVID-19 on the antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist. Design: A survey was distributed nationally to all healthcare improvement company members. Participants: Pharmacist participants were mostly leaders of antimicrobial stewardship programs distributed evenly across the United States and representing urban, suburban, and rural health-system practice sites. Results: Participants reported relative increases in time spent completing tasks related to medication access and preauthorization (300%; P = .018) and administrative meeting time (34%; P = .067) during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Time spent rounding, making interventions, performing pharmacokinetic services, and medication reconciliation decreased. Conclusion: A shift away from clinical activities may negatively affect the utilization of antimicrobials.
ABSTRACT
KEY POINTS: In a multicenter point-prevalence study, we found that the rate of supportive care was high; among those receiving COVID-19 drug therapies, adverse reactions occurred in 12% of patients. PURPOSE: There are currently no FDA-approved medications for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). At the onset of the pandemic, off-label medication use was supported by limited or no clinical data. We sought to characterize experimental COVID-19 therapies and identify safety signals during this period. METHODS: We conducted a noninterventional, multicenter, point prevalence study of patients hospitalized with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. Clinical and treatment characteristics within a 24-hour window were evaluated in a random sample of up to 30 patients per site. The primary objective was to describe COVID-19-targeted therapies. The secondary objective was to describe adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: A total of 352 patients treated for COVID-19 at 15 US hospitals From April 18 to May 8, 2020, were included in the study. Most patients were treated at academic medical centers (53.4%) or community hospitals (42.6%). Sixty-seven patients (19%) were receiving drug therapy in addition to supportive care. Drug therapies used included hydroxychloroquine (69%), remdesivir (10%), and interleukin-6 antagonists (9%). Five patients (7.5%) were receiving combination therapy. The rate of use of COVID-19-directed drug therapy was higher in patients with vs patients without a history of asthma (14.9% vs 7%, P = 0.037) and in patients enrolled in clinical trials (26.9% vs 3.2%, P < 0.001). Among those receiving drug therapy, 8 patients (12%) experienced an ADR, and ADRs were recognized at a higher rate in patients enrolled in clinical trials (62.5% vs 22%; odds ratio, 5.9; P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: While we observed high rates of supportive care for patients with COVID-19, we also found that ADRs were common among patients receiving drug therapy, including those enrolled in clinical trials. Comprehensive systems are needed to identify and mitigate ADRs associated with experimental COVID-19 treatments.