Optimal timing and outcomes among COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy.

BACKGROUND: Patients who require mechanical ventilation secondary to severe COVID-19 infection have poor survival. It is unknown if the benefit of tracheostomy extends to COVID-19 patients. If so, what is the optimal timing? METHODS: Retrospective cohort study within a large hospital system in the United States. The population included patients with COVID-19 from January 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020. In total, 93,918 cases were identified. They were excluded if no intubation or tracheostomy, underwent tracheostomy before intubation, <18 years old, hospice patients before admission, and bacterial pneumonia. In total, 5,911 patients met the criteria. Outcomes between patients who underwent endotracheal intubation only versus tracheostomy were compared. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. All patients who underwent tracheostomy versus intubation only were compared. Three cohort analysis compared early (<10 days) versus late (>10 days) tracheostomy versus control. Eight cohort analysis compared days 0-2, days 3-6, days 7-10, days 11-14, days 15-18, days 19-22, and days 23+ to tracheostomy versus control. RESULTS: There was an overall inpatient mortality rate of 37.5% in the tracheostomy cohort compared to 54.4% in the control group (P < .0001). There was an early tracheostomy group inpatient mortality rate of 44.7% (adjusted odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.52-1.01) compared to 33.1% (adjusted odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.58) in the late tracheostomy group. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients with tracheostomy had a significantly lower mortality rate compared to intubated only. Optimal timing for tracheostomy placement for COVID-19 patients is 11 days or later. Future studies should focus on early tracheostomy patients.

The Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Trauma Registry and Performance Improvement Operations and Workforce Nationwide: A Survey of Trauma Center Association of America Members.

BACKGROUND: Trauma Centers integrate Trauma Registrars and Performance Improvement Nurses to drive quality care. Delays in their duties could have negative impacts on outcomes and performance. We aim to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Trauma Center operations by assessing performance of trauma registry and performance improvement processes across the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed utilizing data from two anonymous questionnaires distributed to Trauma Center Association of America members. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's Exact Test, and multivariable logistic regression were performed with statistical significance defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of 90.2% (83) of Trauma Registrars and 85.9% (67) of Performance Improvement personnel reported that their Trauma Centers have treated COVID-19 patients. Among trauma registrars, respondents did not significantly differ in the current status of completing registry cases (P> 0.05), during COVID-19 compared to prior (P> 0.05), or adjusted odds of COVID-19 delaying completion of entries (P> 0.05). Having >2 Performance Improvement Nurses was significantly associated with improved performance during the COVID-19 pandemic (P= 0.03) whereas working at a Trauma Center which treats adults-only or mixed patient population (adult and pediatric) was associated with being 1-3 months behind in closing of performance improvement cases (P= 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The negative impact of COVID-19 on Trauma Registrars and Performance Improvement Nurses has been minimal. Adequate staffing/experience seem to mitigate delays and decreased performance. Implementation of expanded staffing, improved training, and evidenced-based revision of Trauma Center logistics may help mitigate future disruptions relating to COVID-19 and allow Trauma Centers to recover and improve their operations.

Impacts and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency medicine physicians in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medicine (EM) physicians have been on the front line of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic and other related factors such as resource availability and institutional support on well-being, burnout and job-satisfaction of EM physicians in the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study of EM physicians was conducted through the Emergency Medicine Practice Research Network of the ACEP. The survey focused on resource adequacy, institutional support, well-being, and burnout. A total of 890 EM physicians were invited to participate. Both descriptive and risk adjusted, and multivariate regressions were performed with a statistical significance defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: EM physicians' response rate was 18.7% (166) from 39 states. Burnout was reported by 74.7% (124) since the start of the pandemic. Factors contributing included work-related emotional strain and anxiety, isolation from family and friends, and increased workload. Those reporting inadequate resources felt ignored by their institutions (p < 0.0001). Physicians who felt there was inadequate institutional support, were also dissatisfied with patient care resources (p = 0.001). Physicians expressing job dissatisfaction were more likely to report feelings of burnout (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: EM physicians face greater burnout in the COVID-19 pandemic. This may be compounded by resource scarcity, psychological stress, isolation, and job dissatisfaction. Many of the survey respondents reported inadequate mental health services and resources. The findings of this study may help identify solutions to mitigate these issues.