Disparities in Unilateral Do Not Resuscitate Order Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: A unilateral do-not-resuscitate (UDNR) order is a do-not-resuscitate order placed using clinician judgment which does not require consent from a patient or surrogate. This study assessed how UDNR orders were used during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We analyzed a retrospective cross-sectional study of UDNR use at two academic medical centers between April 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: Two academic medical centers in the Chicago metropolitan area. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to an ICU between April 2020 and April 2021 who received vasopressor or inotropic medications to select for patients with high severity of illness. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 1,473 patients meeting inclusion criteria were 53% male, median age 64 (interquartile range, 54-73), and 38% died during admission or were discharged to hospice. Clinicians placed do not resuscitate orders for 41% of patients ( n = 604/1,473) and UDNR orders for 3% of patients ( n = 51/1,473). The absolute rate of UDNR orders was higher for patients who were primary Spanish speaking (10% Spanish vs 3% English; p ≤ 0.0001), were Hispanic or Latinx (7% Hispanic/Latinx vs 3% Black vs 2% White; p = 0.003), positive for COVID-19 (9% vs 3%; p ≤ 0.0001), or were intubated (5% vs 1%; p = 0.001). In the base multivariable logistic regression model including age, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken, and hospital location, Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9) and primary Spanish language (aOR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.1-9.4) had higher odds of UDNR. After adjusting the base model for severity of illness, primary Spanish language remained associated with higher odds of UDNR order (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7). CONCLUSIONS: In this multihospital study, UDNR orders were used more often for primary Spanish-speaking patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be related to communication barriers Spanish-speaking patients and families experience. Further study is needed to assess UDNR use across hospitals and enact interventions to improve potential disparities.

Mortality Risk From COVID-19 Among Unvaccinated Subjects With Autoimmune Phenotypes of Interstitial Lung Disease.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus on patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) remains poorly understood. As patients with ILD often have severe underlying lung parenchymal involvement, and immunosuppressive therapy is common in this population, they are presumed to be at high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonitis. Our aim was to explore demographic and clinical differences between those with ILD who tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus compared to those with ILD who did not. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified adult, unvaccinated patients evaluated at the University of Chicago in 2020 who were enrolled in the ILD registry, and stratified by SARS-CoV-2 seropositive status. We then compared baseline clinical characteristics between SARS-CoV-2 seropositive and SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients and assessed immunosuppressive therapy that the patient may have been on since ILD diagnosis. C-reactive protein and leukocyte subsets were evaluated at COVID diagnosis compared to the time of baseline ILD evaluation as were pulmonary function testing. Variable comparisons were determined by two-sided t-tests or chi-square tests as appropriate, and logistic regression models were fitted to assess the odds of death from COVID-19 using generalized linear models with maximum-likelihood estimation. RESULTS: Of the 309 individuals with ILD in our cohort, 6.8% (n=21) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Those who were SARS-CoV-2 positive were younger (57 years vs 66 years; P=0.002), had baseline higher total lung capacity (81% vs 73%, P=0.045), similar forced vital capacity (71% vs. 67%, P=0.37), and similar diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide (71% vs. 62%, P=0.10) at baseline. Among patients with ILD and COVID-19, 67% had received immunosuppressive therapies compared to 74% of those with ILD without COVID-19. Those with ILD and COVID-19 were also more likely to have had a diagnosis of autoimmune-related ILD (connective tissue disease-ILD or interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features) (62% vs 38%, P=0.029). Overall, the mortality hazard was highest among unvaccinated subjects with autoimmune-related ILD who had COVID-19 (OR=9.6, 95% CI=1.7-54.0; P=0.01). DISCUSSION: SARS-CoV-2 is prevalent in ILD, and may put unvaccinated adults who are younger, with autoimmune ILD, and on immunosuppressive therapy at higher risk. This suggests a need for COVID-19 vaccinations and therapy (inpatient and outpatient) for this group of patients at high risk for COVID-19. Larger studies are needed to fully explore the relationship between ILD and immunosuppressive therapy in COVID-19.

Implementation and Assessment of a Proning Protocol for Nonintubated Patients With COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused over 1,250,000 deaths worldwide. With limited therapeutic options, proning nonintubated patients emerged as a safe and affordable intervention to manage hypoxemia. METHODS: A proning protocol to identify and prone eligible patients was implemented. Patients were encouraged to self-prone for 2-3 hours, 3 times daily. Investigators created educational materials for nurses and patients and developed a COVID-19-specific proning order within the electronic health record (EHR). Investigators completed an 800-person retrospective chart review to study the implementation of this protocol. RESULTS: From March 22, 2020, to June 5, 2020, 586 patients were admitted to the COVID-19 floor. Of these patients, 42.8% were eligible for proning. Common contraindications were lack of hypoxia, altered mental status, and fall risk. The proning protocol led to a significant improvement in provider awareness of patients appropriate for proning, increasing from 12% to 83%, as measured by placement of a proning order into the EHR. There was a significant improvement in all appropriate patients documented as proned, increasing from 18% to 45% of eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of an effective hospital-wide proning protocol to address the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic is possible and may be accomplished in a short period of time.

Implementing Prone Positioning for COVID-19 Patients Outside the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Proning intubated intensive care unit patients for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome is an accepted standard of practice. We examined the nursing climate in 4 units and its impact on implementing a novel self-proning protocol to treat COVID-19 patients outside the intensive care unit. LOCAL PROBLEM: Nursing units previously designated for medical/surgical populations had to adjust quickly to provide evidence-based care for COVID-19 patients attempting self-proning. METHODS: Nurses from 4 nursing units were surveyed about the implementation process on the self-proning protocol. Their perception of unit implementation was assessed via the Implementation Climate Scale. INTERVENTIONS: A new self-proning nursing protocol was implemented outside the intensive care unit. RESULTS: Consistent education on the protocol, belief in the effectiveness of the intervention, and a strong unit-based climate of evidence-based practice contributed to greater implementation of the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a new nursing protocol is possible with strong unit-based support, even during a pandemic.