Patient Perceptions of Drive-through Medical Treatment Facilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The cumulative burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the United States' healthcare system is substantial. To help mitigate this burden, novel solutions including telehealth and dedicated screening facilities have been used. However, there is limited data on the efficacy of such models and none assessing patient comfort levels with these changes in healthcare delivery. The aim of our study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of a drive-through medical treatment system in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Patients presenting to a drive-through COVID-19 medical treatment facility were surveyed about their experience following their visit. An anonymous questionnaire consisting of five questions, using a five-point Likert scale was distributed via electronic tablet. RESULTS: We obtained 827 responses over two months. Three quarters of respondents believed care received was similar to that in a traditional emergency department (ED). Overall positive impression of the drive-through was 86.6%, and 95% believed that it was more convenient. CONCLUSION: Overall, the drive-through medical system was perceived as more convenient than the ED and was viewed as a positive experience. While representing a dramatic change in the delivery model of medical care, if such systems can provide comparable levels of care, they may be a viable option for sustained and surge healthcare delivery.

A comparison of efficacy, efficiency, and durability in novel tourniquet designs.

BACKGROUND: Exsanguination due to extremity hemorrhage is a major cause of preventable traumatic deaths. Extremity tourniquet use has been shown to be safe and improve survival. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy, efficiency, and durability of the Generation 7 Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT; North American Rescue, Greer, SC), the Tactical Mechanical Tourniquet (TMT; Combat Medical Systems, Harrisburg, NC), and the SOF Tactical Tourniquet-Wide (SOFTT-W; Tactical Medical Solutions, Anderson, SC). METHODS: This study was a three-phase randomized, cross-over trial. In successive trials, subjects were timed during the application of each tourniquet to the upper and lower extremity. Following successful lower extremity application, subjects low crawled 25 ft and then were dragged 25 ft, after which effectiveness was reassessed, as defined by the cessation of distal pulses by Doppler ultrasound. RESULTS: In arm application, both the CAT and TMT had significantly less failure rates than the SOFTT-W (5.56%, 19.44%, 58.33%), with the CAT being the fastest tourniquet when compared with TMT and SOFTT-W (37.8 seconds, 65.01 seconds, 63.07 seconds). In leg application, the CAT had significantly less rates of failure when compared with the SOFTT-W, but there was no other significant difference between the tourniquets (27.78%, 44.44%, 61.11%). In addition, the CAT was significantly faster than both the TMT and SOFTT-W when applied to the leg (8.33 seconds, 40.96 seconds, 34.5 seconds). There was no significant difference in tourniquet failure rates between the three tourniquets after subject maneuvers in phase 3 (34.29%, 42.86%, 45.45%). DISCUSSION: The CAT is as effective as the TMT and significantly more effective than the SOFTT-W. In addition, the CAT demonstrated shorter application times than either the TMT or SOFTT-W. However, there was no significant difference between the three tourniquets in their ability to maintain pulselessness after subject maneuvers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, level II.