The use of telemedicine for perioperative pain management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Using a human factors engineering approach, the Johns Hopkins Personalized Pain Program adopted telemedicine for perioperative pain management in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines the impact of telemedicine adoption on the quality and outcomes of perioperative pain management. METHODS: A mixed-methods study with a convergent parallel design was conducted. From June 2017 to December 2021, 902 patients participated in the Personalized Pain Program. Quantitative data on daily opioid consumption, pain severity and interference, physical and mental health status, and patient satisfaction and engagement were continuously collected with all patients using chart review and patient surveys. Beginning 23 March 2020, the Personalized Pain Program transitioned to telemedicine. A pre-post quasi-experimental design was used to examine the impact of telemedicine. In addition, qualitative interviews were conducted with 3 clinicians and 17 patients to explore their experience with telemedicine visits. RESULTS: The monthly number of new patients seen in the Personalized Pain Program did not significantly change before and after telemedicine adoption. Compared to patients having in-person visits before the pandemic, patients having telemedicine visits during the pandemic achieved comparable improvements in daily opioid consumption, pain severity and interference, and physical health status. While telemedicine helped overcome many challenges faced by the patients, the limitations of telemedicine were also discussed. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic stimulated the use of telemedicine. To facilitate telemedicine adoption beyond the pandemic, future research is needed to examine best practices for telemedicine adoption and provide additional evidence on the effectiveness of telemedicine.

Evaluating immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in nursing home residents using saliva IgG.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants coupled with waning immunity pose a significant threat to the long-term care (LTC) population. Our objective was to measure salivary IgG antibodies in residents and staff of an LTC facility to (1) evaluate IgG response in saliva post-natural infection and vaccination and (2) assess its feasibility to describe the seroprevalence over time. METHODS: We performed salivary IgG sampling of all residents and staff who agreed to test in a 150-bed skilled nursing facility during three seroprevalence surveys between October 2020 and February 2021. The facility had SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in May 2020 and November 2020, when 45 of 138 and 37 of 125 residents were infected, respectively; they offered two Federal vaccine clinics in January 2021. We evaluated quantitative IgG in saliva to the Nucleocapsid (N), Spike (S), and Receptor-binding domain (RBD) Antigens of SARS-CoV-2 over time post-infection and post-vaccination. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four residents and 28 staff underwent saliva serologic testing on one or more survey visits. Over three surveys, the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence at the facility was 49%, 64%, and 81%, respectively. IgG to S, RBD, and N Antigens all increased post infection. Post vaccination, the infection naïve group did not have a detectable N IgG level, and N IgG levels for the previously infected did not increase post vaccination (p < 0.001). Fully vaccinated subjects with prior COVID-19 infection had significantly higher RBD and S IgG responses compared with those who were infection-naïve prior to vaccination (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Positive SARS-COV-2 IgG in saliva was concordant with prior infection (Anti N, S, RBD) and vaccination (Anti S, RBD) and remained above positivity threshold for up to 9 months from infection. Salivary sampling is a non-invasive method of tracking immunity and differentiating between prior infection and vaccination to inform the need for boosters in LTC residents and staff.

Improving physical distancing among healthcare workers in a pediatric intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) not adhering to physical distancing recommendations is a risk factor for acquisition of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The study objective was to assess the impact of interventions to improve HCW physical distancing on actual distance between HCWs in a real-life setting. METHODS: HCWs voluntarily wore proximity beacons to measure the number and intensity of physical distancing interactions between each other in a pediatric intensive care unit. We compared interactions before and after implementing a bundle of interventions including changes to the layout of workstations, cognitive aids, and individual feedback from wearable proximity beacons. RESULTS: Overall, we recorded 10,788 interactions within 6 feet (∼2 m) and lasting >5 seconds. The number of HCWs wearing beacons fluctuated daily and increased over the study period. On average, 13 beacons were worn daily (32% of possible staff; range, 2-32 per day). We recorded 3,218 interactions before the interventions and 7,570 interactions after the interventions began. Using regression analysis accounting for the maximum number of potential interactions if all staff had worn beacons on a given day, there was a 1% decline in the number of interactions per possible interactions in the postintervention period (incident rate ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.00; P = .02) with fewer interactions occurring at nursing stations, in workrooms and during morning rounds. CONCLUSIONS: Using quantitative data from wearable proximity beacons, we found an overall small decline in interactions within 6 feet between HCWs in a busy intensive care unit after a multifaceted bundle of interventions was implemented to improve physical distancing.