Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score and Mortality Prediction in Patients With Severe Respiratory Distress Secondary to COVID-19.

Background This study looks at the validity of the sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA) in detecting mortality in patients with Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Also, it is looking to determine the optimal SOFA score that will discriminate between mortality and survival. Methods It is a retrospective chart review of the patients admitted to Henry Ford Hospital from March 2020 to December 2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia who developed severe respiratory distress. We collected the following information; patient demographics (age, sex, body mass index), co-morbidities (history of diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or cancer), SOFA scores (the ratio of arterial oxygen tension (PaO2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, mean arterial pressure, serum creatinine level, bilirubin level, and platelet count) as well as inpatient mortality. Results There were 320 patients; out of these, 111 were intubated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for SOFA at the moment of inclusion in the study had an area under the curve of 0.883. The optimal point for discrimination between mortality and survival is SOFA of 5. A SOFA score of less than two is associated with 100% survival, while a score of more than 11 is associated with 100% mortality. Conclusions SOFA score in COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory distress strongly correlates with the initial SOFA score. It is a valuable tool for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The State of Telehealth Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Telemedicine was underused and understudied until the COVID-19 pandemic, during which reduced regulations and increased payment parity facilitated a rapid increase in telemedicine consultation. Telemedicine literature to date suggests that it holds benefits for patients and health care providers, may result in outcomes not inferior to in-person care, and has cost-saving implications. Future research should investigate which conditions are best suited to assess and treat via telemedicine (including physical exam elements), what techniques improve telemedicine communication, how to help patients equitably access telemedicine, and how to best educate the future health care workforce.

An Integrative Review of Team Nursing and Delegation: Implications for Nurse Staffing during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, providing care for critically ill patients has been challenging due to the limited number of skilled nurses, rapid transmission of the virus, and increased patient acuity in relation to the virus. These factors have led to the implementation of team nursing as a model of nursing care out of necessity for resource allocation. Nurses can use prior evidence to inform the model of nursing care and reimagine patient care responsibilities during a crisis. PURPOSE: To review the evidence for team nursing as a model of patient care and delegation and determine how it affects patient, nurse, and organizational outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an integrative review of team nursing and delegation using Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) methodology. RESULTS: We identified 22 team nursing articles, 21 delegation articles, and two papers about U.S. nursing laws and scopes of practice for delegation. Overall, team nursing had varied effects on patient, nursing, and organizational outcomes compared with other nursing care models. Education regarding delegation is critical for team nursing, and evidence indicates that it improves nurses' delegation knowledge, decision-making, and competency. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Team nursing had both positive and negative outcomes for patients, nurses, and the organization. Delegation education improved team nursing care.

COVID-19 and the Efficacy of Different Types of Respiratory Protective Equipment Used by Health Care Providers in a Health Care Setting.

Coronavirus, the virus that caused the global pandemic at the beginning of 2020 and affected millions across the globe, presented as an enormous challenge to health care providers around the world. With increasing numbers of infected patients presenting daily, health care workers are struggling to take effective measures to protect themselves from transmission against the highly contagious coronavirus. This case helps us understand the implications of coronavirus-infected patients on the health care providers directly responsible for the management of these patients and the relative efficacy of different types of respiratory protective equipment mainly N95 masks and surgical masks in preventing the spread of infection among those at the front lines providing care.

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on outcome of myocardial infarction in Hong Kong, China.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether COVID-19 may adversely affect outcome of myocardial infarction (MI) patients in Hong Kong, China. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has infected thousands of people and placed enormous stress on healthcare system. Apart from being an infectious disease, it may affect human behavior and healthcare resource allocation which potentially cause treatment delay in MI. METHODS: This was a single center cross-sectional observational study. From November 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020, we compared outcome of patients admitted for acute ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and non-ST elevation MI (NSTEMI) before (group 1) and after (group 2) January 25, 2020 which was the date when Hong Kong hospitals launched emergency response measures to combat COVID-19. RESULTS: There was a reduction in daily emergency room attendance since January 25, 2020 (group 1,327/day vs. group 2,231/day) and 149 patients with diagnosis of MI were included into analysis (group 1 N = 85 vs. group 2 N = 64). For STEMI, patients in group 2 tended to have longer symptom-to-first medical contact time and more presented out of revascularization window (group 1 27.8 vs. group 2 33%). The primary composite outcome of in-hospital death, cardiogenic shock, sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF) and use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) was significantly worse in group 2 (14.1 vs. 29.7%, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: More MI patients during COVID-19 outbreak had complicated in-hospital course and worse outcomes. Besides direct infectious complications, cardiology community has to acknowledge the indirect effect of communicable disease on our patients and system of care.