Development of a Communications Program to Support Care of Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients.

A significant role of intensive care unit (ICU) workforce is ongoing communication with and support for families of critically ill patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has created unanticipated challenges to this essential function. Restrictions on visitors to hospitals and unprecedented clinical demands hamper traditional communication between ICU staff and patient families. In response to this challenge, we created a dedicated communications service to provide comprehensive support to families of COVID-19 patients, and to create capacity for our ICU teams to focus on patient care. In this brief report, we describe the development, implementation, and preliminary experience with the service.

Phases of a Pandemic Surge: The Experience of an Ethics Service in New York City during COVID-19.

When the COVID-19 surge hit New York City hospitals, the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medical College, and our affiliated ethics consultation services, faced waves of ethical issues sweeping forward with intensity and urgency. In this article, we describe our experience over an eight-week period (16 March through 10 May 2020), and describe three types of services: clinical ethics consultation (CEC); service practice communications/interventions (SPCI); and organizational ethics advisement (OEA). We tell this narrative through the prism of time, describing the evolution of ethical issues and trends as the pandemic unfolded. We delineate three phases: anticipation and preparation, crisis management, and reflection and adjustment. The first phase focused predominantly on ways to address impending resource shortages and to plan for remote ethics consultation, and CECs focused on code status discussions with surrogates. The second phase was characterized by the dramatic convergence of a rapid increase in the number of critically ill patients, a growing scarcity of resources, and the reassignment/redeployment of staff outside their specialty areas. The third phase was characterized by the recognition that while the worst of the crisis was waning, its medium- and long-term consequences continued to pose immense challenges. We note that there were times during the crisis that serving in the role of clinical ethics consultant created a sense of dis-ease as novel as the coronavirus itself. In retrospect we learned that our activities far exceeded the familiar terrain of clinical ethics consultation and extended into other spheres of organizational life in novel ways that were unanticipated before this pandemic. To that end, we defined and categorized a middle level of ethics consultation, which we have termed service practice communication intervention (SPCI). This is an underappreciated dimension of the work that ethics consult services are capable of in times of crisis. We believe that the pandemic has revealed the many enduring ways that ethics consultation services can more robustly contribute to the ethical life of their institutions moving forward.

Anesthesiologists' familiarity with the ASA and ACS guidelines on Advance Directives in the perioperative setting.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess anesthesiologists' familiarity with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and American College of Surgeons (ACS) guidelines on Advance Directives in the perioperative setting. DESIGN: Single-center, 4-question anonymous survey. SETTING: Urban academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Up to 34 subjects responded to each question. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Familiarity with the ASA and ACS guidelines on Advance Directives in the perioperative setting ranged from 45% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: There was inadequate familiarity with components of the ASA and ACS guidelines on advance directives in the perioperative setting. Larger studies are required to assess anesthesiologists' familiarity with national society guidelines that directly affect patient care. Future work should investigate best practices for guideline implementation, and consequences of poor adherence to national guidelines.

Lumbar plexus blockade reduces pain after hip arthroscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy causes moderate to severe postoperative pain. We hypothesized that performance of a lumbar plexus block (LPB) would reduce postoperative pain in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) for patients discharged home on the day of surgery. METHODS: Patients received a combined spinal epidural with IV sedation, ondansetron, and ketorolac. Half of the patients (n = 42) also underwent a single-injection bupivacaine LPB. Postoperative analgesia (PACU and after discharge) was provided with oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen (5/500 mg) and an oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug. IV hydromorphone was given as needed in the PACU. RESULTS: The LPB reduced pain at rest in the PACU (GEE: ß estimate of the mean on a 0 to 10 scale = -0.9; 95% confidence interval = -1.7 to -0.1; P = 0.037). Mean PACU pain scores at rest were reduced by the LPB from 4.2 to 3.3 (P = 0.048, 95% confidence interval for difference = 0.007-1.8; uncorrected for multiple values per patient, using independent samples t test for preliminary evaluation comparing pain between the groups). There were no statistically significant differences in PACU analgesic usage, PACU pain with movement, and patient satisfaction. No permanent adverse events occurred, but 2 LPB patients fell in the PACU bathroom, without injury. Three unplanned admissions occurred; one LPB patient was admitted for epidural spread and urinary retention. Two control patients were admitted, one for oxygen desaturation and one for pain and nausea. CONCLUSION: LPB resulted in statistically significant reductions in PACU resting pain after hip arthroscopy, but the absence of improvement in most secondary outcomes suggests that assessment of risks and benefits of LPB should be individualized.