Intensivist physician-to-patient ratios and mortality in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: A high daily census may hinder the ability of physicians to deliver quality care in the intensive care unit (ICU). We sought to determine the relationship between intensivist-to-patient ratios and mortality among ICU patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of intensivist-to-patient ratios in 29 ICUs in 10 hospitals in the United States from 2018 to 2020. We used meta-data from progress notes in the electronic health record to determine an intensivist-specific caseload for each ICU day. We then fit a multivariable proportional hazards model with time-varying covariates to estimate the relationship between the daily intensivist-to-patient ratio and ICU mortality at 28 days. RESULTS: The final analysis included 51,656 patients, 210,698 patient days, and 248 intensivist physicians. The average caseload per day was 11.8 (standard deviation: 5.7). There was no association between the intensivist-to-patient ratio and mortality (hazard ratio for each additional patient: 0.987, 95% confidence interval: 0.968-1.007, p = 0.2). This relationship persisted when we defined the ratio as caseload over the sample-wide average (hazard ratio: 0.907, 95% confidence interval: 0.763-1.077, p = 0.26) and cumulative days with a caseload over the sample-wide average (hazard ratio: 0.991, 95% confidence interval: 0.966-1.018, p = 0.52). The relationship was not modified by the presence of physicians-in-training, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (p value for interaction term: 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality for ICU patients appears resistant to high intensivist caseloads. These results may not generalize to ICUs organized differently than those in this sample, such as ICUs outside the United States.

Patient and Family Factors Associated with Use of Telemedicine Visits for Pediatric Acute Respiratory Tract Infections, 2018-2019.

Background: Pediatric acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) were a common reason for commercial direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine use before the COVID-19 pandemic, but the factors associated with this use are unknown. Objective: To identify child and family factors associated with use of commercial DTC telemedicine for ARTIs in 2018-2019. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of claims data from the Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. Among children with ARTI visits, we fitted logit models to examine child and family characteristics associated with DTC telemedicine use. Results: Of 660,725 children with ARTI visits, 12,944 (2.0%) had ≥1 commercial DTC telemedicine encounter. The odds of DTC telemedicine use were higher for children with age ≥12 years, lower parent educational attainment, higher household income, white non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, and residency in the West South Central census division. Conclusion: In 2018-2019, commercial DTC telemedicine use varied with child age, child race/ethnicity parent educational attainment, household income, and geography.

The political polarization of COVID-19 treatments among physicians and laypeople in the United States.

In the United States, liberals and conservatives disagree about facts. To what extent does expertise attenuate these disagreements? To study this question, we compare the polarization of beliefs about COVID-19 treatments among laypeople and critical care physicians. We find that political ideology predicts both groups' beliefs about a range of COVID-19 treatments. These associations persist after controlling for a rich set of covariates, including local politics. We study two potential explanations: a) that partisans are exposed to different information and b) that they interpret the same information in different ways, finding evidence for both. Polarization is driven by preferences for partisan cable news but not by exposure to scientific research. Using a set of embedded experiments, we demonstrate that partisans perceive scientific evidence differently when it pertains to a politicized treatment (ivermectin), relative to when the treatment is not identified. These results highlight the extent to which political ideology is increasingly relevant for understanding beliefs, even among expert decision makers such as physicians.

Adoption and Deadoption of Medications to Treat Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by rapidly evolving evidence regarding the efficacy of different therapies, as well as rapidly evolving health policies in response to that evidence. Data on adoption and deadoption are essential as we learn from this pandemic and prepare for future public health emergencies. DESIGN: We conducted an observational cohort study in which we determined patterns in the use of multiple medications to treat COVID-19: remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, IV corticosteroids, tocilizumab, heparin-based anticoagulants, and ivermectin. We analyzed changes both overall and within subgroups of critically ill versus Noncritically ill patients. SETTING: Data from Optum's deidentified Claims-Clinical Dataset, which contains multicenter electronic health record data from U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 from January 2020 to June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 141,533 eligible patients, 34,515 (24.4%) required admission to an ICU, 14,754 (10.4%) required mechanical ventilation, and 18,998 (13.4%) died during their hospitalization. Averaged over the entire time period, corticosteroid use was most common (47.0%), followed by remdesivir (33.2%), anticoagulants (19.3%), hydroxychloroquine (7.3%), and tocilizumab (3.4%). Usage patterns varied substantially across treatments. For example, hydroxychloroquine use peaked in March 2020 and leveled off to near zero by June 2020, whereas the use of remdesivir, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab all increased following press releases announcing positive results of large international trials. Ivermectin use increased slightly over the study period but was extremely rare overall (0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, medication treatment patterns evolved reliably in response to emerging evidence and changes in policy. These findings may inform efforts to promote optimal adoption and deadoption of treatments for acute care conditions.

Willingness to Treat with Therapies of Unknown Effectiveness in Severe COVID-19: A Survey of Intensivist Physicians.

Rationale: Little is known about how physicians develop their beliefs about new treatments or update their beliefs in the face of new clinical evidence. These issues are particularly salient in the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which created rapid demand for novel therapies in the absence of robust evidence. Objectives: To identify psychological traits associated with physicians' willingness to treat with unproven therapies and willingness to update their treatment preferences in the setting of new evidence in the context of COVID-19. Methods: We administered a longitudinal e-mail survey to United States physicians board certified in intensive care medicine in April and May 2020 (phase one) and October and November 2020 (phase two). We assessed five psychological traits potentially related to evidence uptake: need for cognition, evidence skepticism, need for closure, risk tolerance, and research engagement. We then examined the relationship between these traits and physician preferences for pharmacological treatment for a hypothetical patient with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Results: There were 592 responses to the phase one survey, conducted prior to publication of trial data. At this time physicians were most willing to treat with macrolide antibiotics (50.5%), followed by antimalaria agents (36.1%), corticosteroids (24.5%), antiretroviral agents (22.6%), and angiotensin inhibitors (4.4%). Greater evidence skepticism (relative risk [RR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.52; P < 0.001), greater need for closure (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.34; P = 0.003), and greater risk tolerance (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08-1.26; P < 0.001) were associated with an increased willingness to treat, whereas greater need for cognition (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96, P = 0.010) and greater research engagement (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95; P < 0.0001) were associated with decreased willingness to treat. In phase two, most physicians updated their beliefs after publication of trial data about antimalarial agents and corticosteroids. Physicians with greater evidence skepticism were more likely to persist in their beliefs. Conclusions: Psychological traits associated with clinical decisions in the setting of uncertain evidence may provide insight into strategies to better align clinical practice with published evidence.

US Hospital Capacity Managers' Experiences and Concerns Regarding Preparedness for Seasonal Influenza and Influenza-like Illness.

Importance: The 2017-2018 influenza season in the US was marked by a high severity of illness, wide geographic spread, and prolonged duration compared with recent previous seasons, resulting in increased strain throughout acute care hospital systems. Objective: To characterize self-reported experiences and views of hospital capacity managers regarding the 2017-2018 influenza season in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, semistructured telephone interviews were conducted between April 2018 and January 2019 with a random sample of capacity management administrators responsible for throughput and hospital capacity at short-term, acute care hospitals throughout the US. Main Outcomes and Measures: Each participant's self-reported experiences and views regarding high patient volumes during the 2017-2018 influenza season, lessons learned, and the extent of hospitals' preparedness planning for future pandemic events. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and then analyzed using thematic content analysis. Outcomes included themes and subthemes. Results: A total of 53 key hospital capacity personnel at 53 hospitals throughout the US were interviewed; 39 (73.6%) were women, 48 (90.6%) had a nursing background, and 29 (54.7%) had been in the occupational role for more than 4 years. Participants' experiences were categorized into several domains: (1) perception of strain, (2) effects of influenza and influenza-like illness on staff and patient care, (3) immediate staffing and capacity responses to influenza and influenza-like illness, and (4) future staffing and capacity preparedness for influenza and influenza-like illness. Participants reported experiencing perceived strain associated with concerns about preparedness for seasonal influenza and influenza-like illness as well as concerns about staffing, patient care, and capacity, but future pandemic planning within hospitals was not reported as being a high priority. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study suggest that during the 2017-2018 influenza season, there were systemic vulnerabilities as well as a lack of hospital preparedness planning for future pandemics at US hospitals. These issues should be addressed given the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Actions Taken by US Hospitals to Prepare for Increased Demand for Intensive Care During the First Wave of COVID-19: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic placed considerable strain on critical care resources. How US hospitals responded to this crisis is unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: What actions did US hospitals take to prepare for a potential surge in demand for critical care services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: From September to November 2020, the chief nursing officers of a representative sample of US hospitals were surveyed regarding organizational actions taken to increase or maintain critical care capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Weighted proportions of hospitals for each potential action were calculated to create estimates across the entire population of US hospitals, accounting for both the sampling strategy and nonresponse. Also examined was whether the types of actions taken varied according to the cumulative regional incidence of COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: Responses were received from 169 of 540 surveyed US hospitals (response rate, 31.3%). Almost all hospitals canceled or postponed elective surgeries (96.7%) and nonsurgical procedures (94.8%). Few hospitals created new medical units in areas not typically dedicated to health care (12.9%), and almost none adopted triage protocols (5.6%) or protocols to connect multiple patients to a single ventilator (4.8%). Actions to increase or preserve ICU staff, including use of ICU telemedicine, were highly variable, without any single dominant strategy. Hospitals experiencing a higher incidence of COVID-19 did not consistently take different actions compared with hospitals facing lower incidence. INTERPRETATION: Responses of hospitals to the mass need for critical care services due to the COVID-19 pandemic were highly variable. Most hospitals canceled procedures to preserve ICU capacity and scaled up ICU capacity using existing clinical space and staffing. Future research linking hospital response to patient outcomes can inform planning for additional surges of this pandemic or other events in the future.