Identifying the asthma research priorities of people with asthma, their carers and other stakeholders.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: People living with asthma, their carers, clinicians and policymakers are the end-users of research and need research that address their individual healthcare needs. We aimed to understand the research priorities of end-users of asthma research. METHODS: A national cross-sectional mixed-methods study was conducted. The study included an online survey that engaged patients, carers, healthcare professionals and policymakers to provide statements to free-text questions about what they would like to see answered by research to improve living with asthma on a day-to-day basis. Responses where thematically analysed followed by three online priority setting consensus workshops. RESULTS: There were 593 respondents who provided 1446 text comments. Participants prioritized 10 asthma research themes which were: (1) asthma in children, (2) COVID 19 and asthma, (3) asthma care and self-management, (4) diagnosis and medication, (5) managing asthma attacks, (6) causes, prevention and features of asthma, (7) mental health, (8) asthma and ageing, (9) severe asthma, (10) asthma and other health conditions. Each theme comprises specific research questions. CONCLUSION: This project successfully established 10 priority research themes for asthma, reflecting the collective voice of the end-users of this research. These novel data can be used to address the documented mismatch in research prioritization between the research community and the end-users of research.

Staff experiences of working on a new Critical Care Unit during the COVID 19 pandemic

Introduction: Intensive Care Unit (ICU) design impacts staff well-being1 with relocation to a different ICU layout causing staff stress.2,3 During the COVID-19 pandemic our new critical care centre was opened expediently allowing increased patient capacity and providing a purpose-built environment for ICU patients. The new single-bed room layout differed to other open plan multi-bed ICUs in the hospital. New design features included large floor-to-ceiling windows with park views, modernised equipment such as computer screens on movable pendants and noise reduction features. The pandemic accelerated the opening of the new unit and practice was adapted to address surge conditions (e.g., there were two patients in each 'single' room, and PPE could only be worn in specific areas of the unit, restricting movement). Objectives: We sought to understand the impact of the ICU design on staff experiences during pandemic conditions. Methods: Following ethical approval, staff who had worked on the new unit were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. The interview guide was based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF),4 a framework to identify the determinants of behaviour change. Interviews were audio recorded, anonymised and transcribed verbatim. We used line-by-line coding and analysed data informed by the TDF. Results: 21 participants captured experiences of a wide range of multi-disciplinary staff members. The most common domain identified within the data was 'Environmental context and resources', including data pertaining to barriers and facilitators of the new unit to effective working: Having large bed spaces is perfect for getting people out [of bed]. They are soundproofed as well, so patients were sleeping really well at night. Also, 'social/professional role and identity' (including group identity, leadership), 'skills' (including competence, skills development), and 'beliefs about consequences' (perception of the effects of the new units) were frequently identified in positive and negative ways: .because of where it [the patient's room] is located you do not get to see people often. I got forgotten for rolls.It was a constant struggle Medical staff and allied health professionals described advantages over the old unit design including improved team-working, oversight of patients, and mood from the design features. Participants perceived patient benefits from improved lighting and views and stimulation due to access to social media. Conversely, nurse participants perceived less support, less team-working and increased levels of anxiety due to the single rooms. Nurse experiences improved as patient numbers reduced. However, changes in how nurse teams worked was an ongoing challenge: staffing breaks and things is quite tricky. You need a permanent floater that is never allocated to patients, to try and help people, because they cannot leave their bays. Conclusions: Our findings support previous research2 demonstrating increased nurses stress when transitioning to a single-bed room ICU layout. Providing systems to alleviate nurse isolation, promote teamworking and reduce stress in future relocations may significantly improve staff well-being (e.g., video-calling and messaging between patient rooms). A multidisciplinary awareness of the impact on nurses is vital to support strategies to ameliorate the impact of changes during relocation.

Nurse-led PoCUS in the Management of the Critically Ill COVID-19 Patient

Introduction: Point-of-Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) can rapidly diagnose presence and severity of COVID-19 disease and associated pathologies.1 PoCUS identifies life-threatening complications at the bedside, with the potential to reduce the need for out-of-department transfers for imaging, alongside associated radiation exposure and spread of infection.2 Use of PoCUS by doctors in the intensive care unit (ICU) is becoming increasingly widespread. However, uptake by ICU nurses is poor despite evidence to suggest comparable accuracy in acquiring and reporting PoCUS scans, and the potential benefit to patients as a result of an increased workforce of competent PoCUS clinicians.3-5 Objective: To report findings in critically ill COVID-19 patients identified through nurse-led cardiac and 6-point lung PoCUS. Method: This case series was part of the national service evaluation led by the Intensive Care Society, SAM, FUSIC, and FAMUS. Conduct was approved by the departmental lead for critical care ultrasound. An ICU nurse trained in Focused Intensive Care Echocardiography (FICE) and Focused Ultrasound in Intensive Care (FUSIC) performed cardiac and 6-point lung PoCUS scans on ICU patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease during the recovery phase. Severity of disease was scored between 0-3 (Table 1) in each lung region (upper anterior;mid-anterior;posterolateral) and a total score calculated (0-18). PoCUS scans were only performed on patients identified by the treating ICU consultant. Correlations between PoCUS findings and patient demographics, key clinical data, physiological parameters, and 30-day outcome were analysed using Pearson's coefficient. Descriptive statistics analysis (mean;standard deviation/ mode;interquartile range) were used to describe data. Results: A cardiac and 6-point lung PoCUS scan was performed on 15 patients. Fourteen (93%) scans were performed to answer lung-specific clinical questions including assessment of ventilation strategy (ventilation mode;PEEP level) in 5 (33%) patients, extravascular lung water assessment in 9 (60%), and lung assessment prior to tracheostomy decannulation in 1 (7%). Moderate to severe COVID-19 was apparent in all lung fields with severity scores from 6 to 14 (Figure 1). Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 13 (87%) patients, 2 (13%) demonstrated signs of a dilated right ventricle (RV), and 1 (6%) had impaired LV and RV function (Figure 2). Ten scans identified pathologies that contributed to a change in clinical management immediately following the scan (Figure 3). Interventions included: (1) change in fluid management (increased fluid removal on renal filtration, new furosemide prescription) 4 (27%) patients) and a level 2 echo assessment due to identification of new cardiac pathologies (3 (20%) patients). Five patients had no change in care. We identified a moderate positive correlation between lung severity score and APACHE II (Pearson's coefficient: 0.69;p value <0.01). Weak correlation was found between lung severity score and white cell count, SOFA score, and PaO2/ FiO2. There was no difference in 30-day outcome in patients with a higher lung severity score or abnormal cardiac scan. Conclusion: Cardiac and lung PoCUS is a vital tool in the assessment of COVID-19 disease. The addition of ICU nurses to the growing workforce of PoCUS competent clinicians increases availability of real-time imaging.

Comparison of Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about changes in obstetric outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess whether obstetric outcomes and pregnancy-related complications changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included pregnant patients receiving care at 463 US hospitals whose information appeared in the PINC AI Healthcare Database. The relative differences in birth outcomes, pregnancy-related complications, and length of stay (LOS) during the pandemic period (March 1, 2020, to April 31, 2021) were compared with the prepandemic period (January 1, 2019, to February 28, 2020) using logistic and Poisson models, adjusting for patients' characteristics, and comorbidities and with month and hospital fixed effects. Exposures: COVID-19 pandemic period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 primary outcomes were the relative change in preterm vs term births, mortality outcomes, and mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included the relative change in pregnancy-related complications and LOS. Results: There were 849 544 and 805 324 pregnant patients in the prepandemic and COVID-19 pandemic periods, respectively, and there were no significant differences in patient characteristics between periods, including age (≥35 years: 153 606 [18.1%] vs 148 274 [18.4%]), race and ethnicity (eg, Hispanic patients: 145 475 [47.1%] vs 143 905 [17.9%]; White patients: 456 014 [53.7%] vs 433 668 [53.9%]), insurance type (Medicaid: 366 233 [43.1%] vs 346 331 [43.0%]), and comorbidities (all standardized mean differences <0.10). There was a 5.2% decrease in live births during the pandemic. Maternal death during delivery hospitalization increased from 5.17 to 8.69 deaths per 100 000 pregnant patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.19-2.58). There were minimal changes in mode of delivery (vaginal: OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.996-1.02; primary cesarean: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; vaginal birth after cesarean: OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00; repeated cesarean: OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.97). LOS during delivery hospitalization decreased by 7% (rate ratio, 0.931; 95% CI, 0.928-0.933). Lastly, the adjusted odds of gestational hypertension (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11), obstetric hemorrhage (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10), preeclampsia (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06), and preexisting chronic hypertension (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09) increased. No significant changes in preexisting racial and ethnic disparities were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were increased odds of maternal death during delivery hospitalization, cardiovascular disorders, and obstetric hemorrhage. Further efforts are needed to ensure risks potentially associated with the COVID-19 pandemic do not persist beyond the current state of the pandemic.

Assessment of a Crisis Standards of Care Scoring System for Resource Prioritization and Estimated Excess Mortality by Race, Ethnicity, and Socially Vulnerable Area During a Regional Surge in COVID-19.

Importance: Crisis standards of care (CSOC) scores designed to allocate scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic could exacerbate racial disparities in health care. Objective: To analyze the association of a CSOC scoring system with resource prioritization and estimated excess mortality by race, ethnicity, and residence in a socially vulnerable area. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis included adult patients in the intensive care unit during a regional COVID-19 surge from April 13 to May 22, 2020, at 6 hospitals in a health care network in greater Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were scored by acute severity of illness using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and chronic severity of illness using comorbidity and life expectancy scores, and only participants with complete scores were included. The score was ordinal, with cutoff points suggested by the Massachusetts guidelines. Exposures: Race, ethnicity, Social Vulnerability Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proportion of patients in the lowest priority score category stratified by self-reported race. Secondary outcomes were discrimination and calibration of the score overall and by race, ethnicity, and neighborhood Social Vulnerability Index. Projected excess deaths were modeled by race, using the priority scoring system and a random lottery. Results: Of 608 patients in the intensive care unit during the study period, 498 had complete data and were included in the analysis; this population had a median (IQR) age of 67 (56-75) years, 191 (38.4%) female participants, 79 (15.9%) Black participants, and 225 patients (45.7%) with COVID-19. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the priority score was 0.79 and was similar across racial groups. Black patients were more likely than others to be in the lowest priority group (12 [15.2%] vs 34 [8.1%]; P = .046). In an exploratory simulation model using the score for ventilator allocation, with only those in the highest priority group receiving ventilators, there were 43.9% excess deaths among Black patients (18 of 41 patients) and 28.6% (58 of 203 patients among all others (P = .05); when the highest and intermediate priority groups received ventilators, there were 4.9% (2 of 41 patients) excess deaths among Black patients and 3.0% (6 of 203) among all others (P = .53). A random lottery resulted in more excess deaths than the score. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a CSOC priority score resulted in lower prioritization of Black patients to receive scarce resources. A model using a random lottery resulted in more estimated excess deaths overall without improving equity by race. CSOC policies must be evaluated for their potential association with racial disparities in health care.

How Should Health Professional Education Respond to Widespread Racial and Ethnic Health Inequity and Police Brutality?

Health professions educators continuously adapt curricular content in response to new scientific knowledge but can struggle to incorporate content about current social issues that profoundly affect students and learning environments. This article offers recommendations to support innovation and action as students and faculty grapple with ongoing unrest in the United States, including racism, murders of Black people by police, and COVID-19.

Assessment of Time-to-Treatment Initiation and Survival in a Cohort of Patients With Common Cancers.

Importance: Resource limitations because of pandemic or other stresses on infrastructure necessitate the triage of time-sensitive care, including cancer treatments. Optimal time to treatment is underexplored, so recommendations for which cancer treatments can be deferred are often based on expert opinion. Objective: To evaluate the association between increased time to definitive therapy and mortality as a function of cancer type and stage for the 4 most prevalent cancers in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed treatment and outcome information from patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, non-small cell lung (NSCLC), and colon cancers from 2004 to 2015, with data analyzed January to March 2020. Data on outcomes associated with appropriate curative-intent surgical, radiation, or medical therapy were gathered from the National Cancer Database. Exposures: Time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), the interval between diagnosis and therapy, using intervals of 8 to 60, 61 to 120, 121 to 180, and greater than 180 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: 5-year and 10-year predicted all-cause mortality. Results: This study included 2 241 706 patients (mean [SD] age 63 [11.9] years, 1 268 794 [56.6%] women, 1 880 317 [83.9%] White): 1 165 585 (52.0%) with breast cancer, 853 030 (38.1%) with prostate cancer, 130 597 (5.8%) with NSCLC, and 92 494 (4.1%) with colon cancer. Median (interquartile range) TTI by cancer was 32 (21-48) days for breast, 79 (55-117) days for prostate, 41 (27-62) days for NSCLC, and 26 (16-40) days for colon. Across all cancers, a general increase in the 5-year and 10-year predicted mortality was associated with increasing TTI. The most pronounced mortality association was for colon cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage III: TTI 61-120 d, 38.9% vs. 181-365 d, 47.8%), followed by stage I NSCLC (5 y predicted mortality: TTI 61-120 d, 47.4% vs 181-365 d, 47.6%), while survival for prostate cancer was least associated (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, high risk: TTI 61-120 d, 12.8% vs 181-365 d, 14.1%), followed by breast cancer (eg, 5 y predicted mortality, stage I: TTI 61-120 d, 11.0% vs. 181-365 d, 15.2%). A nonsignificant difference in treatment delays and worsened survival was observed for stage II lung cancer patients-who had the highest all-cause mortality for any TTI regardless of treatment timing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, for all studied cancers there was evidence that shorter TTI was associated with lower mortality, suggesting an indirect association between treatment deferral and mortality that may not become evident for years. In contrast to current pandemic-related guidelines, these findings support more timely definitive treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer.