Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 512
Filter
1.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 33(3): 319-324, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20235516

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) originated in China in December 2020 and declared pandemic by WHO. This coronavirus mainly spreads through the respiratory tract and enters cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The clinical symptoms of COVID-19 patients include fever, cough, and fatigue. Gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, anorexia, and vomiting) may be present in 50% of patients and may be associated with worst prognosis. Other risk factors are older age, male gender, and underlying chronic diseases. Mitigation measures are essential to reduce the number of people infected. Hospitals are a place of increased SARS-CoV-2 exposure. This has implications in the organization of healthcare services and specifically endoscopy departments. Patients and healthcare workers safety must be optimized in this new reality. Comprehension of COVID-19 gastrointestinal manifestations and implications of SARS-CoV-2 in the management of patients with gastrointestinal diseases, under or not immunosuppressant therapies, is essential. In this review, we summarized the latest research progress and major societies recommendations regarding the implications of COVID-19 in gastroenterology, namely the adaptations that gastroenterology/endoscopy departments and professionals must do in order to optimize the provided assistance, as well as the implications that this infection will have, in particularly vulnerable patients such as those with chronic liver disease and inflammatory bowel disease under or not immunosuppressant therapies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Gastroenterologists , Infection Control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Liver Diseases/therapy , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/transmission , Clinical Decision-Making , Decision Support Techniques , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/adverse effects , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Liver Diseases/diagnosis , Liver Diseases/immunology , Occupational Health , Patient Safety , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
3.
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther ; 52(4): 312-315, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2324245

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was previously unknown, and we are learning about it day by day, but pandemic-associated ethical dilemmas have been studied and discussed for years. Triage means not only ranking in terms of importance (prioritisation) but also allocation of limited medical resources. Survival, post epidemic-quality of life, and consumption of medical resources required to achieve the set goal are crucial for making triage decisions. The pandemic triage decisions should be based on a protocol, considering the need for medical measures and therapy benefits. The first step is to consider the exclusion criteria and the risk of death. The next step is sequential clinical assessment, repeatable at defined intervals. It seems that the preferable solution is to triage all the patients and give priority to those who would benefit more. A prerequisite for allocating insufficient medical resources is public trust in the criteria for allocation.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Triage/trends , COVID-19 , Clinical Decision-Making , Humans , Triage/statistics & numerical data
4.
Curr Sports Med Rep ; 20(11): 608-613, 2021 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2317576

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) convened an expert panel to address the current evidence, knowledge gaps, and recommendations surrounding the COVID vaccination in athletes during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The group held a series of meetings beginning in July 2021 and reviewed the available literature while using an iterative process and expert consensus to finalize this guidance statement. This document is intended to provide clinicians with suggestions on how to incorporate the COVID vaccination during the preparticipation physical examination for athletes in all levels of training and competition. The statement is not intended to address treatment, infection control principles, safety, ethical discussion, or public health issues related to SARS-CoV-2. The AMSSM task force acknowledges the clinical uncertainty, evolving public health objectives, and the limited data currently available to create this guidance statement.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sports , Athletes , Clinical Decision-Making , Humans , Pandemics , Physical Examination , SARS-CoV-2 , Uncertainty , Vaccination
5.
Sci Rep ; 13(1): 7612, 2023 05 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2318137

ABSTRACT

Epidemiologic surveillance of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants is essential to assess impact on clinical outcomes and vaccine efficacy. Whole genome sequencing (WGS), the gold-standard to identify variants, requires significant infrastructure and expertise. We developed a digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) assay that can rapidly identify circulating variants of concern/interest (VOC/VOI) using variant-specific mutation combinations in the Spike gene. To validate the assay, 800 saliva samples known to be SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-PCR were used. During the study (July 2020-March 2022) the assay was easily adaptable to identify not only existing circulating VAC/VOI, but all new variants as they evolved. The assay can discriminate nine variants (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Eta, Epsilon, Lambda, Mu, and Omicron) and sub-lineages (Delta 417N, Omicron BA.1, BA.2). Sequence analyses confirmed variant type for 124/124 samples tested. This ddPCR assay is an inexpensive, sensitive, high-throughput assay that can easily be adapted as new variants are identified.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Clinical Decision-Making , Population Surveillance , COVID-19 Testing
6.
Age Ageing ; 52(4)2023 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2305553

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: older people comprise the majority of hospital medical inpatients so decision-making regarding admission of this cohort to the intensive care unit (ICU) is important. ICU can be perceived by clinicians as overly burdensome for patients and loved ones, and long-term impact on quality of life considered unacceptable, effecting potential bias against admitting older people to ICU. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the challenge of selecting those who could most benefit from ICU. OBJECTIVE: this qualitative study aimed to explore the views and recollections of escalation to ICU from older patients (aged ≥ 65 years) and next of kin (NoK) who experienced a COVID-19 ICU admission. SETTING: the main site was a large NHS Trust in London, which experienced a high burden of COVID-19 cases. SUBJECTS: 30 participants, comprising 12 patients, 7 NoK of survivor and 11 NoK of deceased. METHODS: semi-structured interviews with thematic analysis using a framework approach. RESULTS: there were five major themes: inevitability, disconnect, acceptance, implications for future decision-making and unique impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Life was highly valued and ICU perceived to be the only option. Prior understanding of ICU and admission decision-making explanations were limited. Despite benefit of hindsight, having experienced an ICU admission and its consequences, most could not conceptualise thresholds for future acceptable treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: in this study of patients ≥65 years and their NoK experiencing an acute ICU admission, survival was prioritised. Despite the ordeal of an ICU stay and its aftermath, the decision to admit and sequelae were considered acceptable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Aged , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , Quality of Life , Clinical Decision-Making , Interviews as Topic , Qualitative Research , Male , Female , Aged, 80 and over
7.
Curr Opin Infect Dis ; 34(4): 275-287, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2257881

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is considered one of the most promising and socioeconomically sustainable strategy to help control the pandemic and several vaccines are currently being distributed in nationwide mass immunization campaigns. Very limited data are available on benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised patients and in particular in solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients as they were excluded from phase III trials. This review summarizes current knowledge, international guidelines and controversies regarding COVID-19 vaccination in these vulnerable populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Various COVID-19 vaccine platforms showed good efficacy in phase III trials in the immunocompetent and there are data arising on the safety and immunogenicity of these vaccines in the immunocompromised population. SUMMARY: Transplant recipients could benefit significantly from COVID-19 vaccination, both through active immunization provided they elicit protective vaccine responses, and probably through cocooning by immunization of caregivers and healthcare personnel and thus reducing the risk of SARS-coronavirus-2 exposure. Although awaiting more data on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines to inform potential adaptations of vaccine regimens, we strongly recommend prioritizing COVID-19 vaccination of solid and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients to decrease COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Transplant Recipients , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/classification , Clinical Decision-Making , Disease Management , Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation/adverse effects , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Organ Transplantation/adverse effects , Organ Transplantation/methods , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Vaccination
10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(9): 1535-1538, 2023 05 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2274266

ABSTRACT

Medical decision making and scientific communication around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and booster doses requires proper understanding of how vaccine effectiveness estimates are determined and the potential biases inherent in current estimates. The importance of background immunity from prior infection is reviewed along with ideas for improving the vaccine effectiveness estimates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccine Efficacy , COVID-19 Vaccines , Clinical Decision-Making , Communication , Vaccination
11.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ; 23(1): 24, 2023 02 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2274101

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Dengue is a common viral illness and severe disease results in life-threatening complications. Healthcare services in low- and middle-income countries treat the majority of dengue cases worldwide. However, the clinical decision-making processes which result in effective treatment are poorly characterised within this setting. In order to improve clinical care through interventions relating to digital clinical decision-support systems (CDSS), we set out to establish a framework for clinical decision-making in dengue management to inform implementation. METHODS: We utilised process mapping and task analysis methods to characterise existing dengue management at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. This is a tertiary referral hospital which manages approximately 30,000 patients with dengue each year, accepting referrals from Ho Chi Minh city and the surrounding catchment area. Initial findings were expanded through semi-structured interviews with clinicians in order to understand clinical reasoning and cognitive factors in detail. A grounded theory was used for coding and emergent themes were developed through iterative discussions with clinician-researchers. RESULTS: Key clinical decision-making points were identified: (i) at the initial patient evaluation for dengue diagnosis to decide on hospital admission and the provision of fluid/blood product therapy, (ii) in those patients who develop severe disease or other complications, (iii) at the point of recurrent shock in balancing the need for fluid therapy with complications of volume overload. From interviews the following themes were identified: prioritising clinical diagnosis and evaluation over existing diagnostics, the role of dengue guidelines published by the Ministry of Health, the impact of seasonality and caseload on decision-making strategies, and the potential role of digital decision-support and disease scoring tools. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the contemporary priorities in delivering clinical care to patients with dengue in an endemic setting. Key decision-making processes and the sources of information that were of the greatest utility were identified. These findings serve as a foundation for future clinical interventions and improvements in healthcare. Understanding the decision-making process in greater detail also allows for development and implementation of CDSS which are suited to the local context.


Subject(s)
Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Dengue , Humans , Clinical Decision-Making , Dengue/diagnosis , Dengue/therapy , Risk Factors , Referral and Consultation
12.
J Palliat Med ; 26(7): 951-959, 2023 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2271981

ABSTRACT

Background: Goals-of-care conversations (GoCCs) are essential for individualized end-of-life care. Shared decision-making (SDM) that elicits patients' goals and values to collaboratively make life sustaining treatment (LST) decisions is best practice. However, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic onset and associated changes to care delivery, stress on providers, and clinical uncertainty affected SDM and recommendation-making during GoCCs. Aim: To assess providers' attitudes and behaviors related to GoCCs during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify factors associated with provision of LST recommendations. Design: Survey of United States Veterans Health Administration (VA) health care providers. Setting/Participants: Health care providers from 20 VA facilities with high COVID-19 caseloads early in the pandemic who had authority to place LST orders and practiced in select specialties (n = 3398). Results: We had 323 respondents (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most were age ≥50 years (51%), female (63%), non-Hispanic white (64%), and had ≥1 GoCC per week during peak-COVID-19 (78%). Compared with pre-COVID-19, providers believed it was less appropriate and felt less comfortable giving an LST recommendation during peak-COVID-19 (p < 0.001). One-third (32%) reported either "never" or "rarely" giving an LST recommendation during GoCCs at peak-COVID-19. In adjusted regression models, being a physician and discussing patients' goals and values were positively associated with giving an LST recommendation (B = 0.380, p = 0.031 and B = 0.400, p < 0.001, respectively) at peak-COVID-19. Conclusion: Providers who discuss patients' preferences and values are more likely to report giving a recommendation; both behaviors are markers of SDM during GoCCs. Our findings suggest potential areas for training in conducting patient-centered GoCCs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Goals , Clinical Decision-Making , Decision Making , Uncertainty , Surveys and Questionnaires
13.
BMJ Open ; 13(2): e066427, 2023 02 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2271151

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Excessive opioid prescribing is a contributing factor to the opioid epidemic in the USA. We aimed to develop, implement and evaluate the usability of a clinical decision-making mobile application (app) for opioid prescription after surgery. METHODS: We developed two clinical decision trees, one for opioid prescription after adult laparoscopic cholecystectomy and one for posterior spinal fusion surgery in adolescents. We developed a mobile app incorporating the two algorithms with embedded clinical decision-making, which was tested by opioid prescribers. A survey collected prescription intention prior to app use and participants' evaluation. Participants included opioid prescribers for patients undergoing (1) laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adults or (2) posterior spinal fusion in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. RESULTS: Eighteen healthcare providers were included in this study (General Surgery: 8, Paediatrics: 10). Intended opioid prescription before app use varied between departments (General Surgery: 0-10 pills (mean=5.9); Paediatrics: 6-30 pills (mean=20.8)). Intention to continue using the app after using the app multiple times varied between departments (General Surgery: N=3/8; Paediatrics: N=7/10). The most reported reason for not using the app is lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: In this project evaluating the development and implementation of an app for opioid prescription after two common surgeries with different prescription patterns, the surgical procedure with higher intended and variable opioid prescription (adolescent posterior spinal fusion surgery) was associated with participants more willing to use the app. Future iterations of this opioid prescribing intervention should target surgical procedures with high variability in both patients' opioid use and providers' prescription patterns.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid , Mobile Applications , Adolescent , Adult , Humans , Child , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Feasibility Studies , New York City , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Clinical Decision-Making , Prescriptions
14.
Am J Clin Oncol ; 46(6): 231-235, 2023 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2263642

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Consent is a communication process between the patient and a health care provider, in which both parties have the opportunity to ask questions and exchange information relevant to the patient's diagnosis and treatment. The process of informed consent is designed to protect a patient's autonomy in their medical decision-making in the context of an asymmetric relationship with the health care system. A proper consent process assures a patient's individual autonomy, reduces the opportunity for abusive conduct or conflicts of interest, and raises trust levels among participants. This document was developed as an educational tool to facilitate these goals. METHODS: This practice parameter was produced according to the process described under the heading "The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards" on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Committee members were charged with reviewing the prior version of the informed consent practice parameter published in 2017 and recommending additions, modifications, or deletions. The committee met through remote access and subsequently through an online exchange to facilitate the development of the revised document. Focus was given on identifying new considerations and challenges with informed consent given the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology in part driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and other external factors. RESULTS: A review of the practice parameter published in 2017 confirmed the ongoing relevance of recommendations made at that time. In addition, the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology since the publication of the prior document resulted in the need for new topics to be addressed. These topics include remote consent either through telehealth or telephone and with the patient or their health care proxy. CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent is an essential process in the care of radiation oncology patients. This practice parameter serves as an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in optimizing this process for the benefit of all involved parties.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Radiation Oncology , Humans , Pandemics , Clinical Decision-Making , Informed Consent
15.
Med Decis Making ; 42(6): 741-754, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2278202

ABSTRACT

HIGHLIGHTS: Fuzzy-trace theory (FTT) supports practical approaches to improving health and medicine.FTT differs in important respects from other theories of decision making, which has implications for how to help patients, providers, and health communicators.Gist mental representations emphasize categorical distinctions, reflect understanding in context, and help cue values relevant to health and patient care.Understanding the science behind theory is crucial for evidence-based medicine.


Subject(s)
Decision Making , Problem Solving , Clinical Decision-Making , Humans
17.
Bioethics ; 37(5): 470-477, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2245465

ABSTRACT

When a patient's treatment decisions are the product of delusion, this is often taken as a paradigmatic case of undermined decisional capacity. That is to say, when a patient refuses treatment on the basis of beliefs that in no way reflect reality, clinicians and ethicists tend to agree that their refusal is not valid. During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, we have witnessed many patients refuse potentially life-saving interventions not based on delusion but on conspiracy beliefs. Importantly, many of the beliefs espoused by conspiracy theorists resemble delusions in a number of relevant ways. For instance, conspiracy beliefs often posit states of affairs that could not possibly exist in the world, they are recalcitrant in the face of disconfirming evidence, and they tend to put the believer in a state of paranoia. Given these similarities, how should we think about conspiracy theorists' capacity for making clinical decisions? In this paper, I attempt to answer this question by first offering an account of just what makes some set of beliefs count as a conspiracy theory. Second, I attempt to disambiguate conspiracy beliefs from delusions by exploring important conceptual and psychological features of both. Finally, I apply standard criteria for assessing a patient's decision-making capacity to instances of conspiracy beliefs and argue that, although the picture is muddy, there may be cases in which conspiracy beliefs undermine capacity. I end by exploring the implications that this might have for surrogate decision-making and addressing potential objections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , Clinical Decision-Making , Ethicists
20.
Clin Geriatr Med ; 38(4): 627-639, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2220517

ABSTRACT

Although hypertension is highly prevalent in older adults, treatment goals require both an understanding of the various guidelines available, as well as appreciation of the unique medical, cognitive, psychosocial, and functional heterogeneity of our individual geriatric patients that may place them outside those guidelines. As a patient's clinical status changes over time, clinicians may consider deprescribing their blood pressure medications when their risks begin to outweigh their benefits. Unique clinical circumstances and incorporating the time to benefit of hypertension control help guide clinical decision-making.


Subject(s)
Deprescriptions , Hypertension , Aged , Clinical Decision-Making , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Polypharmacy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL