Clinical Outcomes After Use of Inhaled Corticosteroids or Oral Steroids in a COVID-19 Telemedicine Clinic Cohort: Retrospective Chart Review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 concerns remain among health care providers, as there are few outpatient treatment options. In the early days of the pandemic, treatment options for nonhospitalized patients were limited, and symptomatic treatment and home-grown guidelines that used recommendations from the Global Initiative for Asthma Management and Treatment were used. OBJECTIVE: The possibility that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) might reduce the risk of respiratory symptoms and promote recovery was the impetus for this review, as it has already been shown that in the nonhospitalized patient population, oral corticosteroids (OCS) in the acute phase could have an adverse effect on recovery. We investigated if (1) patients treated with ICS were less likely to require referral to a post-COVID-19 clinic or pulmonary specialist than patients without ICS treatment or with OCS therapy, and (2) if OCS use was associated with worse health outcomes. METHODS: In a retrospective chart review, we identified all patients with acute illness due to COVID-19 that were followed and managed by a telemedicine clinic team between June and December 2020. The data were electronically pulled from electronic medical records through April 2021 and reviewed to determine which patients eventually required referral to a post-COVID-19 clinic or pulmonary specialist due to persistent respiratory symptoms of COVID-19. The data were then analyzed to compare outcomes between patients prescribed OCS and those prescribed ICS. We specifically looked at patients treated acutely with ICS or OCS that then required referral to a pulmonary specialist or post-COVID-19 clinic. We excluded any patients with a history of chronic OCS or ICS use for any reason. RESULTS: Prescribing ICS during the acute phase did not reduce the possibility of developing persistent symptoms. There was no difference in the referral rate to a pulmonary specialist or post-COVID-19 clinic between patients treated with OCS versus ICS. However, our data may not be generalizable to other populations, as it represents a patient population enrolled in a telemedicine program at a single center. CONCLUSIONS: We found that ICS, as compared to OCS, did not reduce the risk of developing persistent respiratory symptoms. This finding adds to the body of knowledge that ICS and OCS medications remain potent treatments in patients with acute and postacute COVID-19 seen in an outpatient setting.

Financial Considerations After a Fully-Virtual Interview Season: A CERA Study of Family Medicine Residency Program Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the institution of virtual interviewing for nearly all family medicine residency programs in 2020 and 2021. This paradigm shift challenged the perspectives of family medicine program directors across the United States, in part because of the financial impact on the operations of many residency programs. We sought to investigate program directors' opinions on the 2020-2021 interview season, as well whether future interview season planning would be influenced by the financial outcomes of this season. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey, as part of the fall 2021 CERA Program Director omnibus online survey. Family medicine program directors were invited by email to participate. We conducted multivariate logistic regression of the likelihood of supporting a fully-virtual interviewing model. RESULTS: The module survey response rate was 41.7% (263/631); 91.3% of programs reported conducting a fully-virtual 2020-2021 interview season. Program directors who reported that the cost savings recouped from virtual versus in-person interviewing could be used for other residency operating costs (32.4%) were almost four times more likely to support moving to a fully-virtual interviewing model (odds ratio: 3.94, confidence interval: 1.69-9.18). When compared to a residency program's benefit from meeting and assessing applicants in person, applicants benefitting from less financial burden during a fully-virtual interview season was not seen by responding program directors as a significant reason to remain virtual. CONCLUSIONS: While family medicine residency program directors who recouped interview expenses during fully-virtual recruiting seasons are more likely to support ongoing, fully-virtual models, financial incentivization did not overall impact support for virtual interviewing among program directors with statistical significance.

A Mixed-Methods Formative Evaluation of a Dementia-Friendly Congregation Program for Black Churches.

Black churches have traditionally been a haven for Black American families; however, many churches do not currently have programs to support families living with dementia. Alter™ was established to assist faith communities in meeting the needs of these families and becoming a viable resource to promote their health and wellness. Alter™ achieves this aim through a three-pronged approach: (1) conducting educational sessions, (2) modifying Black churches to be dementia-inclusive spaces, and (3) providing ongoing support. The principal goal of Alter™ is to offer guidance to churches in adapting their community to reflect a supportive environment for families affected by dementia. Alter™ uses a partnership checklist to encourage activities that incorporate dementia education opportunities, environmental modifications, and dementia resources and support. This paper reports on a formative mixed-methods evaluation of church partners enrolled in Alter™. Church partner ambassadors within the faith communities participated in the evaluation survey (n = 8) and two focus groups (n = 11). Ambassadors are appointed by church leadership to lead the implementation of program activities. Data were collected concerning the levels of helpfulness, difficulty, usefulness, or utility of checklist activities and modifications and the ease of program implementation. The evaluation also assessed the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on each church's ability to implement activities and modifications. The survey results revealed that most required partnership activities and modifications were found to be at least moderately helpful. Some of the items (themes) that differed across church partners included barriers to implementing activities, the support provided and needed, and the use of program funding. This evaluation provides key insights to consider in developing and refining community-based, dementia-friendly communities (including faith communities). As implementation science expands and improves, the need to evaluate the implementation of programs continues to be highlighted. Our formative evaluation shed light on key areas in which modifications to our original programming would lead to program improvement and sustainability. Additionally, implementing the modifications identified in our evaluation will facilitate the achievement of the mission of Alter™ to improve the well-being of older adults affected by dementia and their families. Other programs would reap substantial benefits from engaging in similar formative evaluation efforts.

Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Impact on Quality of Life 1-6 Months After Illness and Association With Initial Symptom Severity.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may have persistent symptoms following their acute illness. The prevalence and predictors of these symptoms, termed postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; PASC), have not been fully described. METHODS: Participants discharged from an outpatient telemedicine program for COVID-19 were emailed a survey (1-6 months after discharge) about ongoing symptoms, acute illness severity, and quality of life. Standardized telemedicine notes from acute illness were used for covariates (comorbidities and provider-assessed symptom severity). Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess predictors of persistent symptoms. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety patients completed the survey, of whom 115 (39.7%) reported persistent symptoms including fatigue (n = 59, 20.3%), dyspnea on exertion (n = 41, 14.1%), and mental fog (n = 39, 13.5%), among others. The proportion of persistent symptoms did not differ based on duration since illness (<90 days: n = 32, 37.2%; vs >90 days: n = 80, 40.4%; P = .61). Predictors of persistent symptoms included provider-assessed moderate-severe illness (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.24; 95% CI, 1.75-6.02), female sex (aOR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98-4.04; >90 days out: aOR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.01-4.95), and middle age (aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.07-4.03). Common symptoms associated with reports of worse physical health included weakness, fatigue, myalgias, and mental fog. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms following acute COVID-19 are common and may be predicted by factors during the acute phase of illness. Fatigue and neuropsychiatric symptoms figured prominently. Select symptoms seem to be particularly associated with perceptions of physical health following COVID-19 and warrant specific attention on future studies of PASC.

Prolonged Symptoms After COVID-19 Infection in Outpatients.

We review 127 encounters for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection at a multidisciplinary outpatient clinic. We describe the symptomatology, time course, exam, and radiographic findings in this population. Patients with COVID-19 can experience persistent symptoms, primarily respiratory in nature, which can be severe enough to warrant hospitalization.

COVID-19 Brings About Rapid Changes in the Telehealth Landscape.

Telehealth is still an evolving tool with many practitioners noting that barriers such as reimbursement and liability issues exist, preventing its regular use. This commentary addresses the many legislative changes that have taken place during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. First, we provide a brief overview of changes and describe the impact of these changes on both the current and future physician workforce. We conclude with recommendations to make these changes permanent to continue providing high-quality health care in an ever-evolving landscape.

Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 Differ Noticeably from Hospitalized Adults in Their Demographic, Clinical, and Social Characteristics.

The characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have primarily been described in hospitalized adults. Characterization of COVID-19 in ambulatory care is needed for a better understanding of its evolving epidemiology. Our aim is to provide a description of the demographics, comorbidities, clinical presentation, and social factors in confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive non-hospitalized adults. We conducted a retrospective medical record review of 208 confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive patients treated in a COVID-19 virtual outpatient management clinic established in an academic health system in Georgia. The mean age was 47.8 (range 21-88) and 69.2% were female. By race/ethnicity, 49.5% were non-Hispanic African American, 25.5% other/unknown, 22.6% non-Hispanic white, and 2.4% Hispanic. Nearly 70% had at least one preexisting medical condition. The most common presenting symptoms were cough (75.5%), loss of smell or taste (63%), headache (62%), and body aches (54.3%). Physician or advanced practice provider assessed symptom severity ranged from 51.9% mild, 30.3% moderate, and 1.4% severe. Only eight reported limitations to home care (3.8%), 55.3% had a caregiver available, and 93.3% reported initiating self-isolation. Care needs were met for 83.2%. Our results suggest the demographic and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 illness in non-hospitalized adults differ considerably from hospitalized patients and warrant greater awareness of risk among younger and healthier individuals and consideration of testing and recommending self-isolation for a wider spectrum of clinical symptoms by clinicians. Social factors may also influence the efficacy of preventive strategies and allocation of resources toward the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.