Incorporating a Three-Dimensional Printed Airway into a Pediatric Flexible Bronchoscopy Curriculum.

Background: Although hands-on simulation plays a valuable role in procedural training, there are limited tools available to teach pediatric flexible bronchoscopy (PFB). Fellowship programs rely on patient encounters, with inherent risk, or high-cost virtual reality simulators that may not be widely available and create education inequalities. Objective: Our objective was to study the educational value and transferability of a novel, low-cost, three-dimensional-printed pediatric airway model (3D-AM) for PFB training. Our central hypothesis was that the 3D-AM would have high educational value and would be easily transferrable to learners at different teaching hospitals. Methods: The 3D-AM was designed to teach technical bronchoscopy skills, airway anatomy, airway pathology, and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). The curriculum was offered to incoming fellows in pediatric pulmonology, pediatric surgery, and pediatric critical care across three different teaching institutions. After course completion, each participant assessed the simulation model(s) with a 5-point Likert scale across six domains: physical attributes, realism of experience, ability to perform tasks, value, relevance, and global impression. The expert instructors assessed the learners' competency using a modified version of the Bronchoscopy Skills and Tasks Assessment Tool. Results: A total of 14 incoming fellows participated in the course. The mean scores for the 3D-AM across all six domains and across the three institutions was between 4 and 5, suggesting that learners generally had a favorable impression and a similar experience across different institutions. All learners "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that the course was a valuable use of their time, helped teach technical skills and airway anatomy, and would be useful for extra training during fellowship. Most of the learners correctly identified anatomy, bronchomalacia, and performed a BAL. Wall trauma was observed in 36% of learners. Conclusion: The utility, low cost, and transferability of this model may create opportunities for PFB training across different institutions despite resource limitations in the United States and abroad.

Change in Code Status Orders of Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Throughout the Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Aim: Our aim was to examine how code status orders for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 changed over time as the pandemic progressed and outcomes improved. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single academic center in the United States. Adults admitted between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, who tested positive for COVID-19, were included. The study period included four institutional hospitalization surges. Demographic and outcome data were collected and code status orders during admission were trended. Data were analyzed with multivariable analysis to identify predictors of code status. Results: A total of 3615 patients were included with full code (62.7%) being the most common final code status order followed by do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) (18.1%). Time of admission (per every six months) was an independent predictor of final full compared to DNAR/partial code status (p = 0.04). Limited resuscitation preference (DNAR or partial) decreased from over 20% in the first two surges to 10.8% and 15.6% of patients in the last two surges. Other independent predictors of final code status included body mass index (p < 0.05), Black versus White race (0.64, p = 0.01), time spent in the intensive care unit (4.28, p = <0.001), age (2.11, p = <0.001), and Charlson comorbidity index (1.05, p = <0.001). Conclusions: Over time, adults admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 were less likely to have a DNAR or partial code status order with persistent decrease occurring after March 2021. A trend toward decreased code status documentation as the pandemic progressed was observed.

If Your Heart Were to Stop: Characterization and Comparison of Code Status Orders in Adult Patients Admitted with COVID-19.

Aim: Our aim is to characterize code status documentation for patients hospitalized with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) during the first peak of the pandemic, when prognosis, resource availability, and provider safety were uncertain. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single tertiary academic medical center. Adult patients admitted between March 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020 who tested positive for COVID-19 were included. Demographic and hospital outcome data were collected. Code status orders during this admission and prior admissions were trended. Data were analyzed with multivariable analysis to identify predictors of code status choice. Results: A total of 720 patients were included. The majority (70%) were full code and 12% were in do-not-attempt resuscitation (DNAR) status on admission; by discharge, 20% were DNAR. Age (p < 0.001), time in the intensive care unit (ICU) (p < 0.001), and having Medicaid (p = 0.04) compared to private insurance were predictors of DNAR. Fourteen percent had no code status order. Older age (p < 0.001), time in the ICU (p = 0.01), and admission to a teaching service (p < 0.001) were associated with having an order. Of patients with a prior admission (n = 227), 33.5% previously had no code status order and 44.5% had a different code status for their COVID-19 admission. Of those with a change, most transitioned to less aggressive resuscitation preferences. Conclusions: Most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in our study elected to be full code. Almost half of patients with prepandemic admissions had a different code status during their COVID-19 admission, with a trend toward less aggressive resuscitation preference.