Management of pediatric appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic: A nationwide multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted timely access to care for children, including patients with appendicitis. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on management of appendicitis and patient outcomes. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed including 19 children's hospitals from April 2019-October 2020 of children (age≤18 years) diagnosed with appendicitis. Groups were defined by each hospital's city/state stay-at-home orders (SAHO), designating patients as Pre-COVID (Pre-SAHO) or COVID (Post-SAHO). Demographic, treatment, and outcome data were obtained, and univariate and multivariable analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 6,014 patients, 2,413 (40.1%) presented during the COVID-19 pandemic. More patients were managed non-operatively during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic (147 (6.1%) vs 144 (4.0%), p < 0.001). Despite this change, there was no difference in the proportion of complicated appendicitis between groups (1,247 (34.6%) vs 849 (35.2%), p = 0.12). COVID era non-operative patients received fewer additional procedures, including interventional radiology (IR) drain placements, compared to pre-COVID non-operative patients (29 (19.7%) vs 69 (47.9%), p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, factors associated with increased odds of receiving non-operative management included: increasing duration of symptoms (OR=1.01, 95% CI: 1.01-1.012), African American race (OR=2.4, 95% CI: 1.3-4.6), and testing positive for COVID-19 (OR=10.8, 95% CI: 5.4-21.6). CONCLUSION: Non-operative management of appendicitis increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, fewer COVID era cases required IR procedures. These changes in the management of pediatric appendicitis during the COVID pandemic demonstrates the potential for future utilization of non-operative management.

Association between COVID-19 related elective surgery cancellations and pediatric inguinal hernia complications: A nationwide multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal inguinal hernia repair timing remains controversial. It remains unclear how COVID-19 related elective surgery cancellations impacted timing of inguinal hernia repair and whether any delays led to complications. This study aims to determine whether elective surgery cancellations are safe in pediatric inguinal hernia. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study at 14 children's hospitals included patients ≤18 years who underwent inguinal hernia repair between September 13, 2019, through September 13, 2020. Patients were categorized by whether their inguinal hernia repair occurred before or after their hospital's COVID-19 elective surgery cancellation date. Incarceration and emergency department encounters were compared between pre and postcancellation. RESULTS: Of 1,404 patients, 604 (43.0%) underwent inguinal hernia repair during the postcancellation period, 92 (6.6%) experienced incarceration, and 213 (15.2%) had an emergency department encounter. The postcancellation period was not associated with incarceration (odds ratio 1.54; 95% confidence interval 0.88-2.71; P = .13) or emergency department encounters (odds ratio 1.53; 95% confidence interval 0.94-2.48; P = .09) despite longer median times to inguinal hernia repair (precancellation 29 days [interquartile range 13-55 days] versus postcancellation 31 days [interquartile range 14-73 days], P = .01). Infants were more likely to have the emergency department be their index presentation in the postcancellation period (odds ratio 1.69; 95% confidence interval 1.24-2.31; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Overall, COVID-19 elective surgery cancellations do not appear to increase the likelihood of incarceration or emergency department encounters despite delays in inguinal hernia repair, suggesting that cancellations are safe in children with inguinal hernia. Assessment of elective surgery cancellation safety has important implications for health policy.

Prevalence of Burnout Among Respiratory Therapists Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Burnout is a major challenge in health care, but its prevalence has not been evaluated in practicing respiratory therapist (RTs). The purpose of this study was to identify RT burnout prevalence and factors associated with RT burnout.Methods: An online survey was administered to 26 centers in the United States and between January and March 2021. Validated, quantitative, cross-sectional surveys were used to measure burnout and leadership domains. The survey was sent to department directors and distributed by the department directors to staff. Data analysis was descriptive and logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate risk factors, expressed as odds ratios (OR), for burnout.Results: The survey was distributed to 3,010 RTs, and the response rate was 37%. Seventy-nine percent of respondents reported burnout, 10% with severe, 32% with moderate, and 37% with mild burnout. Univariate analysis revealed those with burnout worked more hours per week, worked more hours per week in the ICU, primarily cared for adult patients, primarily delivered care via RT protocols, reported inadequate RT staffing, reported being unable to complete assigned work, were more frequently exposed to COVID-19, had a lower leadership score, and fewer had a positive view of leadership. Logistic regression revealed burnout climate (OR 9.38, p<0.001), inadequate RT staffing (OR 2.08 to 3.19, p=0.004 to 0.05), being unable to complete all work (OR 2.14 to 5.57, p=0.003 to 0.20), and missing work for any reason were associated with increased risk of burnout (OR 1.96, p=0.007). Not providing patient care (OR 0.18, p=0.02) and a positive leadership score (0.55, p=0.02) were associated with decreased risk of burnout.Conclusion: Burnout was common among RTs in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Good leadership was protective against burnout while inadequate staffing, inability to complete work, and burnout climate were associated with burnout.

Use of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in a patient with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: A case report.

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia may necessitate intubation and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Early in the course of mechanical ventilation neuromuscular blocking agents may be used to allow synchronous lung protective ventilation. However, patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia tend to have an intense respiratory drive resulting in patient-ventilator asynchrony when neuromuscular blocking agents are discontinued. Case and Outcomes: A 75-year-old male was admitted to the hospital with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. By ventilator day 5 the neuromuscular blocking agent had been discontinued, and the patient was markedly asynchronous in the volume control mode despite receiving continuous intravenous sedatives. The ventilator mode was changed to the neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) mode. Initially NAVA resulted in improved synchrony and reduced work of breathing. However, a few days later the patient's tidal volume had fallen to <300 mL on NAVA despite increases in the NAVA level. It appeared that the inspiratory phase was prematurely terminating, and the expiratory threshold in NAVA is not adjustable. The ventilator mode was changed to pressure support resulting in an increased tidal volume and reduced respiratory frequency. Conclusion: In patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and intense respiratory drive, the performance of NAVA may be variable. NAVA may result in hypopnea and tachypnea when compared with pressure support. An assessment of the impact of an adjustable expiratory threshold in NAVA is warranted.

Donald Trump, the Christian Right and COVID-19: The Politics of Religious Freedom

This paper examines the issue of religious freedom in the USA during the coronavirus pandemic of 2020–2021, during the presidency of Donald Trump (2017–2021). It contends that the ability of state governors to close religious places of worship illustrates both the limits on the power of the president and that public health can take supremacy over religious freedom in today’s America. The paper is organised as follows: first, we identify the importance of religious freedom for the more than 20 million Americans who self-classify as Christian evangelicals. Second, we assess the transactional importance that President Trump placed on Christian evangelicals’religious freedom. Third, we look at one kind of Christian evangelicals—that is, Christian nationalists—to see how they regarded restrictions on their religious behaviour caused by COVID-19. Fourth, we briefly examine several recent legal cases brought against the governors of California and Illinois by the Liberty Counsel, the leading Christian evangelical legal firm in the USA. Led by Matthew Staver, Dean of the Liberty University Law School, Liberty Counsel regularly represents Christian nationalists who challenge state-imposed restrictions on religious gatherings during the coronavirus pandemic.

Restoring Pulmonary and Sleep Services as the COVID-19 Pandemic Lessens. From an Association of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Division Directors and American Thoracic Society-coordinated Task Force.

Background: In March 2020, many elective medical services were canceled in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The daily case rate is now declining in many states and there is a need for guidance about the resumption of elective clinical services for patients with lung disease or sleep conditions.Methods: Volunteers were solicited from the Association of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Division Directors and American Thoracic Society. Working groups developed plans by discussion and consensus for resuming elective services in pulmonary and sleep-medicine clinics, pulmonary function testing laboratories, bronchoscopy and procedure suites, polysomnography laboratories, and pulmonary rehabilitation facilities.Results: The community new case rate should be consistently low or have a downward trajectory for at least 14 days before resuming elective clinical services. In addition, institutions should have an operational strategy that consists of patient prioritization, screening, diagnostic testing, physical distancing, infection control, and follow-up surveillance. The goals are to protect patients and staff from exposure to the virus, account for limitations in staff, equipment, and space that are essential for the care of patients with COVID-19, and provide access to care for patients with acute and chronic conditions.Conclusions: Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a dynamic process and, therefore, it is likely that the prevalence of COVID-19 in the community will wax and wane. This will impact an institution's mitigation needs. Operating procedures should be frequently reassessed and modified as needed. The suggestions provided are those of the authors and do not represent official positions of the Association of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Division Directors or the American Thoracic Society.