RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Within obstetrics care, it can be difficult to discuss death and advances directives (AD). Recent maternal illnesses and deaths secondary to COVID-19 highlight the importance of these conversations. There is little available research regarding AD in obstetrics, especially within medical education. This study aimed to establish a baseline of obstetric provider comfort and knowledge with this material, provide education, and then reassess comfort and knowledge. METHODS: Institutional review board committee approval was waived for this study. A pre-intervention survey, including a unique identifier to allow for pairing of pre/post-surveys, was emailed to residents of a large university obstetrics and gynecology department with questions assessing comfort and knowledge of AD. The intervention was a 45-minute lecture covering definitions and local state laws relating to AD. A postsurvey, with identical questions to the presurvey, was sent 2 weeks after the intervention. Only paired responses were analyzed, using paired t test. RESULTS: Twenty-three residents (96% of program) participated in the presurvey;17 (71%) participated in the postsurvey. All were matched to presurvey responses and analyzed. In the presurvey, 41% of respondents were usually or always comfortable identifying surrogate decision makers, which increased to 82% in the postsurvey, a 41% difference (P =.01). With regards to the knowledge-based questions, the mean correct response was 56% in the presurvey and 87% in the postsurvey, a 31% difference (P <.001). CONCLUSION: A simple didactic intervention showed improvement in comfort and knowledge surrounding topics of AD for ob-gyn residents. Additional research relating to patient awareness of AD during pregnancy could be explored. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Obstetrics & Gynecology is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
RESUMEN
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the distribution of hospitalized COVID-19 patients among adult acute care facilities in the Greater Philadelphia area and identify factors associated with hospitals carrying higher burdens of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this observational descriptive study, we obtained self-reported daily COVID-19 inpatient censuses from 28 large (>100 beds) adult acute care hospitals in the Greater Philadelphia region during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 23, 2020, to July 28, 2020). We examined hospitals based on their size, location, trauma certification, median household income, and reliance on public insurance. COVID-19 inpatient burdens (ie, beds occupied by COVID-19 patients), relative to overall facility capacity (ie, total beds), were reported and assessed using thresholds established by the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation to approximate the stress induced by different COVID-19 levels. RESULTS: Maximum (ie, peak) daily COVID-19 occupancy averaged 27.5% (SD 11.2%) across the 28 hospitals. However, there was dramatic variation between hospitals, with maximum daily COVID-19 occupancy ranging from 5.7% to 50.0%. Smaller hospitals remained above 20% COVID-19 capacity for longer (small hospital median 27.5 days [interquartile range {IQR}: 4 to 32]; medium hospital median 18.5 days [IQR: 0.5 to 37]; large hospital median 13 days [IQR: 6 to 32]). Trauma centers reached 20% capacity sooner (median 19 days [IQR: 16-25] versus nontrauma median 30 days [IQR: 20 to 128]), remained above 20% capacity for longer (median 31 days [IQR: 11 to 38]; nontrauma median 8 days [IQR: 0 to 30]), and had higher observed burdens relative to their total capacity (median 5.8% [IQR: 2.4% to 8.3%]; nontrauma median 2.5% [IQR: 1.6% to 2.8%]). Urban location was also predictive of higher COVID-19 patient burden (urban median 3.8% [IQR: 2.6% to 6.7%]; suburban median 2.2% [IQR: 1.5% to 2.8%]). Heat map analyses demonstrated that hospitals in lower-income areas and hospitals in areas of higher reliance on public insurance also exhibited substantially higher COVID-19 occupancy and longer periods of higher COVID-19 occupancy. CONCLUSION: Substantial discrepancies in COVID-19 inpatient burdens existed among Philadelphia-region adult acute care facilities during the initial COVID-19 surge. Trauma center status, urban location, low household income, and high reliance on public insurance were associated with both higher COVID-19 burdens and longer periods of high occupancy. Improved data collection and centralized sharing of pandemic-specific data between health care facilities may improve resource balancing and patient care during current and future response efforts.