Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

Adaptability on Shifting Ground: a Rapid Qualitative Assessment of Multi-institutional Inpatient Surge Planning and Workforce Deployment During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the initial wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, care delivery and workforce adaptations were rapidly implemented. In response to subsequent surges of patients, institutions have deployed, modified, and/or discontinued their workforce plans. OBJECTIVE: Using rapid qualitative methods, we sought to explore hospitalists' experiences with workforce deployment, types of clinicians deployed, and challenges encountered with subsequent iterations of surge planning during the COVID-19 pandemic across a collaborative of hospital medicine groups. APPROACH: Using rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were conducted in partnership with the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). We interviewed physicians, advanced practice providers (APP), and physician researchers about (1) ongoing adaptations to the workforce as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) current struggles with workforce planning, and (3) evolution of workforce planning. KEY RESULTS: We conducted five focus groups with 33 individuals from 24 institutions, representing 52% of HOMERuN sites. A variety of adaptations was described by participants, some common across institutions and others specific to the institution's location and context. Adaptations implemented shifted from the first waves of COVID patients to subsequent waves. Three global themes also emerged: (1) adaptability and comfort with dynamic change, (2) the importance of the unique hospitalist skillset for effective surge planning and redeployment, and (3) the lack of universal solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital workforce adaptations to the COVID pandemic continued to evolve. While few approaches were universally effective in managing surges of patients, and successful adaptations were highly context dependent, the ability to navigate a complex system, adaptability, and comfort in a chaotic, dynamic environment were themes considered most critical to successful surge management. However, resource constraints and sustained high workload levels raised issues of burnout.

A Patient-Centered Environmental Scan of Inpatient Visitor Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Researchers and patients conducted an environmental scan of policy documents and public-facing websites and abstracted data to describe COVID-19 adult inpatient visitor restrictions at 70 academic medical centers. We identified variations in how centers described and operationalized visitor policies. Then, we used the nominal group technique process to identify patient-centered information gaps in visitor policies and provide key recommendations for improvement. Recommendations were categorized into the following domains: 1) provision of comprehensive, consistent, and clear information; 2) accessible information for patients with limited English proficiency and health literacy; 3) COVID-19 related considerations; and 4) care team member methods of communication.

COVID-19 and college students: health literacy experiences and training needs.

OBJECTIVE: To explore health literacy (HL) experiences, needs, and future training directions among college students enrolled in health-related degree programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Students (n = 169) enrolled in a health-related degree program at a state university in the mid-western U.S. completed an online survey. METHODS: Forty-five questions were developed assessing: (1) demographics; (2) HL; (3) health behaviors; (4) health/well-being; and (5) academic/financial impacts. A HL score across four domains (access, understand, appraise, apply) was calculated. Participants were categorized as having sufficient or insufficient HL. Associations between HL and categorical variables were tested (Chi-square/Fisher's exact tests). Comparisons between sufficient and insufficient HL were performed (Wilcoxon rank-sum tests). RESULTS: Participants had sufficient (55.6%) and insufficient (44.4%) HL. Age was statistically significant with HL (p < 0.5). The top three future training needs were identified (psychological impact, diagnostic/prevention/treatment, racial/ethnic disparities). CONCLUSIONS: Emerging health professionals reported sufficient HL, yet information gaps and training needs remain.

Retrospective Analysis of Peri-Intubation Hypoxemia During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Epidemic Using a Protocol for Modified Airway Management.

This single-center retrospective study evaluated a protocol for the intubation of patients with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Twenty-one patients were intubated, 9 of whom were found to have COVID-19. Adherence to the airway management protocol was high. COVID-19 patients had lower peripheral capillary oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (Spo2) nadirs during intubation (Spo2, 73% [72%-77%] vs 89% [86%-94%], P = .024), and a greater percentage experienced severe hypoxemia defined as Spo2 ≤80% (89% vs 25%, P = .008). The incidence of severe hypoxemia in COVID-19 patients should be considered in the development of guidelines that incorporate high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.

Pearls and Pitfalls of the Virtual Interview: Perspectives From Both Sides of the Camera.

As the SARS-COV-2 pandemic created the need for social distancing and the implementation of nonessential travel bans, residency and fellowship programs have moved toward a web-based virtual process for applicant interviews. As part of the Society of Asian Academic Surgeons 5th Annual Meeting, an expert panel was convened to provide guidance for prospective applicants who are new to the process. This article provides perspectives from applicants who have successfully navigated the surgical subspecialty fellowship process, as well as program leadership who have held virtual interviews.

Hospital Ward Adaptation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of Academic Medical Centers.

IMPORTANCE: Although intensive care unit (ICU) adaptations to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have received substantial attention , most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have been in general medical units. OBJECTIVE: To characterize inpatient adaptations to care for non-ICU COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A network of 72 hospital medicine groups at US academic centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: COVID-19 testing, approaches to personal protective equipment (PPE), and features of respiratory isolation units (RIUs). RESULTS: Fifty-one of 72 sites responded (71%) between April 3 and April 5, 2020. At the time of our survey, only 15 (30%) reported COVID-19 test results being available in less than 6 hours. Half of sites with PPE data available reported PPE stockpiles of 2 weeks or less. Nearly all sites (90%) reported implementation of RIUs. RIUs primarily utilized attending physicians, with few incorporating residents and none incorporating students. Isolation and room-entry policies focused on grouping care activities and utilizing technology (such as video visits) to communicate with and evaluate patients. The vast majority of sites reported decreases in frequency of in-room encounters across provider or team types. Forty-six percent of respondents reported initially unrecognized non-COVID-19 diagnoses in patients admitted for COVID-19 evaluation; a similar number reported delayed identification of COVID-19 in patients admitted for other reasons. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has required medical wards to rapidly adapt with expanding use of RIUs and use of technology emerging as critical approaches. Reports of unrecognized or delayed diagnoses highlight how such adaptations may produce potential adverse effects on care.