A customized early warning score enhanced emergency department patient flow process and clinical outcomes in a COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: Patient crowding and boarding in the emergency department (ED) is associated with adverse outcomes and has become increasingly problematic in recent years. We investigated the impact of an ED patient flow countermeasure using an early warning score. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of observational data from patients who presented to the ED of a Level 1 Trauma Center in Pennsylvania. We implemented a modified version of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), called mMEWS, to address patient flow. Patients aged ≥18 years old admitted to the adult hospital medicine service were included in the study. We compared the pre-mMEWS (February 19, 2017-February 18, 2019) to the post-mMEWS implementation period (February 19, 2019-June 30, 2020). During the intervention, low MEWS (0-1) scoring admissions went directly to the inpatient floor with expedited orders, the remainder waited in the ED until the hospital medicine admitting team evaluated the patient and then placed orders. We investigated the association between mMEWS, ED length of stay (LOS), and 24-hour rapid response team (24 hour-RRT) activation. RRT activation rates were used as a measure of adverse outcome for the new process and are a network team response for admitted patients who are rapidly decompensating. The association between mMEWS and the outcomes of ED length of stay in minutes and 24 hour-RRT activation was assessed using linear and logistic regression adjusting for a priori selected confounders, respectively. Results: Of the total 43,892 patients admitted, 19,962 (45.5%) were in the pre-mMEWS and 23,930 (54.5%) in the post-mMEWS implementation period. The median post-mMEWS ED LOS was shorter than the pre-mMEWS (376 vs 415 minutes; P < 0.01). After accounting for potential confounders, there was a 4.57% decrease in the ED LOS after implementing mMEWS (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.20-4.94; P < 0.01). The proportion of 24 hour-RRT did not differ significantly when comparing pre- and post-mMEWS (33.5% vs 34.4%; P = 0.83). Conclusion: The use of a modified MEWS enhanced admission process to the hospital medicine service, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, was associated with a significant decrease in ED LOS without a significant increase in 24 hour-RRT activation.

Measures of Burnout and Empathy in United States Doctor of Pharmacy Students: Time for a Change?

PURPOSE: To review interim data regarding longitudinal burnout and empathy levels in a single Doctor of Pharmacy class cohort. METHODS: Students were emailed an electronic survey during their first semester and annually at the end of each academic year for a total of 3 years (2017-2020). Validated survey tools included the Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) student version. The JSE survey consists of 20 questions, with higher scores denoting more empathy. The MBI student version contains 3 subscales: exhaustion (higher scores are worse), cynicism (higher scores are worse) and professional efficacy (higher scores are better). RESULTS: The median JSE score at the end of the third academic year (PY3) was 110, with females scoring significantly higher (114.5 vs. 103.5; p<0.02). A majority of the 62 students reported burn out (82.3%), scoring in the highest category for either exhaustion (76%) or cynicism (55%). A majority (66%) also reported a low or moderate professional efficacy score, a negative finding. Measures of student burnout increased after the start of the program and remained at the higher level each subsequent year (p<0.0001). In the Spring of 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly every student had moderate or high levels of emotional exhaustion (97%) and cynicism (78%) as measured by the MBI. CONCLUSION: This interim data suggests high degrees of pharmacy student burnout. Empathy levels remained stable throughout the duration of the study. Pharmacy schools may need to focus on reform regarding well-being and prevention of burnout.

Sex- or Gender-specific Differences in the Clinical Presentation, Outcome, and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2.

This review describes the sex and gender differences in COVID-19 presentation, treatment, and outcomes. We discuss the differences between the sexes in susceptibility to infection, the role of sex chromosomes on the body's immunologic response and the influence of hormones on the body's response to the virus. Additionally, the sex differences in clinical and laboratory presentation, complications of infection and outcomes, as well as differences in response to treatment and prevention are reviewed.