Correction: The Story of #GetMePPE and GetUsPPE.org to Mobilize Health Care Response to COVID-19 : Rapidly Deploying Digital Tools for Better Health Care.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/20469.].

Effectiveness of an anti-fog polymer coating in protective eyewear: a blinded, randomised controlled cross-over trial with healthcare providers in an emergency department setting

BackgroundEye protection is a mandatory component of the personal protective equipment in healthcare settings, especially for suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 and during aerosolising procedures. Fogging of protective eyewear is a frequent problem experienced by providers. The hydrophilic property of a sulfonated polymer, BiaXam, may be able to decrease fogging through wicking moisture from the lens. In this study, we tested the anti-fogging properties of this polymer when applied to protective eyewear. MethodsAn investigator-initiated prospective, randomised, single-blinded cross-over study was conducted in an emergency department in a large, tertiary care hospital. Participants were blinded and randomised first to either a pair of anti-fog coated or uncoated eyewear, and then to the alternative pair after 2 hours. Study participants completed an identical survey at the end of each 2-hour period. Results50 emergency medicine healthcare providers were enrolled and 48 completed the study. Results demonstrated a significant difference in fogging between the coated and uncoated eyewear, as 81% of the participants reported fogging of the uncoated lenses and only 55% of the participants reported fogging in the coated pair (p=0.0029). Participants reported that the uncoated lenses fogged two times as frequently on a 10-point Likert scale (4.5 +/- 3.3 vs 2.1 +/- 2.5;p<0.0001). Subgroup analysis of participants who wore only a surgical mask demonstrated even more efficacious results with coated eyewear. ConclusionOverall, sulfonated polymer-coated eyewear improved provider visualisation, user experience and perceived mitigation of potential medical errors.

Level-loading a health system by transferring emergency department patients to a community hospital: Prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department boarding and crowding lead to worse patient outcomes and patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: We describe the implementation of a program to transfer patients requiring medical admission from an academic emergency department to a community hospital's medical floor and analyze its effects on patient outcomes. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed. Data was collected on patient flow through the transfer program. Patient characteristics, boarding time in the emergency department, and hospital-based outcome measures were compared between patients in the transfer program who were successfully transferred to the community hospital and patients who were admitted to the academic medical center. RESULTS: 79 patients were successfully transferred to the community hospital between November 23, 2020 and August 5, 2021, resulting in 279 bed days in the community hospital. Successfully transferred patients experienced a statistically shorter ED boarding time (5.7 vs. 10.9 h, p < 0.0001), ED length of stay (10.5 vs 16.1 h, p < 0.0001), and hospital length of stay (3.5 vs 5.7 days, p < 0.0001) compared to patients initially referred to the transfer program who were admitted to the academic medical center. There were no reported adverse events during transfer, upgrades to the ICU within 24 h of admission, or inpatient deaths for patients who were transferred. CONCLUSION: We implemented an academic emergency department to partner community hospital transfer program that safely level-loads medical patients in a healthcare system.

Facemasks: Perceptions and use in an ED population during COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Facemask use is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most surveys assessing perceptions and practices of mask use miss the most vulnerable racial, ethnic, and socio-economic populations. These same populations have suffered disproportionate impacts from the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, access, and practices of mask wearing across 15 urban emergency department (ED) populations. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of ED patients from December 2020 to March 2021 at 15 geographically diverse, safety net EDs across the US. The primary outcome was frequency of mask use outside the home and around others. Other outcome measures included having enough masks and difficulty obtaining them. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89%) agreed to participate; nine had missing data pertaining to the primary outcome, leaving 2,292 included in the final analysis. A total of 79% of respondents reported wearing masks "all of the time" and 96% reported wearing masks over half the time. Subjects with PCPs were more likely to report wearing masks over half the time compared to those without PCPs (97% vs 92%). Individuals experiencing homelessness were less likely to wear a mask over half the time compared to those who were housed (81% vs 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Study participants reported high rates of facemask use. Respondents who did not have PCPs and those who were homeless were less likely to report wearing a mask over half the time and more likely to report barriers in obtaining masks. The ED may serve a critical role in education regarding, and provision of, masks for vulnerable populations.

Towards a more efficient healthcare system: Opportunities and challenges caused by hospital closures amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

A substantial number of United States (U.S.) hospitals have closed in recent years. The trend of closures has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as hospitals have experienced financial hardship from reduced patient volume and elective surgery cases, as well as the thin financial margins for treating patients with COVID-19. This trend of hospital closures is concerning for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. In this current opinion piece, we first describe the challenges caused by hospital closures and discuss what policymakers should know based on the existing research. We then discuss unique opportunities for researchers to inform policymakers by conducting careful studies that can shed light on different implications, trade-offs, and consequences of various strategies that can be followed.

Evaluation of a COVID-19 emergency department observation protocol.

OBJECTIVES: Caring for patients with COVID-19 has resulted in a considerable strain on hospital capacity. One strategy to mitigate crowding is the use of ED-based observation units to care for patients who may have otherwise required hospitalization. We sought to create a COVID-19 Observation Protocol for our ED Observation Unit (EDOU) for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 to allow emergency physicians (EP) to gather more data for or against admission and intervene in a timely manner to prevent clinical deterioration. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study which included all patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of EDOU placement for the primary purpose of monitoring COVID-19 disease. Our institution updated the ED Observation protocol partway into the study period. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics. We assessed for differences in demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes between admitted and discharged patients. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess whether meeting criteria for the ED observation protocols predicted disposition. RESULTS: During the time period studied, 120 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 were placed in the EDOU for the primary purpose of monitoring COVID-19 disease. The admission rate for patients in the EDOU during the study period was 35%. When limited to patients who met criteria for version 1 or version 2 of the protocol, this dropped to 21% and 25% respectively. Adherence to the observation protocol was 62% and 60% during the time of version 1 and version 2 implementation, respectively. Using a multivariate logistic regression, meeting criteria for either version 1 (OR = 3.17, 95% CI 1.34-7.53, p < 0.01) or version 2 (OR = 3.18, 95% CI 1.39-7.30, p < 0.01) of the protocol resulted in a higher likelihood of discharge. There was no difference in EDOU LOS between admitted and discharged patients. CONCLUSION: An ED observation protocol can be successfully created and implemented for COVID-19 which allows the EP to determine which patients warrant hospitalization. Meeting protocol criteria results in an acceptable admission rate.

Mobile app helps trainees manage emergencies at the bedside.

BACKGROUND: Although emergency departments (ED) have standardized guidelines for low-frequency, high-acuity diagnoses, they are not immediately accessible at the bedside, and this can cause anxiety in trainees and delay patient care. This problem is exacerbated during events like COVID-19 that require the rapid creation, iteration, and dissemination of new guidelines. METHODS: Physician innovators used design thinking principles to develop EM Protocols (EMP), a mobile application that clinicians can use to immediately view guidelines, contact consultants (e.g., cath lab activation), and access code-running tools. The project became an institutional high priority, because it helps EM trainees and off-service rotators manage low-frequency, high-acuity emergencies at the point of care, and its COVID-19 guidelines can be rapidly updated and disseminated in real time. RESULTS: This intervention was deployed across two academic medical centers during the COVID-19 surge. Nearly 300 ED clinicians have downloaded EMP, and they have interacted with the app over 5,400 times. It continues to be used regularly, over 12 months after the initial surge. Since the app was received positively, there are efforts to build in additional adult and pediatric guidelines. DISCUSSION: Digital health tools like EMP can serve as invaluable adjuncts for managing acute, life-threatening emergencies at the point of care. They can benefit trainees during normal day-to-day operations as well as scenarios that cause large-scale operational disruptions, such as natural disasters, mass casualty events, and future pandemics.

Get waivered remote: Nationwide, remote DEA-x waiver course in response to COVID-19.

PROBLEM: As of 2020, less than 5% of physicians in the United States have a drug enforcement administration-X waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. The coronavirus-2019 pandemic restricted in-person gatherings, including traditional drug enforcement administration-X waiver courses. As a result, in-person conferences have needed to adopt remote formats. Many programs identified a gap between educational delivery and the faculty skills required to deliver content remotely. APPROACH: To address the need for high-quality remote learning, Get Waivered designed and implemented a novel experience for clinicians, called Get Waivered Remote. An educational session was live-streamed via Zoom™. To foster interactivity, like in-person didactic conferences, participants were polled to facilitate discussion among presenters, learners, and facilitators during the broadcast. OUTCOMES: The RE-AIM framework was used for evaluation. Our program had a Reach encompassing 814 users that participated during the live-streamed event; Effectiveness with 73.79% reporting being somewhat familiar or very familiar with the practice of opioid dependency treatment with approved buprenorphine medications; Adoption with 95.15% reporting a favorable experience and 92.23% reporting it was similar or more enjoyable than their usual teaching; Implementation with 450 messages sent by 281 users to engage with presenters and other learners via Zoom chat in real time. NEXT STEPS: Get Waivered Remote provides a proof-of-concept that a broadcast with a concurrent, interactive remote learning platform is feasible, low cost, and simple to execute. Further study is required to assess the ability of our group to maintain this innovation and also to measure its impact on the treatment of opioid use disorder.

COVID-19 Level-Loading: Transferring Emergency Department Patients to a Partner Academic Medical Center Within a Healthcare System.

COVID-19 continues to challenge bed capacity and the ability of hospitals to provide quality care for patients around the country. However, the COVID-19 pandemic at a given point in time does not impact all hospitals equally-even within a single healthcare system, one hospital may be caring for patients in the hallways, while another has available inpatient beds. Here, we demonstrate a program to level-load COVID-19 patients between 2 academic medical centers in a healthcare system by transferring patients at the time of admission from the emergency department of one institution directly to an inpatient bed of the other institution. Over 42 days, 50 patients were transferred which saved 432 bed-days at the home academic medical center without any adverse events during transfer or upgrades to the ICU within the first 24 hours of admission. Programs like this can expand a healthcare system's ability to allocate personnel and resources efficiently for patients and maximize the quality of care delivered even during a pandemic.

Increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department setting during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has resulted in decreases in absolute imaging volumes, however imaging utilization on a per-patient basis has not been reported. Here we compare per-patient imaging utilization, characterized by imaging studies and work relative value units (wRVUs), in an emergency department (ED) during a COVID-19 surge to the same period in 2019. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients presenting to the ED from April 1-May 1, 2020 and 2019. Patients were stratified into three primary subgroups: all patients (n = 9580, n = 5686), patients presenting with respiratory complaints (n = 1373, n = 2193), and patients presenting without respiratory complaints (n = 8207, n = 3493). The primary outcome was imaging studies/patient and wRVU/patient. Secondary analysis was by disposition and COVID status. Comparisons were via the Wilcoxon rank-sum or Chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The total patients, imaging exams, and wRVUs during the 2020 and 2019 periods were 5686 and 9580 (-41%), 6624 and 8765 (-24%), and 4988 and 7818 (-36%), respectively, and the percentage patients receiving any imaging was 67% and 51%, respectively (p < .0001). In 2020 there was a 170% relative increase in patients presenting with respiratory complaints. In 2020, patients without respiratory complaints generated 24% more wRVU/patient (p < .0001) and 33% more studies/patient (p < .0001), highlighted by 38% more CTs/patient. CONCLUSION: We report increased per-patient imaging utilization in an emergency department during COVID-19, particularly in patients without respiratory complaints.

The Rapid Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination in Emergency Departments for Underserved Patients Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED. CONCLUSION: ED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.

Barriers to emergency department usage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the public's likelihood of being willing to use an emergency department (ED) for urgent/emergent illness during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional survey of a non-probability sample from Amazon Mechanical Turk was administered May 24-25, 2020. Change in self-reported willingness to use an ED before and during the pandemic (primary outcome) was assessed via McNemar's test; COVID-19 knowledge and perceptions were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There were 855 survey participants (466 [54.5%] male; 699 [81.8%] White; median age 39). Proportion reporting likelihood to use the ED pre-pandemic (71% [604/855]) decreased significantly during the pandemic (49% [417/855]; P < 0.001); those unlikely to visit the ED increased significantly during the pandemic (41% [347/855] vs 22% [417/855], P < 0.001). Participants were unlikely to use the ED during the pandemic if they were unlikely to use it pre-pandemic (adjusted odds ratio, 4.55; 95% confidence interval, 3.09-6.7) or correctly answered more COVID-19 knowledge questions (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.60). Furthermore, 23.4% (n = 200) of respondents believed the pandemic was not a serious threat to society. Respondents with higher COVID-19 knowledge scores were more likely to view the pandemic as serious (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.82). CONCLUSIONS: This survey study investigated the public's willingness to use the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only 49% of survey respondents were willing to visit the ED during a pandemic if they felt ill compared with 71% before the pandemic.

Exacerbation of Physical Intimate Partner Violence during COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global social and public health problem, but published literature regarding the exacerbation of physical IPV during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is lacking. Purpose To assess the incidence, patterns, and severity of injuries in IPV victims during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared with the prior 3 years. Materials and Methods The demographics, clinical presentation, injuries, and radiologic findings of patients reporting physical abuse arising from IPV during the statewide COVID-19 pandemic between March 11 and May 3, 2020, were compared with data from the same period for the past 3 years. Pearson χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used for analysis. Results A total of 26 victims of physical IPV from 2020 (mean age, 37 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; 25 women) were evaluated and compared with 42 victims of physical IPV (mean age, 41 years ± 15; 40 women) from 2017 to 2019. Although the overall number of patients who reported IPV decreased during the pandemic, the incidence of physical IPV was 1.8 times greater (95% CI: 1.1, 3.0; P = .01). The total number of deep injuries was 28 during 2020 versus 16 from 2017 to 2019; the number of deep injuries per victim was 1.1 during 2020 compared with 0.4 from 2017 to 2019 (P < .001). The incidence of high-risk abuse defined by mechanism was two times greater in 2020 (95% CI: 1.2, 4.7; P = .01). Patients who experienced IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic were more likely to be White; 17 (65%) victims in 2020 were White compared with 11 (26%) in the prior years (P = .007). Conclusion There was a higher incidence and severity of physical intimate partner violence (IPV) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic compared with the prior 3 years. These results suggest that victims of IPV delayed reaching out to health care services until the late stages of the abuse cycle during the COVID-19 pandemic. © RSNA, 2020.

The cases not seen: Patterns of emergency department visits and procedures in the era of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Prior data suggest Emergency Department (ED) visits for many emergency conditions decreased during the initial COVID-19 surge. However, the pandemic's impact on the wide range of conditions seen in EDs, and the resources required for treating them, has been less studied. We sought to provide a comprehensive analysis of ED visits and associated resource utilization during the initial COVID-19 surge. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis from 5 hospitals in a large health system in Massachusetts, comparing ED encounters from 3/1/2020-4/30/2020 to identical weeks from the prior year. Data collected included demographics, ESI, diagnosis, consultations ordered, bedside procedures, and inpatient procedures within 48 h. We compared raw frequencies between time periods and calculated incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: ED volumes decreased by 30.9% in 2020 compared to 2019. Average acuity of ED presentations increased, while most non-COVID-19 diagnoses decreased. The number and incidence rate of all non-critical care ED procedures decreased, while the occurrence of intubations and central lines increased. Most subspecialty consultations decreased, including to psychiatry, trauma surgery, and cardiology. Most non-elective procedures related to ED encounters also decreased, including craniotomies and appendectomies. CONCLUSION: Our health system experienced decreases in nearly all non-COVID-19 conditions presenting to EDs during the initial phase of the pandemic, including those requiring specialty consultation and urgent inpatient procedures. Findings have implications for both public health and health system planning.

A Video-based Debriefing Program to Support Emergency Medicine Clinician Well-being During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency clinicians on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic experience a range of emotions including anxiety, fear, and grief. Debriefing can help clinicians process these emotions, but the coronavirus pandemic makes it difficult to create a physically and psychologically safe space in the emergency department (ED) to perform this intervention. In response, we piloted a video-based debriefing program to support emergency clinician well-being. We report the details of our program and results of our evaluation of its acceptability and perceived value to emergency clinicians during the pandemic. METHODS: ED attending physicians, resident physicians, and non-physician practitioners (NPP) at our quaternary-care academic medical center were invited to participate in role-based, weekly one-hour facilitated debriefings using Zoom. ED attendings with experience in debriefing led each session and used an explorative approach that focused on empathy and normalizing reactions. At the end of the pilot, we distributed to participants an anonymous 10-point survey that included multiple-answer questions and visual analogue scales. RESULTS: We completed 18 debriefings with 68 unique participants (29 attending physicians, 6 resident physicians, and 33 NPPs. A total of 76% of participants responded to our survey and 77% of respondents participated in at least two debriefings. Emergency clinicians reported that the most common reasons to participate in the debriefings were "to enhance my sense of community and connection" (81%) followed by "to support colleagues" (75%). Debriefing with members of the same role group (92%) and the Zoom platform (81%) were considered to be helpful aspects of the debriefing structure. Although emergency clinicians found these sessions to be useful (78.8 +/- 17.6) interquartile range: 73-89), NPPs were less comfortable speaking up (58.5 +/- 23.6) than attending physicians (77.8 +/- 25.0) (p = < 0.008). CONCLUSION: Emergency clinicians participating in a video-based debriefing program during the coronavirus pandemic found it to be an acceptable and useful approach to support emotional well-being. Our program provided participants with a platform to support each other and maintain a sense of community and connection. Other EDs should consider implementing a debriefing program to safeguard the emotional well-being of their emergency clinician workforce.

Addressing immediate public coronavirus (COVID-19) concerns through social media: Utilizing Reddit's AMA as a framework for Public Engagement with Science.

COVID-19 has highlighted an opportunity for medical professionals to engage in online Public Engagement with Science (PES). Currently a popular platform for PES is Reddit. Reddit provides an Ask Me Anything (AMA) format for subject matter experts to answer questions asked by the public. On March 11, 2020, from 2:00 to 4:00pm EST, two Emergency Department physicians from Massachusetts General Hospital hosted an AMA session on coronavirus. We retroactively conducted an analysis of the questions and answers from this AMA session in order to better understand the public's concerns around coronavirus and identify future opportunities for medical experts to leverage the Reddit AMA format in communicating with the general public. Results suggested that participants sought not only to obtain information, but to engage in discussion, and did so with each other in the absence of expert responses. The majority of bi-directional discussion occurred between participants. Due to the volume of questions and ratio of experts to participants, not all questions were answered. More posts provided facts or opinions, than posts that providing resources or requesting resources.

The Story of #GetMePPE and GetUsPPE.org to Mobilize Health Care Response to COVID-19 : Rapidly Deploying Digital Tools for Better Health Care.

Physicians, nurses, and other health care providers initiated the #GetMePPE movement on Twitter to spread awareness of the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Dwindling supplies, such as face masks, gowns and goggles, and inadequate production to meet increasing demand have placed health care workers and patients at risk. The momentum of the #GetMePPE Twitter hashtag resulted in the creation of a petition to urge public officials to address the PPE shortage through increased funding and production. Simultaneously, the GetUsPPE.org website was launched through the collaboration of physicians and software engineers to develop a digital platform for the donation, request, and distribution of multi-modal sources of PPE. GetUsPPE.org and #GetMePPE were merged in an attempt to combine public engagement and advocacy on social media with the coordination of PPE donation and distribution. Within 10 days, over 1800 hospitals and PPE suppliers were registered in a database that enabled the rapid coordination and distribution of scarce and in-demand materials. One month after its launch, the organization had distributed hundreds of thousands of PPE items and had built a database of over 6000 PPE requesters. The call for action on social media and the rapid development of this digital tool created a productive channel for the public to contribute to the health care response to COVID-19 in meaningful ways. #GetMePPE and GetUsPPE.org were able to mobilize individuals and organizations outside of the health care system to address the unmet needs of the medical community. The success of GetUsPPE.org demonstrates the potential of digital tools as a platform for larger health care institutions to rapidly address urgent issues in health care. In this paper, we outline this process and discuss key factors determining success.