Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
J Surg Res ; 268: 459-464, 2021 Jul 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1366623

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We tracked endocrine surgery patients with treatment delays due to COVID-19 to investigate the relationship between physician assigned priority scoring (PAPS), the Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive (MeNTS) scoring system and delay to surgery. MATERIAL & METHODS: Patients scheduled for endocrine surgery or clinically evaluated during COVID-19-related elective surgery hold at our institution (2/26/20-5/1/20) were prospectively enrolled. PAPS was assigned based on categories of high, moderate, or low risk, consistent with the American College of Surgeons' priority system. MeNTS scores were calculated. The primary outcome was delay to surgery. Descriptive statistics were performed, and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) values were calculated for PAPS and MeNTS. RESULTS: Of 146 patients included, 68% (n = 100) were female; the median age was 60 years (IQR:43,67). Mean delay to surgery was significantly shorter (P = 0.01) in patients with high PAPS (35 d), compared with moderate (61 d) and low (79 d) PAPS groups. MeNTS scores were provided for 105 patients and were analyzed by diagnosis. Patients with benign thyroid disease (n = 17) had a significantly higher MeNTS score than patients with thyroid disease which was malignant/suspicious for malignancy (n = 44) patients (51.5 versus 47.6, P = 0.034). Higher PAPS correlated well with a delay to surgery of <30 d (AUC: 0.72). MeNTS score did not correlate well with delay to surgery <30 d (AUC: 0.52). CONCLUSION: PAPS better predicted delay to surgery than MeNTS scores. PAPS may incorporate more complex components of clinical decision-making which are not captured in the MeNTS score.

2.
Ann Surg ; 272(3): e181-e186, 2020 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066507

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcomes of patients undergoing tracheostomy for COVID-19 and of healthcare workers performing these procedures. BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is often performed for prolonged endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients. However, in the context of COVID-19, tracheostomy placement pathways have been altered due to the poor prognosis of intubated patients and the risk of transmission to providers through this highly aerosolizing procedure. METHODS: A prospective single-system multi-center observational cohort study was performed on patients who underwent tracheostomy after acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19. RESULTS: Of the 53 patients who underwent tracheostomy, the average time from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy was 19.7 days ±â€Š6.9 days. The most common indication for tracheostomy was acute respiratory distress syndrome, followed by failure to wean ventilation and post-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation decannulation. Thirty patients (56.6%) were liberated from the ventilator, 16 (30.2%) have been discharged alive, 7 (13.2%) have been decannulated, and 6 (11.3%) died. The average time from tracheostomy to ventilator liberation was 11.8 days ±â€Š6.9 days (range 2-32 days). Both open surgical and percutaneous dilational tracheostomy techniques were performed utilizing methods to mitigate aerosols. No healthcare worker transmissions resulted from performing the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Alterations to tracheostomy practices and processes were successfully instituted. Following these steps, tracheostomy in COVID-19 intubated patients seems safe for both patients and healthcare workers performing the procedure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Intubation, Intratracheal , Respiration, Artificial , Tracheostomy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
3.
Med Educ Online ; 25(1): 1798088, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-675938

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting cancellation of medical student clinical rotations pose unique challenges to students' educations, the impact of which has not yet been explored. DESIGN: This cross-sectional survey study collected responses from 13 April 2020 until 30 April 2020. Students at US allopathic medical schools completed the survey online. RESULTS: 1,668 responses were analyzed. A total of 337 (20.2%) respondents thought the pandemic would affect their choice of specialty, with differences across class years: 15.2% (53) of first-years (MS1s), 26.4% (92) of second-years (MS2s), 23.7% (162) of third-years (MS3s), and 9.7% (22) of fourth-years (MS4s) (p < 0.0001). Among all classes, the most common reason chosen was inability to explore specialties of interest (244, 72.4%), and the second was inability to bolster their residency application (162, 48.1%). Out of the MS3s who chose the latter, the majority were concerned about recommendation letters (68, 81.0%) and away rotations (62, 73.8%). As high as 17.4% (119) of MS3s said they were more likely to take an extra year during medical school as a result of the pandemic. Region of the US, number of local COVID cases, and number of local COVID deaths had no effect on whether respondents thought the pandemic would affect their specialty choice. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that about one-fifth of surveyed medical students currently believe that the COVID-19 pandemic will affect their choice of specialty, with many of these citing concerns that they cannot explore specialties or obtain recommendation letters. With prolonged suspension of clinical rotations, targeted efforts by medical schools to address these concerns through enhanced virtual curriculum development and advising strategies will become increasingly important. Further study is needed to explore whether these cross-sectional student perspectives will manifest as changes in upcoming National Residency Matching Program data.


Subject(s)
Career Choice , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Internship and Residency/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Students, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Students, Medical/psychology , United States
4.
OTO Open ; 4(2): 2473974X20933566, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-602821

ABSTRACT

Objective: Measures to decrease hospital length of stay and outpatient visits are crucial during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Physician-guided home drain removal presents a potential opportunity for mitigating viral spread and transmission. Methods: A prospective case series on patients undergoing major head and neck surgery with Jackson-Pratt drain placement was conducted. Patients were shown an infographic detailing drain care and removal at preoperative assessment and prior to discharge. At a 1-week follow-up telemedicine visit, patients were instructed to remove the drain under physician guidance. Patients were assessed 7 days after to determine complication rate and satisfaction. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled with 100% patients undergoing successful drain removal at home with caregiver support. There were no complications reported at the 7-day postdrain removal time point, and overall patient satisfaction was high. Discussion: Infographics and telemedicine are 2 synergistic strategies to guide safe and effective home drain removal. Implications for Practice: This study demonstrates how telemedicine and an infographic can be effectively used in physician-guided home drain removal. During a time like the COVID-19 pandemic, innovative measures are necessary to curb transmission and infection rates. We propose a unique and replicable yet safe solution to limit unnecessary exposure and encourage other surgical providers to adopt a similar strategy.

5.
Infect Dis Ther ; 9(3): 435-449, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-381948

ABSTRACT

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a global pandemic with no approved treatments or vaccines. Many treatments have already been administered to COVID-19 patients but have not been systematically evaluated. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all treatments reported to be administered to COVID-19 patients and to assess time to clinically meaningful response for treatments with sufficient data. We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and ChinaXiv for articles reporting treatments for COVID-19 patients published between 1 December 2019 and 27 March 2020. Data were analyzed descriptively. Of the 2706 articles identified, 155 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 9152 patients. The cohort was 45.4% female and 98.3% hospitalized, and mean (SD) age was 44.4 years (SD 21.0). The most frequently administered drug classes were antivirals, antibiotics, and corticosteroids, and of the 115 reported drugs, the most frequently administered was combination lopinavir/ritonavir, which was associated with a time to clinically meaningful response (complete symptom resolution or hospital discharge) of 11.7 (1.09) days. There were insufficient data to compare across treatments. Many treatments have been administered to the first 9152 reported cases of COVID-19. These data serve as the basis for an open-source registry of all reported treatments given to COVID-19 patients at www.CDCN.org/CORONA . Further work is needed to prioritize drugs for investigation in well-controlled clinical trials and treatment protocols.

6.
Head Neck ; 42(7): 1409-1410, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-209695

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 has undoubtedly impacted the health care system while causing lasting and profound implications for medical education. Senior medical students seeking exposure to the field of otolaryngology now find themselves in the challenging position of obtaining the experiences to make an informed decision on a future specialty. Virtual electives using comprehensive online material, discussion, and videos as well as the advent of telemedicine may be potential solutions to increase exposure to otolaryngology. While incorporating opportunities for authentic patient interactions is still a challenge, it is crucial that the academic otolaryngology community prioritize seeking solutions for interested medical students.


Subject(s)
Career Choice , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Decision Making , Otolaryngology/education , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Education, Medical, Graduate/organization & administration , Education, Medical, Undergraduate/organization & administration , Female , Humans , Internship and Residency/organization & administration , Male , Risk Assessment , Students, Medical/statistics & numerical data , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...