COVID19 Limits on Physician Shadowing Harm Undergraduate Students' Futures.

Shadowing is constantly praised as an essential component of an undergraduate student's pre-medical journey, at times even described as "ubiquitous." Whether a student decides to pursue a career as a physician or a different pathway, students report shadowing as a key deciding factor. For students considering a career in medicine, shadowing is a unique opportunity to understand physician-patient interactions. Shadowing is crucial for students to make professional connections and find physician mentors. In particular, shadowing unlocks opportunities for underrepresented groups, underprivileged students, and women, as shadowing may be their only opportunity to see what a physician does on a day to day basis. The coronavirus (COVID-19) has caused rapidly changing rules. Formal shadowing programs have been suspended and informal shadowing has been prohibited for over two years, and there's no end in sight. We cannot continue on this way. To mitigate this dire situation, we propose the following four specific recommendations. First, allow in-person, undergraduate student shadowing while ensuring safety. Undergraduate students need shadowing experiences, and it is essential that shadowing programs are conducted with proper risk mitigation protocols. Second, enhance and maximize virtual shadowing. True virtual shadowing is technically feasible and could be made available with physicians who are seeing patients via telemedicine. By enabling three-way video calling, students could observe the patient-provider interaction in the virtual setting. Third, fill clinical, front-line hospital roles with student volunteers and/or workers. Students could gain practical frontline, clinical exposure and real-world experiences supporting the medical system during a pandemic. Fourth, recognize the student experiences. College advisors, medical school admissions officers, and medical school faculty need to understand the drastically decreased in-hospital time that current students have had, and all the obstacles that will impede shadowing opportunities for years to come. We owe it to students, current and future physicians, the entire medical community, and society at large to reinvigorate opportunities for shadowing. The pipeline and the next generation of physicians depends on it.

Acute appendicitis severity during the early COVID-19 pandemic period.

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 pandemic period significantly strained the US healthcare system. During this period, consultations and admissions for acute medical conditions decreased, which was associated with an increase in disease-specific morbidity and mortality. Therefore, we sought to determine what, if any, effect the early COVID-19 pandemic period had on the presentation, management, and histopathologic severity of acute appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study to compare the frequencies with which patients presented with acute appendicitis, the proportion of whom were managed surgically, and the distribution of histopathologic disease severity among all resected appendix specimens during the early COVID-19 pandemic period (March 6-June 30, 2020) to equivalent time periods for the 3 preceding/pre-pandemic years (2017-2019). RESULTS: Compared with equivalent pre-pandemic time periods, during the COVID-19 pandemic period there was no significant difference in the number of patients who presented for acute appendicitis, there was a decreased rate of surgical management (81% vs 94%; p=0.014), and there was an overall increase in the incidence of perforated appendicitis (31% vs 16%; p=0.004), including by histopathologic diagnosis (25% vs 11%; p=0.01). DISCUSSION: Despite potential patient hesitancy to present for care, the early COVID-19 pandemic period was associated with no significant change in the number of patients presenting with acute appendicitis; however, there was a significant increase in the incidence of perforated appendicitis. This study highlights the need to encourage patients to avoid late presentation for acute surgical conditions and for the robust planning for the medical management of otherwise surgical abnormalities during episodes of restricted or limited resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Mitigating the July effect

An editorial is presented on the mitigating the July effect. Topics include the arrival of a crop of newly graduated medical students beginning their internships, the influx of so many freshly trained physicians arriving at the same time always triggers concern, and the belief in a July effect with presumed adverse consequences for patient safety and quality of care.

A Survey of Hospitalized Trauma Patients in Hemorrhage Control Education: Are Trauma Victims Willing to Stop the Bleed?

BACKGROUND: The Stop the Bleed (STB) campaign was developed in part to educate the lay public about hemorrhage control techniques aimed at reducing preventable trauma deaths. Studies have shown this training increases bystanders' confidence and willingness to provide aid. One high-risk group might be better solicited to take the course: individuals who have been a victim of previous trauma, as high rates of recidivism after trauma are well-established. Given this group's risk for recurrent injury, we evaluated their attitudes toward STB concepts. METHODS: We surveyed trauma patients admitted to 3 urban trauma centers in Baltimore from January 8, 2020 to March 14, 2020. The survey was terminated prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trauma patients hospitalized on any inpatient unit were invited to complete the survey via an electronic tablet. The survey asked about demographics, prior exposure to life-threatening hemorrhage and first aid training, and willingness to help a person with major bleeding. The Johns Hopkins IRB approved waiver of consent for this study. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients completed the survey. The majority of respondents had been hospitalized before (92.9%) and had witnessed severe bleeding (60.7%). The majority had never taken a first aid course (60.7%) nor heard of STB (83.9%). Most respondents would be willing to help someone with severe bleeding form a car crash (98.2%) or gunshot wound (94.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients admitted for trauma had not heard about Stop the Bleed, but stated willingness to respond to someone injured with major bleeding. Focusing STB education on individuals at high-risk for trauma recidivism may be particularly effective in spreading the message and skills of STB.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on injury prevalence and pattern in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Region: a multicenter study by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, Washington, DC.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching effects on healthcare systems and society with resultant impact on trauma systems worldwide. This study evaluates the impact the pandemic has had in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Region as compared with similar months in 2019. DESIGN: A retrospective multicenter study of all adult trauma centers in the Washington, DC region was conducted using trauma registry data between January 1, 2019 and May 31, 2020. March 1, 2020 through May 31, 2020 was defined as COVID-19, and January 1, 2019 through February 28, 2020 was defined as pre-COVID-19. Variables examined include number of trauma contacts, trauma admissions, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, trauma center location (urban vs. suburban), and patient demographics. RESULTS: There was a 22.4% decrease in the overall incidence of trauma during COVID-19 compared with a 3.4% increase in trauma during pre-COVID-19. Blunt mechanism of injury decreased significantly during COVID-19 (77.4% vs. 84.9%, p<0.001). There was no change in the specific mechanisms of fall from standing, blunt assault, and motor vehicle crash. The proportion of trauma evaluations for penetrating trauma increased significantly during COVID-19 (22.6% vs. 15.1%, p<0.001). Firearm-related and stabbing injury mechanisms both increased significantly during COVID-19 (11.8% vs. 6.8%, p<0.001; 9.2%, 6.9%, p=0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The overall incidence of trauma has decreased since the arrival of COVID-19. However, there has been a significant rise in penetrating trauma. Preparation for future pandemic response should include planning for an increase in trauma center resource utilization from penetrating trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

Nonadministration of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is less common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is higher than most other hospitalized patients. Nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is common and is associated with VTE events. Our objective was to determine whether nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is more common in patients with COVID-19 versus other hospitalized patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort analysis of all adult patients discharged from the Johns hopkins hospital between Mar 1 and May 12, 2020, we compared demographic, clinical characteristics, VTE outcomes, prescription and administration of VTE prophylaxis between COVID-19 positive, negative, and not tested groups. RESULTS: Patients tested positive for COVID-19 were significantly older, and more likely to be Hispanic, have a higher median body mass index, have longer hospital length of stay, require mechanical ventilation, develop pulmonary embolism and die (all p < 0.001). COVID-19 patients were more likely to be prescribed (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.38-1.66) and receive all doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.36-1.62). The number of patients who missed at least one dose of VTE prophylaxis and developed VTE was similar between the three groups (p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that high rates of VTE in COVID-19 are due to nonadministration of doses of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Hence, we should prioritize research into alternative approaches to optimizing VTE prevention in patients with COVID-19.

Guidance vs. guidelines: the role of evidence-based medicine in the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the practice of high-quality evidence-based medicine because no uniformly accepted treatment protocols or rigorous guidelines are widely available. This article examines the role of practice management guidelines versus clinical guidance for safe and evidence-based clinical care of patients with COVID-19.