User login
-
CLL and breast cancer differ in the expression of regulatory microRNAs
Expression of three microRNAs (miR-155, miR-29a, and miR-27b) was detectable in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and in breast cancer (BC) patients, but not in healthy subjects, according to a molecular analysis of patients reported in Molecular Therapy Oncolytics. In addition, circulating microarrays were found to be able to differentiate between both CLL and BC patients and healthy subjects.
The researchers obtained blood samples from 15 CLL patients and tissue samples from 15 BC patients, all from a single center.
The use of quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) demonstrated a significant increase in the expression of all three miRNAs in patients with BC and CLL, compared with respective healthy groups (P less than .001).
In BC patients, there was a significant difference between the expression of miR-155 and miR-29a (P less than .05), miR-155 and miR-27b (P less than .01), and miR-27b and miR-29a (P less than .001). In CLL patients, the qRT-PCR results showed a significant difference between expression of both miR-27b and miR-29a, compared with expression of miR-155 (P less than .001). In addition, there was a significant association between miR-155 and prevascular invasion (P = .013), but no significant association with other clinical variables (age, tumor grade, nuclear grade, tumor stage, tumor size, area of invasive component, tumor side, margin, or preneural invasion), according to the researchers.
Results also showed that elevated circulating miRNAs were BC specific and could differentiate BC tissues from the controls, and comparing expression of miRNAs between BC and CLL patients, there was also a significant difference for all miRNAs (P less than .001) between them.
“Our results suggest that miR-27b, miR-29a, and miR-155 could be potential new biomarkers for diagnosis, as well as a therapeutic target for CLL and BC,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that they had no competing interests.
SOURCE: Raeisi F et al. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2020;16:230-7.
Expression of three microRNAs (miR-155, miR-29a, and miR-27b) was detectable in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and in breast cancer (BC) patients, but not in healthy subjects, according to a molecular analysis of patients reported in Molecular Therapy Oncolytics. In addition, circulating microarrays were found to be able to differentiate between both CLL and BC patients and healthy subjects.
The researchers obtained blood samples from 15 CLL patients and tissue samples from 15 BC patients, all from a single center.
The use of quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) demonstrated a significant increase in the expression of all three miRNAs in patients with BC and CLL, compared with respective healthy groups (P less than .001).
In BC patients, there was a significant difference between the expression of miR-155 and miR-29a (P less than .05), miR-155 and miR-27b (P less than .01), and miR-27b and miR-29a (P less than .001). In CLL patients, the qRT-PCR results showed a significant difference between expression of both miR-27b and miR-29a, compared with expression of miR-155 (P less than .001). In addition, there was a significant association between miR-155 and prevascular invasion (P = .013), but no significant association with other clinical variables (age, tumor grade, nuclear grade, tumor stage, tumor size, area of invasive component, tumor side, margin, or preneural invasion), according to the researchers.
Results also showed that elevated circulating miRNAs were BC specific and could differentiate BC tissues from the controls, and comparing expression of miRNAs between BC and CLL patients, there was also a significant difference for all miRNAs (P less than .001) between them.
“Our results suggest that miR-27b, miR-29a, and miR-155 could be potential new biomarkers for diagnosis, as well as a therapeutic target for CLL and BC,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that they had no competing interests.
SOURCE: Raeisi F et al. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2020;16:230-7.
Expression of three microRNAs (miR-155, miR-29a, and miR-27b) was detectable in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and in breast cancer (BC) patients, but not in healthy subjects, according to a molecular analysis of patients reported in Molecular Therapy Oncolytics. In addition, circulating microarrays were found to be able to differentiate between both CLL and BC patients and healthy subjects.
The researchers obtained blood samples from 15 CLL patients and tissue samples from 15 BC patients, all from a single center.
The use of quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) demonstrated a significant increase in the expression of all three miRNAs in patients with BC and CLL, compared with respective healthy groups (P less than .001).
In BC patients, there was a significant difference between the expression of miR-155 and miR-29a (P less than .05), miR-155 and miR-27b (P less than .01), and miR-27b and miR-29a (P less than .001). In CLL patients, the qRT-PCR results showed a significant difference between expression of both miR-27b and miR-29a, compared with expression of miR-155 (P less than .001). In addition, there was a significant association between miR-155 and prevascular invasion (P = .013), but no significant association with other clinical variables (age, tumor grade, nuclear grade, tumor stage, tumor size, area of invasive component, tumor side, margin, or preneural invasion), according to the researchers.
Results also showed that elevated circulating miRNAs were BC specific and could differentiate BC tissues from the controls, and comparing expression of miRNAs between BC and CLL patients, there was also a significant difference for all miRNAs (P less than .001) between them.
“Our results suggest that miR-27b, miR-29a, and miR-155 could be potential new biomarkers for diagnosis, as well as a therapeutic target for CLL and BC,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that they had no competing interests.
SOURCE: Raeisi F et al. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2020;16:230-7.
FROM MOLECULAR THERAPY ONCOLYTICS
Three COVID-19 rapid diagnostic tests get FDA thumbs-up
The first authorization, announced by the agency on March 21, was for the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test, a rapid molecular diagnostic test for qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19.
The test, manufactured by Cepheid, has a detection time of 45 minutes and has been designed to operate on any of the company’s more than 23,000 automated GeneXpert Systems worldwide, according to a statement from the company.
The agency said in its EUA approval document the test is for a “qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab and/or nasal wash/aspirate specimens collected from patients who are suspected of having COVID-19 infection.” Positive results are indicative of an infection but do not rule out other potential infections, it noted.
The company plans to roll out the test by March 30, according to the FDA.
Cepheid said in a statement that it has almost 5,000 GeneXpert systems in the United States that are capable of point-of-care testing and ready for use in hospitals. “Our automated systems do not require users to have specialty training to perform testing – they are capable of running 24/7, with many systems already doing so today,” Warren Kocmond, the company’s president, said in the statement.
FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD said in a statement that the authorization marked “an important step in expanding the availability of testing and, importantly, rapid results. Point-of-care testing means that results are delivered to the patient in the patient-care settings, like hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms, instead of samples being sent to a laboratory. With today’s authorization, there is now an option for testing at the point of care, which enables patient access to more immediate results.”
On March 23, the agency issued an emergency use authorization to bioMerieux subsidiary BioFire Defense LLC for its BIOFIRE COVID-19 test, which detects SARS-CoV-2 from a nasopharyngeal swab in about 45 minutes.
The test was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Defense.
“Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status,” the agency said in its approval document. It again noted that positive results did not rule out bacterial infection or coinfection with other viruses.
Also on March 23, the agency issued an EUA to Mesa Biotech for its Accula SARS-CoV-2 test, which gives COVID-19 diagnostic results in 30 minutes.
The test is indicated for “qualitative, visual detection of nucleic acid from the SARS-CoV-2 in throat swab and nasal swab specimens combined, collected from patients suspected of COVID-19 by their health care provider,” according to the FDA approval document. “The SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid is generally detectable in throat and nasal swab specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or coinfection with other viruses.”
Mesa Biotech said in a statement that the test is designed for point-of-care use, including at temporary screening facilities, physician office labs, urgent care, and long-term nursing facilities.
“Our test will provide a highly accessible means for health care professionals to access laboratory quality results close in their office to aid in the decision to isolate, treat, or dismiss potential carriers of the virus,” Hong Cai, the CEO and cofounder of Mesa Biotech, said in a statement. “The potential to reduce the growing strain on our nation’s hospitals is tremendous.”
In separate letters to the three companies notifying them of the authorizations, the FDA said the emergency use of the products met the criteria for issuances of authorization because the SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; it was “reasonable to believe
that [the] product may be effective in diagnosing COVID-19; and there is no “adequate, approved, and available alternative” to the emergency use of the three products.
The first authorization, announced by the agency on March 21, was for the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test, a rapid molecular diagnostic test for qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19.
The test, manufactured by Cepheid, has a detection time of 45 minutes and has been designed to operate on any of the company’s more than 23,000 automated GeneXpert Systems worldwide, according to a statement from the company.
The agency said in its EUA approval document the test is for a “qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab and/or nasal wash/aspirate specimens collected from patients who are suspected of having COVID-19 infection.” Positive results are indicative of an infection but do not rule out other potential infections, it noted.
The company plans to roll out the test by March 30, according to the FDA.
Cepheid said in a statement that it has almost 5,000 GeneXpert systems in the United States that are capable of point-of-care testing and ready for use in hospitals. “Our automated systems do not require users to have specialty training to perform testing – they are capable of running 24/7, with many systems already doing so today,” Warren Kocmond, the company’s president, said in the statement.
FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD said in a statement that the authorization marked “an important step in expanding the availability of testing and, importantly, rapid results. Point-of-care testing means that results are delivered to the patient in the patient-care settings, like hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms, instead of samples being sent to a laboratory. With today’s authorization, there is now an option for testing at the point of care, which enables patient access to more immediate results.”
On March 23, the agency issued an emergency use authorization to bioMerieux subsidiary BioFire Defense LLC for its BIOFIRE COVID-19 test, which detects SARS-CoV-2 from a nasopharyngeal swab in about 45 minutes.
The test was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Defense.
“Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status,” the agency said in its approval document. It again noted that positive results did not rule out bacterial infection or coinfection with other viruses.
Also on March 23, the agency issued an EUA to Mesa Biotech for its Accula SARS-CoV-2 test, which gives COVID-19 diagnostic results in 30 minutes.
The test is indicated for “qualitative, visual detection of nucleic acid from the SARS-CoV-2 in throat swab and nasal swab specimens combined, collected from patients suspected of COVID-19 by their health care provider,” according to the FDA approval document. “The SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid is generally detectable in throat and nasal swab specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or coinfection with other viruses.”
Mesa Biotech said in a statement that the test is designed for point-of-care use, including at temporary screening facilities, physician office labs, urgent care, and long-term nursing facilities.
“Our test will provide a highly accessible means for health care professionals to access laboratory quality results close in their office to aid in the decision to isolate, treat, or dismiss potential carriers of the virus,” Hong Cai, the CEO and cofounder of Mesa Biotech, said in a statement. “The potential to reduce the growing strain on our nation’s hospitals is tremendous.”
In separate letters to the three companies notifying them of the authorizations, the FDA said the emergency use of the products met the criteria for issuances of authorization because the SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; it was “reasonable to believe
that [the] product may be effective in diagnosing COVID-19; and there is no “adequate, approved, and available alternative” to the emergency use of the three products.
The first authorization, announced by the agency on March 21, was for the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test, a rapid molecular diagnostic test for qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19.
The test, manufactured by Cepheid, has a detection time of 45 minutes and has been designed to operate on any of the company’s more than 23,000 automated GeneXpert Systems worldwide, according to a statement from the company.
The agency said in its EUA approval document the test is for a “qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab and/or nasal wash/aspirate specimens collected from patients who are suspected of having COVID-19 infection.” Positive results are indicative of an infection but do not rule out other potential infections, it noted.
The company plans to roll out the test by March 30, according to the FDA.
Cepheid said in a statement that it has almost 5,000 GeneXpert systems in the United States that are capable of point-of-care testing and ready for use in hospitals. “Our automated systems do not require users to have specialty training to perform testing – they are capable of running 24/7, with many systems already doing so today,” Warren Kocmond, the company’s president, said in the statement.
FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD said in a statement that the authorization marked “an important step in expanding the availability of testing and, importantly, rapid results. Point-of-care testing means that results are delivered to the patient in the patient-care settings, like hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms, instead of samples being sent to a laboratory. With today’s authorization, there is now an option for testing at the point of care, which enables patient access to more immediate results.”
On March 23, the agency issued an emergency use authorization to bioMerieux subsidiary BioFire Defense LLC for its BIOFIRE COVID-19 test, which detects SARS-CoV-2 from a nasopharyngeal swab in about 45 minutes.
The test was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Defense.
“Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status,” the agency said in its approval document. It again noted that positive results did not rule out bacterial infection or coinfection with other viruses.
Also on March 23, the agency issued an EUA to Mesa Biotech for its Accula SARS-CoV-2 test, which gives COVID-19 diagnostic results in 30 minutes.
The test is indicated for “qualitative, visual detection of nucleic acid from the SARS-CoV-2 in throat swab and nasal swab specimens combined, collected from patients suspected of COVID-19 by their health care provider,” according to the FDA approval document. “The SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid is generally detectable in throat and nasal swab specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or coinfection with other viruses.”
Mesa Biotech said in a statement that the test is designed for point-of-care use, including at temporary screening facilities, physician office labs, urgent care, and long-term nursing facilities.
“Our test will provide a highly accessible means for health care professionals to access laboratory quality results close in their office to aid in the decision to isolate, treat, or dismiss potential carriers of the virus,” Hong Cai, the CEO and cofounder of Mesa Biotech, said in a statement. “The potential to reduce the growing strain on our nation’s hospitals is tremendous.”
In separate letters to the three companies notifying them of the authorizations, the FDA said the emergency use of the products met the criteria for issuances of authorization because the SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; it was “reasonable to believe
that [the] product may be effective in diagnosing COVID-19; and there is no “adequate, approved, and available alternative” to the emergency use of the three products.
Reports increasingly suggest anosmia/hyposmia can signal early COVID-19 infection
Unexplained anosmia, hyposmia, and dysgeusia should be added to the list of possible COVID-19 symptoms for screening purposes, and individuals with such symptoms should consider self-isolation, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) has proposed.
However, a World Health Organization expert said during a March 23 daily briefing on the novel coronavirus pandemic that the jury is still out on that.
The AAO-HNS proposal is based on “rapidly accumulating” anecdotal evidence that such symptoms – in the absence of other symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 – have sometimes preceded a COVID-19 diagnosis.
“ ... anosmia, hyposmia, and dysgeusia in the absence of other respiratory disease such as allergic rhinitis, acute rhinosinusitis, or chronic rhinosinusitis should alert physicians to the possibility of COVID-19 infection and warrant serious consideration for self-isolation and testing of these individuals,” the AAO-HNS said in a statement on the proposal.
ENT UK, an organization representing Ear, Nose, and Throat surgery and its related specialties in the UK, also is emphasizing the potential importance of these symptoms. In a March 21 letter, ENT UK experts cited “good evidence from South Korea, China and Italy that significant numbers of patients with proven COVID-19 infection have developed anosmia/hyposmia.”
Claire Hopkins, BMBCh, president of the British Rhinological Society and a professor of Rhinology at King’s College London, along with ENT UK president Nirmal Kumar, also noted in the letter that two of every three cases in Germany, and 30% of patients testing positive in South Korea, had anosmia as their first symptom.
“While there is a chance the apparent increase in incidence could merely reflect the attention COVID-19 has attracted in the media, and that such cases may be caused by typical rhinovirus and coronavirus strains, it could potentially be used as a screening tool to help identify otherwise asymptomatic patients, who could then be better instructed on self-isolation,” they wrote.
Maria Van Kerkhove, MD, technical lead of the WHO Medical Emergencies Program, acknowledged the anecdotal evidence during the WHO briefing.
“Yes, we’ve seen quite a few reports ... but this is something that we need to look into to really capture if this is one of the early signs and symptoms of COVID-19,” she said, noting that WHO is working with more than a dozen countries that are systematically collecting data using molecular and serological testing to “capture more robustly” the early signs and symptoms, and is “reaching out to a number of countries and looking at the cases that have already been reported to see if [anosmia] is a common feature.”
“We don’t have the answer to that,” she said, adding that, in addition to the major symptoms – including dry cough, fever, and shortness of breath – that are well known at this point, “there are likely to be many signs and symptoms that people have.”
“A loss of smell or a loss of taste is something that we’re looking into, and we’re looking forward to the results of these early investigations ... so that we have a more evidence-based approach and we can add that to the list.”
Unexplained anosmia, hyposmia, and dysgeusia should be added to the list of possible COVID-19 symptoms for screening purposes, and individuals with such symptoms should consider self-isolation, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) has proposed.
However, a World Health Organization expert said during a March 23 daily briefing on the novel coronavirus pandemic that the jury is still out on that.
The AAO-HNS proposal is based on “rapidly accumulating” anecdotal evidence that such symptoms – in the absence of other symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 – have sometimes preceded a COVID-19 diagnosis.
“ ... anosmia, hyposmia, and dysgeusia in the absence of other respiratory disease such as allergic rhinitis, acute rhinosinusitis, or chronic rhinosinusitis should alert physicians to the possibility of COVID-19 infection and warrant serious consideration for self-isolation and testing of these individuals,” the AAO-HNS said in a statement on the proposal.
ENT UK, an organization representing Ear, Nose, and Throat surgery and its related specialties in the UK, also is emphasizing the potential importance of these symptoms. In a March 21 letter, ENT UK experts cited “good evidence from South Korea, China and Italy that significant numbers of patients with proven COVID-19 infection have developed anosmia/hyposmia.”
Claire Hopkins, BMBCh, president of the British Rhinological Society and a professor of Rhinology at King’s College London, along with ENT UK president Nirmal Kumar, also noted in the letter that two of every three cases in Germany, and 30% of patients testing positive in South Korea, had anosmia as their first symptom.
“While there is a chance the apparent increase in incidence could merely reflect the attention COVID-19 has attracted in the media, and that such cases may be caused by typical rhinovirus and coronavirus strains, it could potentially be used as a screening tool to help identify otherwise asymptomatic patients, who could then be better instructed on self-isolation,” they wrote.
Maria Van Kerkhove, MD, technical lead of the WHO Medical Emergencies Program, acknowledged the anecdotal evidence during the WHO briefing.
“Yes, we’ve seen quite a few reports ... but this is something that we need to look into to really capture if this is one of the early signs and symptoms of COVID-19,” she said, noting that WHO is working with more than a dozen countries that are systematically collecting data using molecular and serological testing to “capture more robustly” the early signs and symptoms, and is “reaching out to a number of countries and looking at the cases that have already been reported to see if [anosmia] is a common feature.”
“We don’t have the answer to that,” she said, adding that, in addition to the major symptoms – including dry cough, fever, and shortness of breath – that are well known at this point, “there are likely to be many signs and symptoms that people have.”
“A loss of smell or a loss of taste is something that we’re looking into, and we’re looking forward to the results of these early investigations ... so that we have a more evidence-based approach and we can add that to the list.”
Unexplained anosmia, hyposmia, and dysgeusia should be added to the list of possible COVID-19 symptoms for screening purposes, and individuals with such symptoms should consider self-isolation, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) has proposed.
However, a World Health Organization expert said during a March 23 daily briefing on the novel coronavirus pandemic that the jury is still out on that.
The AAO-HNS proposal is based on “rapidly accumulating” anecdotal evidence that such symptoms – in the absence of other symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 – have sometimes preceded a COVID-19 diagnosis.
“ ... anosmia, hyposmia, and dysgeusia in the absence of other respiratory disease such as allergic rhinitis, acute rhinosinusitis, or chronic rhinosinusitis should alert physicians to the possibility of COVID-19 infection and warrant serious consideration for self-isolation and testing of these individuals,” the AAO-HNS said in a statement on the proposal.
ENT UK, an organization representing Ear, Nose, and Throat surgery and its related specialties in the UK, also is emphasizing the potential importance of these symptoms. In a March 21 letter, ENT UK experts cited “good evidence from South Korea, China and Italy that significant numbers of patients with proven COVID-19 infection have developed anosmia/hyposmia.”
Claire Hopkins, BMBCh, president of the British Rhinological Society and a professor of Rhinology at King’s College London, along with ENT UK president Nirmal Kumar, also noted in the letter that two of every three cases in Germany, and 30% of patients testing positive in South Korea, had anosmia as their first symptom.
“While there is a chance the apparent increase in incidence could merely reflect the attention COVID-19 has attracted in the media, and that such cases may be caused by typical rhinovirus and coronavirus strains, it could potentially be used as a screening tool to help identify otherwise asymptomatic patients, who could then be better instructed on self-isolation,” they wrote.
Maria Van Kerkhove, MD, technical lead of the WHO Medical Emergencies Program, acknowledged the anecdotal evidence during the WHO briefing.
“Yes, we’ve seen quite a few reports ... but this is something that we need to look into to really capture if this is one of the early signs and symptoms of COVID-19,” she said, noting that WHO is working with more than a dozen countries that are systematically collecting data using molecular and serological testing to “capture more robustly” the early signs and symptoms, and is “reaching out to a number of countries and looking at the cases that have already been reported to see if [anosmia] is a common feature.”
“We don’t have the answer to that,” she said, adding that, in addition to the major symptoms – including dry cough, fever, and shortness of breath – that are well known at this point, “there are likely to be many signs and symptoms that people have.”
“A loss of smell or a loss of taste is something that we’re looking into, and we’re looking forward to the results of these early investigations ... so that we have a more evidence-based approach and we can add that to the list.”
High rate of asymptomatic COVID-19 seen in cruise ship passengers
The high rate of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections aboard the cruise ship Diamond Princess “could partially explain the high attack rate among” the passengers and crew, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Testing of the 3,711 passengers and crew aboard the ship – the source of the largest outbreak outside of China during the initial stages of the pandemic – revealed that 19.2% were positive for COVID-19, Leah F. Moriarty, MPH, and associates reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
At the time of testing, 46.5% (331) of the 712 infected individuals were asymptomatic, and “statistical models of the Diamond Princess outbreak suggest that 17.9% of infected persons never developed symptoms,” wrote Ms. Moriarty of the CDC COVID-19 response team, and associates.
RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus was found on surfaces in cabins up to 17 days after they had been vacated by passengers but before the cabins had been disinfected, the investigators noted.
The Diamond Princess departed from Yokohama, Japan, on Jan. 20, 2020, and returned on Feb. 3 after making six stops in three countries. The ship was quarantined upon its return because a symptomatic passenger who had departed Jan. 25 in Hong Kong tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, Ms. Moriarty and associates explained.
Of the 381 people from the ship who were symptomatic and tested positive, 37 (9.7%) needed intensive care and 9 (1.3%) died. There were 428 Americans on the ship, of whom 107 (25.0%) tested positive and 11 remained hospitalized in Japan as of March 13, they said.
“Many other cruise ships have since been implicated in SARS-CoV-2 transmission,” the investigators said, including the Grand Princess, which sailed out of San Francisco with 3,571 people on Feb. 21 and returned to Oakland on March 8.
That ship had been the site of virus transmission during its previous voyage from Feb. 11 to Feb. 21, from which more than 20 cases have been identified. During the latter trip, 21 of 45 passengers and crew tested positive before the ship docked. During the subsequent land-based quarantine, there have been 78 positive tests among the 469 people tested as of March 21, a rate of 16.6%, the research team reported.
“Public health responses to cruise ship outbreaks require extensive resources,” they wrote. “These responses required the coordination of stakeholders across multiple sectors, including U.S. government departments and agencies, foreign ministries of health, foreign embassies, state and local public health departments, hospitals, laboratories, and cruise ship companies.”
SOURCE: Moriarty LF et al. MMWR. 2020 Mar 23;69[early release]:1-6.
The high rate of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections aboard the cruise ship Diamond Princess “could partially explain the high attack rate among” the passengers and crew, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Testing of the 3,711 passengers and crew aboard the ship – the source of the largest outbreak outside of China during the initial stages of the pandemic – revealed that 19.2% were positive for COVID-19, Leah F. Moriarty, MPH, and associates reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
At the time of testing, 46.5% (331) of the 712 infected individuals were asymptomatic, and “statistical models of the Diamond Princess outbreak suggest that 17.9% of infected persons never developed symptoms,” wrote Ms. Moriarty of the CDC COVID-19 response team, and associates.
RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus was found on surfaces in cabins up to 17 days after they had been vacated by passengers but before the cabins had been disinfected, the investigators noted.
The Diamond Princess departed from Yokohama, Japan, on Jan. 20, 2020, and returned on Feb. 3 after making six stops in three countries. The ship was quarantined upon its return because a symptomatic passenger who had departed Jan. 25 in Hong Kong tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, Ms. Moriarty and associates explained.
Of the 381 people from the ship who were symptomatic and tested positive, 37 (9.7%) needed intensive care and 9 (1.3%) died. There were 428 Americans on the ship, of whom 107 (25.0%) tested positive and 11 remained hospitalized in Japan as of March 13, they said.
“Many other cruise ships have since been implicated in SARS-CoV-2 transmission,” the investigators said, including the Grand Princess, which sailed out of San Francisco with 3,571 people on Feb. 21 and returned to Oakland on March 8.
That ship had been the site of virus transmission during its previous voyage from Feb. 11 to Feb. 21, from which more than 20 cases have been identified. During the latter trip, 21 of 45 passengers and crew tested positive before the ship docked. During the subsequent land-based quarantine, there have been 78 positive tests among the 469 people tested as of March 21, a rate of 16.6%, the research team reported.
“Public health responses to cruise ship outbreaks require extensive resources,” they wrote. “These responses required the coordination of stakeholders across multiple sectors, including U.S. government departments and agencies, foreign ministries of health, foreign embassies, state and local public health departments, hospitals, laboratories, and cruise ship companies.”
SOURCE: Moriarty LF et al. MMWR. 2020 Mar 23;69[early release]:1-6.
The high rate of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections aboard the cruise ship Diamond Princess “could partially explain the high attack rate among” the passengers and crew, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Testing of the 3,711 passengers and crew aboard the ship – the source of the largest outbreak outside of China during the initial stages of the pandemic – revealed that 19.2% were positive for COVID-19, Leah F. Moriarty, MPH, and associates reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
At the time of testing, 46.5% (331) of the 712 infected individuals were asymptomatic, and “statistical models of the Diamond Princess outbreak suggest that 17.9% of infected persons never developed symptoms,” wrote Ms. Moriarty of the CDC COVID-19 response team, and associates.
RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus was found on surfaces in cabins up to 17 days after they had been vacated by passengers but before the cabins had been disinfected, the investigators noted.
The Diamond Princess departed from Yokohama, Japan, on Jan. 20, 2020, and returned on Feb. 3 after making six stops in three countries. The ship was quarantined upon its return because a symptomatic passenger who had departed Jan. 25 in Hong Kong tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, Ms. Moriarty and associates explained.
Of the 381 people from the ship who were symptomatic and tested positive, 37 (9.7%) needed intensive care and 9 (1.3%) died. There were 428 Americans on the ship, of whom 107 (25.0%) tested positive and 11 remained hospitalized in Japan as of March 13, they said.
“Many other cruise ships have since been implicated in SARS-CoV-2 transmission,” the investigators said, including the Grand Princess, which sailed out of San Francisco with 3,571 people on Feb. 21 and returned to Oakland on March 8.
That ship had been the site of virus transmission during its previous voyage from Feb. 11 to Feb. 21, from which more than 20 cases have been identified. During the latter trip, 21 of 45 passengers and crew tested positive before the ship docked. During the subsequent land-based quarantine, there have been 78 positive tests among the 469 people tested as of March 21, a rate of 16.6%, the research team reported.
“Public health responses to cruise ship outbreaks require extensive resources,” they wrote. “These responses required the coordination of stakeholders across multiple sectors, including U.S. government departments and agencies, foreign ministries of health, foreign embassies, state and local public health departments, hospitals, laboratories, and cruise ship companies.”
SOURCE: Moriarty LF et al. MMWR. 2020 Mar 23;69[early release]:1-6.
FROM MMWR
CDC coronavirus testing decision likely to haunt nation for months to come
As the novel coronavirus snaked its way across the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in early February distributed 200 test kits it had produced to more than 100 public health labs run by states and counties nationwide.
Each kit contained material to test a mere 300-400 patients. And labs, whether serving the population of New York or tiny towns in rural America, apparently received the same kits.
The kits were distributed roughly equally to locales in all 50 states. That decision presaged weeks of chaos, in which the availability of COVID-19 tests seemed oddly out of sync with where testing was needed.
A woman in South Dakota with mild symptoms and no fever readily got the test and the results. Meanwhile, political leaders and public officials in places like New York, Boston, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay area – all in the throes of serious outbreaks – couldn’t get enough tests to screen ill patients or, thereby, the information they needed to protect the general public and stem the outbreak of the virus, whose symptoms mimic those of common respiratory illnesses.
Rapid testing is crucial in the early stages of an outbreak. It allows health workers and families to identify and focus on treating those infected and isolate them.
Yet health officials in New York and such states as New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Georgia confirmed that they each initially got one test kit, calling into question whether they would have even stood a chance to contain the outbreaks that would emerge. They would soon discover that the tests they did receive were flawed, lacking critical components, and delivering faulty results.
During those early weeks, the virus took off, infecting thousands of people and leading to nationwide social distancing and sheltering in place. Public health officials are just beginning to grapple with the fallout from that early bungling of testing, which is likely to haunt the country in the months to come.
Too little too late
The first shipment to Washington state arrived more than 2 weeks after officials there announced the first U.S. case of coronavirus, and at a moment when deadly outbreaks of the disease were already festering in places like the Life Care Center in Kirkland. Within weeks, three dozen people infected with COVID-19 would die at the nursing home in the suburbs of Seattle.
The spread of COVID-19 would not take long to overwhelm the state, which as of March 20, 2020, had more than 1,300 cases.
The Trump administration in recent days has attempted to speed testing for the virus after early missteps hampered the government’s response to contain the contagion, and officials have had to respond to a barrage of criticism from public health experts, state officials, and members of Congress.
Federal health officials have eased the process for university and commercial labs to perform their own tests, and they are ramping up their capacity. As of March 16, public and private labs in the United States had the ability to test more than 36,000 people a day, according to estimates compiled by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, a figure expected to rapidly escalate in coming weeks. That figure, however, can vary considerably by state and does not indicate how many tests are actually given to patients.
“We are now beginning to see that they have spread out in a prioritized way. We asked them to prioritize the regions that were mostly affected,” Deborah Birx, the coronavirus response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said March 18 of private labs’ testing, without elaboration.
The scaling up of testing is set to take place after weeks of faltering and hundreds, if not thousands, of undiagnosed people spreading the virus. For example, New York’s state health department received a faulty CDC test kit on Feb. 8 for 800 patient specimens, an amount that’s consistent with other states, according to a spokesperson. It later began testing patients with a test that state officials developed based on the CDC protocol and has significantly increased testing – as of March 20, more than 7,200 people had tested positive statewide.
In New York City, the first batch was obtained on Feb. 7.
“The other state and local public health laboratories got test kits as they became available,” said Eric Blank, chief program officer of the Association of Public Health Laboratories.
Places in the middle of the country with no outbreaks had the luxury of time to plan. For example, Missouri officials have had about 800 tests to work with, leading to only 395 performed so far in the region by public health labs – 26 of which were positive. When private lab tests are accounted for, as of March 20 there were 47 confirmed cases.
Health care providers and public health staff in the state, however, benefited from the fact that there is less international travel to the region, according to infectious disease expert Steven Lawrence, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.
“This is very similar to 1918 with the influenza pandemic – St. Louis had more time to prepare and was able to put measures in place to flatten the curve than, say, Philadelphia,” Dr. Lawrence said. “Seattle didn’t have an opportunity to prepare as much in advance.”
While commercial labs are coming online, strict restrictions are limiting testing capabilities, Dr. Lawrence said.
“The state has had their hands tied,” he added.
Waiting And wondering
Because of a widespread lag in testing, it is still a mystery for thousands of people to know whether they’ve come into contact with an infected person until well after it happens. As of March 20, the pandemic had killed more than 11,000 globally. More than 16,000 Americans were confirmed infected and at least 216 have died.
“CDC will distribute tests based on where they can do the most good. But without hospital-based testing and commercial testing, it will not be possible to meet the need,” said Tom Frieden, who led the CDC during President Obama’s administration and is a former commissioner of the New York City Health Department.
In California, public school teacher Claire Dugan, whose state was among the hardest hit in the initial wave of U.S. coronavirus cases, was told she didn’t qualify for testing because she had not traveled abroad to any country with an outbreak of the virus or been in contact with an infected person. Ms. Dugan, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area and is already medically fragile after a stray bullet nearly killed her while driving 4 years ago, sought a test from her doctor after registering a temperature of 100.7° F earlier this month.
“There are a lot of layers as to why this is so messed up,” said Ms. Dugan, who relies on a feeding tube and said she sought a test not only to protect herself but her students. “It’s community spreading right now, so it’s kind of silly we’re still insisting on [the early criteria for testing]. How would I know?”
Since the CDC’s initial distribution, states have been reordering more tests through the office’s International Reagent Resource – a long-standing tool that public health labs have relied on. They have also revised testing protocols to use only one sample per person, which boosts the number of people screened.
Yet problems still abound with tests or other materials needed to be able to detect the virus. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said on March 12 that county public health labs can’t use all of the 8,000 test kits the state has because they are missing key components.
In Pennsylvania, state officials weren’t able to begin testing until March 2 because of problems with the CDC’s initial kit, according to Nate Wardle, a spokesperson at its department of health. New York received two newly manufactured CDC test kits on Feb. 29 and also began performing tests March 2, according to its health department.
“We are still limited on extraction kits,” Mandy Cohen, the Health & Human Services secretary in North Carolina, said in an interview in mid-March. Officials earlier this month could test only 300 patients because of shortages in the extraction materials needed to register whether the novel coronavirus is present.
In North Dakota, Loralyn Hegland wrote her physician’s practice an email on March 10 with the subject line “dry cough,” wondering if she should come in for testing after learning that was one symptom of COVID-19. The recommendation she got echoes those of countless others across the United States, saying her risk of being exposed was very low because she hadn’t traveled outside the United States and had not come into contact with a person who had been “definitely” diagnosed with the virus.
Ms. Hegland, who lives in Fargo, didn’t have a fever but decided to shelter herself, anyway, out of caution.
Would she push to get a test?
“What’s the point?” she said. “You can’t know what you don’t know. It’s just that simple. How else do you explain it to people when you’re not testing?”
KHN Midwest correspondent Lauren Weber in St. Louis contributed to this article.
Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
As the novel coronavirus snaked its way across the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in early February distributed 200 test kits it had produced to more than 100 public health labs run by states and counties nationwide.
Each kit contained material to test a mere 300-400 patients. And labs, whether serving the population of New York or tiny towns in rural America, apparently received the same kits.
The kits were distributed roughly equally to locales in all 50 states. That decision presaged weeks of chaos, in which the availability of COVID-19 tests seemed oddly out of sync with where testing was needed.
A woman in South Dakota with mild symptoms and no fever readily got the test and the results. Meanwhile, political leaders and public officials in places like New York, Boston, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay area – all in the throes of serious outbreaks – couldn’t get enough tests to screen ill patients or, thereby, the information they needed to protect the general public and stem the outbreak of the virus, whose symptoms mimic those of common respiratory illnesses.
Rapid testing is crucial in the early stages of an outbreak. It allows health workers and families to identify and focus on treating those infected and isolate them.
Yet health officials in New York and such states as New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Georgia confirmed that they each initially got one test kit, calling into question whether they would have even stood a chance to contain the outbreaks that would emerge. They would soon discover that the tests they did receive were flawed, lacking critical components, and delivering faulty results.
During those early weeks, the virus took off, infecting thousands of people and leading to nationwide social distancing and sheltering in place. Public health officials are just beginning to grapple with the fallout from that early bungling of testing, which is likely to haunt the country in the months to come.
Too little too late
The first shipment to Washington state arrived more than 2 weeks after officials there announced the first U.S. case of coronavirus, and at a moment when deadly outbreaks of the disease were already festering in places like the Life Care Center in Kirkland. Within weeks, three dozen people infected with COVID-19 would die at the nursing home in the suburbs of Seattle.
The spread of COVID-19 would not take long to overwhelm the state, which as of March 20, 2020, had more than 1,300 cases.
The Trump administration in recent days has attempted to speed testing for the virus after early missteps hampered the government’s response to contain the contagion, and officials have had to respond to a barrage of criticism from public health experts, state officials, and members of Congress.
Federal health officials have eased the process for university and commercial labs to perform their own tests, and they are ramping up their capacity. As of March 16, public and private labs in the United States had the ability to test more than 36,000 people a day, according to estimates compiled by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, a figure expected to rapidly escalate in coming weeks. That figure, however, can vary considerably by state and does not indicate how many tests are actually given to patients.
“We are now beginning to see that they have spread out in a prioritized way. We asked them to prioritize the regions that were mostly affected,” Deborah Birx, the coronavirus response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said March 18 of private labs’ testing, without elaboration.
The scaling up of testing is set to take place after weeks of faltering and hundreds, if not thousands, of undiagnosed people spreading the virus. For example, New York’s state health department received a faulty CDC test kit on Feb. 8 for 800 patient specimens, an amount that’s consistent with other states, according to a spokesperson. It later began testing patients with a test that state officials developed based on the CDC protocol and has significantly increased testing – as of March 20, more than 7,200 people had tested positive statewide.
In New York City, the first batch was obtained on Feb. 7.
“The other state and local public health laboratories got test kits as they became available,” said Eric Blank, chief program officer of the Association of Public Health Laboratories.
Places in the middle of the country with no outbreaks had the luxury of time to plan. For example, Missouri officials have had about 800 tests to work with, leading to only 395 performed so far in the region by public health labs – 26 of which were positive. When private lab tests are accounted for, as of March 20 there were 47 confirmed cases.
Health care providers and public health staff in the state, however, benefited from the fact that there is less international travel to the region, according to infectious disease expert Steven Lawrence, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.
“This is very similar to 1918 with the influenza pandemic – St. Louis had more time to prepare and was able to put measures in place to flatten the curve than, say, Philadelphia,” Dr. Lawrence said. “Seattle didn’t have an opportunity to prepare as much in advance.”
While commercial labs are coming online, strict restrictions are limiting testing capabilities, Dr. Lawrence said.
“The state has had their hands tied,” he added.
Waiting And wondering
Because of a widespread lag in testing, it is still a mystery for thousands of people to know whether they’ve come into contact with an infected person until well after it happens. As of March 20, the pandemic had killed more than 11,000 globally. More than 16,000 Americans were confirmed infected and at least 216 have died.
“CDC will distribute tests based on where they can do the most good. But without hospital-based testing and commercial testing, it will not be possible to meet the need,” said Tom Frieden, who led the CDC during President Obama’s administration and is a former commissioner of the New York City Health Department.
In California, public school teacher Claire Dugan, whose state was among the hardest hit in the initial wave of U.S. coronavirus cases, was told she didn’t qualify for testing because she had not traveled abroad to any country with an outbreak of the virus or been in contact with an infected person. Ms. Dugan, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area and is already medically fragile after a stray bullet nearly killed her while driving 4 years ago, sought a test from her doctor after registering a temperature of 100.7° F earlier this month.
“There are a lot of layers as to why this is so messed up,” said Ms. Dugan, who relies on a feeding tube and said she sought a test not only to protect herself but her students. “It’s community spreading right now, so it’s kind of silly we’re still insisting on [the early criteria for testing]. How would I know?”
Since the CDC’s initial distribution, states have been reordering more tests through the office’s International Reagent Resource – a long-standing tool that public health labs have relied on. They have also revised testing protocols to use only one sample per person, which boosts the number of people screened.
Yet problems still abound with tests or other materials needed to be able to detect the virus. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said on March 12 that county public health labs can’t use all of the 8,000 test kits the state has because they are missing key components.
In Pennsylvania, state officials weren’t able to begin testing until March 2 because of problems with the CDC’s initial kit, according to Nate Wardle, a spokesperson at its department of health. New York received two newly manufactured CDC test kits on Feb. 29 and also began performing tests March 2, according to its health department.
“We are still limited on extraction kits,” Mandy Cohen, the Health & Human Services secretary in North Carolina, said in an interview in mid-March. Officials earlier this month could test only 300 patients because of shortages in the extraction materials needed to register whether the novel coronavirus is present.
In North Dakota, Loralyn Hegland wrote her physician’s practice an email on March 10 with the subject line “dry cough,” wondering if she should come in for testing after learning that was one symptom of COVID-19. The recommendation she got echoes those of countless others across the United States, saying her risk of being exposed was very low because she hadn’t traveled outside the United States and had not come into contact with a person who had been “definitely” diagnosed with the virus.
Ms. Hegland, who lives in Fargo, didn’t have a fever but decided to shelter herself, anyway, out of caution.
Would she push to get a test?
“What’s the point?” she said. “You can’t know what you don’t know. It’s just that simple. How else do you explain it to people when you’re not testing?”
KHN Midwest correspondent Lauren Weber in St. Louis contributed to this article.
Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
As the novel coronavirus snaked its way across the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in early February distributed 200 test kits it had produced to more than 100 public health labs run by states and counties nationwide.
Each kit contained material to test a mere 300-400 patients. And labs, whether serving the population of New York or tiny towns in rural America, apparently received the same kits.
The kits were distributed roughly equally to locales in all 50 states. That decision presaged weeks of chaos, in which the availability of COVID-19 tests seemed oddly out of sync with where testing was needed.
A woman in South Dakota with mild symptoms and no fever readily got the test and the results. Meanwhile, political leaders and public officials in places like New York, Boston, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay area – all in the throes of serious outbreaks – couldn’t get enough tests to screen ill patients or, thereby, the information they needed to protect the general public and stem the outbreak of the virus, whose symptoms mimic those of common respiratory illnesses.
Rapid testing is crucial in the early stages of an outbreak. It allows health workers and families to identify and focus on treating those infected and isolate them.
Yet health officials in New York and such states as New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Georgia confirmed that they each initially got one test kit, calling into question whether they would have even stood a chance to contain the outbreaks that would emerge. They would soon discover that the tests they did receive were flawed, lacking critical components, and delivering faulty results.
During those early weeks, the virus took off, infecting thousands of people and leading to nationwide social distancing and sheltering in place. Public health officials are just beginning to grapple with the fallout from that early bungling of testing, which is likely to haunt the country in the months to come.
Too little too late
The first shipment to Washington state arrived more than 2 weeks after officials there announced the first U.S. case of coronavirus, and at a moment when deadly outbreaks of the disease were already festering in places like the Life Care Center in Kirkland. Within weeks, three dozen people infected with COVID-19 would die at the nursing home in the suburbs of Seattle.
The spread of COVID-19 would not take long to overwhelm the state, which as of March 20, 2020, had more than 1,300 cases.
The Trump administration in recent days has attempted to speed testing for the virus after early missteps hampered the government’s response to contain the contagion, and officials have had to respond to a barrage of criticism from public health experts, state officials, and members of Congress.
Federal health officials have eased the process for university and commercial labs to perform their own tests, and they are ramping up their capacity. As of March 16, public and private labs in the United States had the ability to test more than 36,000 people a day, according to estimates compiled by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, a figure expected to rapidly escalate in coming weeks. That figure, however, can vary considerably by state and does not indicate how many tests are actually given to patients.
“We are now beginning to see that they have spread out in a prioritized way. We asked them to prioritize the regions that were mostly affected,” Deborah Birx, the coronavirus response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said March 18 of private labs’ testing, without elaboration.
The scaling up of testing is set to take place after weeks of faltering and hundreds, if not thousands, of undiagnosed people spreading the virus. For example, New York’s state health department received a faulty CDC test kit on Feb. 8 for 800 patient specimens, an amount that’s consistent with other states, according to a spokesperson. It later began testing patients with a test that state officials developed based on the CDC protocol and has significantly increased testing – as of March 20, more than 7,200 people had tested positive statewide.
In New York City, the first batch was obtained on Feb. 7.
“The other state and local public health laboratories got test kits as they became available,” said Eric Blank, chief program officer of the Association of Public Health Laboratories.
Places in the middle of the country with no outbreaks had the luxury of time to plan. For example, Missouri officials have had about 800 tests to work with, leading to only 395 performed so far in the region by public health labs – 26 of which were positive. When private lab tests are accounted for, as of March 20 there were 47 confirmed cases.
Health care providers and public health staff in the state, however, benefited from the fact that there is less international travel to the region, according to infectious disease expert Steven Lawrence, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.
“This is very similar to 1918 with the influenza pandemic – St. Louis had more time to prepare and was able to put measures in place to flatten the curve than, say, Philadelphia,” Dr. Lawrence said. “Seattle didn’t have an opportunity to prepare as much in advance.”
While commercial labs are coming online, strict restrictions are limiting testing capabilities, Dr. Lawrence said.
“The state has had their hands tied,” he added.
Waiting And wondering
Because of a widespread lag in testing, it is still a mystery for thousands of people to know whether they’ve come into contact with an infected person until well after it happens. As of March 20, the pandemic had killed more than 11,000 globally. More than 16,000 Americans were confirmed infected and at least 216 have died.
“CDC will distribute tests based on where they can do the most good. But without hospital-based testing and commercial testing, it will not be possible to meet the need,” said Tom Frieden, who led the CDC during President Obama’s administration and is a former commissioner of the New York City Health Department.
In California, public school teacher Claire Dugan, whose state was among the hardest hit in the initial wave of U.S. coronavirus cases, was told she didn’t qualify for testing because she had not traveled abroad to any country with an outbreak of the virus or been in contact with an infected person. Ms. Dugan, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area and is already medically fragile after a stray bullet nearly killed her while driving 4 years ago, sought a test from her doctor after registering a temperature of 100.7° F earlier this month.
“There are a lot of layers as to why this is so messed up,” said Ms. Dugan, who relies on a feeding tube and said she sought a test not only to protect herself but her students. “It’s community spreading right now, so it’s kind of silly we’re still insisting on [the early criteria for testing]. How would I know?”
Since the CDC’s initial distribution, states have been reordering more tests through the office’s International Reagent Resource – a long-standing tool that public health labs have relied on. They have also revised testing protocols to use only one sample per person, which boosts the number of people screened.
Yet problems still abound with tests or other materials needed to be able to detect the virus. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said on March 12 that county public health labs can’t use all of the 8,000 test kits the state has because they are missing key components.
In Pennsylvania, state officials weren’t able to begin testing until March 2 because of problems with the CDC’s initial kit, according to Nate Wardle, a spokesperson at its department of health. New York received two newly manufactured CDC test kits on Feb. 29 and also began performing tests March 2, according to its health department.
“We are still limited on extraction kits,” Mandy Cohen, the Health & Human Services secretary in North Carolina, said in an interview in mid-March. Officials earlier this month could test only 300 patients because of shortages in the extraction materials needed to register whether the novel coronavirus is present.
In North Dakota, Loralyn Hegland wrote her physician’s practice an email on March 10 with the subject line “dry cough,” wondering if she should come in for testing after learning that was one symptom of COVID-19. The recommendation she got echoes those of countless others across the United States, saying her risk of being exposed was very low because she hadn’t traveled outside the United States and had not come into contact with a person who had been “definitely” diagnosed with the virus.
Ms. Hegland, who lives in Fargo, didn’t have a fever but decided to shelter herself, anyway, out of caution.
Would she push to get a test?
“What’s the point?” she said. “You can’t know what you don’t know. It’s just that simple. How else do you explain it to people when you’re not testing?”
KHN Midwest correspondent Lauren Weber in St. Louis contributed to this article.
Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
How long is it safe to delay gynecologic cancer surgery?
As I write this column, there are more than 25,000 current cases of COVID-19 in the United States with an expected exponential rise in these numbers. Hospitals are issuing directives to cancel or postpone “elective” surgery to preserve the finite essential personal protective equipment (PPE), encourage social distancing, prevent exposure of at-risk patients within the hospital, and ensure bed and ventilator capacity for the impending surge in COVID-19 patients.
Many health systems have defined which surgeries they consider permissible, typically by using time parameters such as would not cause patient harm if not performed within 4 weeks, or 7 days, or 24 hours. This leaves surgeons in the unfamiliar position of rationing health care, a role with which, over the coming months, we may have to become increasingly comfortable. This is an enormous responsibility, the shift of resources between one population in need and another, and decisions should be based on data, not bias or hunch. We know that untreated cancer is life threatening, but there is a difference between untreated and delayed. What is a safe time to wait for gynecologic cancer surgery after diagnosis without negatively affecting survival from that cancer?
As I looked through my own upcoming surgical schedule, I sought guidance from the American College of Surgeons’ website, updated on March 17, 2020. In this site they tabulate an “Elective Surgery Acuity Scale” in which “most cancers” fit into tier 3a, which corresponds to high acuity surgery – “do not postpone.” This definition is fairly generalized and blunt; it does not account for the differences in cancers and occasional voluntary needs to postpone a patient’s cancer surgery for health optimization. There are limited data that measure the impact of surgical wait times on survival from gynecologic cancer. Most of this research is observational, and therefore, is influenced by confounders causing delay in surgery (e.g., comorbid conditions or socioeconomic factors that limit access to care). However, the current enforced delays are involuntary; driven by the system, not the patient; and access is universally restricted.
Endometrial cancer
Most data regarding outcomes and gynecologic cancer delay come from endometrial cancer. In 2016, Shalowitz et al. evaluated 182,000 endometrial cancer cases documented within the National Cancer Database (NCDB), which captures approximately 70% of cancer surgeries in the United States.1 They separated these patients into groups of low-grade (grade 1 and 2 endometrioid) and high-grade (grade 3 endometrioid and nonendometrioid) cancers, and evaluated the groups for their overall survival, stratified by the time period between diagnosis and surgery. Interestingly, those whose surgery was performed under 2 weeks from diagnosis had worse perioperative mortality and long-term survival. This seems to be a function of lack of medical optimization; low-volume, nonspecialized centers having less wait time; and the presentation of more advanced and symptomatic disease demanding a more urgent surgery. After those initial 2 weeks of worse outcomes, there was a period of stable outcomes and safety in waiting that extended up to 8 weeks for patients with low-grade cancers and up to 18 weeks for patients with high-grade cancers.
It may be counterintuitive to think that surgical delay affects patients with high-grade endometrial cancers less. These are more aggressive cancers, and there is patient and provider concern for metastatic spread with time elapsed. But an expedited surgery does not appear to be necessary for this group. The Shalowitz study demonstrated no risk for upstaging with surgical delay, meaning that advanced stage was not more likely to be identified in patients whose surgery was delayed, compared with those performed earlier. This observation suggests that the survival from high-grade endometrial cancers is largely determined by factors that cannot be controlled by the surgeon such as the stage at diagnosis, occult spread, and decreased responsiveness of the tumor to adjuvant therapy. In other words, fast-tracking these patients to surgery has limited influence on the outcomes for high-grade endometrial cancers.
For low-grade cancers, adverse outcomes were seen with a surgical delay of more than 8 weeks. But this may not have been caused by progression of disease (low-grade cancers also were not upstaged with delays), but rather may reflect that, in normal times, elective delays of more than 8 weeks are a function of necessary complex medical optimization of comorbidities (such as obesity-related disease). The survival that is measured by NCDB is not disease specific, and patients with comorbidities will be more likely to have impaired overall survival.
A systematic review of all papers that looked at endometrial cancer outcomes associated with surgical delay determined that it is reasonable to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks.2
Ovarian cancer
The data for ovarian cancer surgery is more limited. Most literature discusses the impact of delay in the time between surgery and the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, but there are limited data exploring how a delay in primary debulking negatively affects patients. This is perhaps because advanced ovarian cancer surgery rarely is delayed because of symptoms and apparent advanced stage at diagnosis. When a patient’s surgery does need to be voluntarily delayed, for example for medical optimization, there is the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in which surgery is performed after three or more cycles of chemotherapy. NACT has been shown in multiple studies to have noninferior cancer outcomes, compared with primary debulking surgery.3,4
Perhaps in this current environment in which access to operating rooms and supplies is rationed, we should consider offering more, or all, patients NACT? Hospital stays after primary cytoreductive surgeries are typically 3-7 days in length, and these patients are at a higher risk, compared with other gynecologic cancer surgeries, of ICU admission and blood transfusions, both limited resources in this current environment. The disadvantage of this approach is that, while chemotherapy can keep patients out of the hospital so that they can practice social distancing, this particular therapy adds to the immunocompromised population. However, even patients who undergo primary surgical cytoreductive surgery will need to rapidly transition to immunosuppressive cytotoxic therapy; therefore it is unlikely that this can be avoided entirely during this time.
Lower genital tract cancers
Surgery for patients with lower genital tract cancers – such as cervical and vulvar cancer – also can probably be safely delayed for a 4-week period, and possibly longer. A Canadian retrospective study looked collectively at cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers evaluating for disease progression associated with delay to surgery, using 28 days as a benchmark for delayed surgery.5 They found no significant increased progression associated with surgical delay greater than 28 days. This study evaluated progression of cancer and did not measure cancer survival, although it is unlikely we would see impaired survival without a significant increase in disease progression.
We also can look to outcomes from delayed radical hysterectomy for stage I cervical cancer in pregnancy to provided us with some data. A retrospective cohort study observed no difference in survival when 28 women with early-stage cervical cancer who were diagnosed in pregnancy (average wait time 20 weeks from diagnosis to treatment) were compared with the outcomes of 52 matched nonpregnant control patients (average wait time 8 weeks). Their survival was 89% versus 94% respectively (P = .08).6
Summary
Synthesizing this data, it appears that, in an environment of competing needs and resources, it is reasonable and safe to delay surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers for 4-6 weeks and potentially longer. This includes patients with high-grade endometrial cancers. Clearly, these decisions should be individualized to patients and different health systems. For example, a patient who presents with a cancer-associated life-threatening bowel obstruction or hemorrhage may need an immediate intervention, and communities minimally affected by the coronavirus pandemic may have more allowances for surgery. With respect to patient anxiety, most patients with cancer are keen to have surgery promptly, and breaking the news to them that their surgery may be delayed because of institutional and public health needs will be difficult. However, the data support that this is likely safe.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].
References
1. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):268 e1-68 e18.
2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;246:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.01.004.
3. N Engl J Med 2010;363(10):943-53.
4. Lancet 2015;386(9990):249-57.
5. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37(4):338-44.
6. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):276 e1-76 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.034.
As I write this column, there are more than 25,000 current cases of COVID-19 in the United States with an expected exponential rise in these numbers. Hospitals are issuing directives to cancel or postpone “elective” surgery to preserve the finite essential personal protective equipment (PPE), encourage social distancing, prevent exposure of at-risk patients within the hospital, and ensure bed and ventilator capacity for the impending surge in COVID-19 patients.
Many health systems have defined which surgeries they consider permissible, typically by using time parameters such as would not cause patient harm if not performed within 4 weeks, or 7 days, or 24 hours. This leaves surgeons in the unfamiliar position of rationing health care, a role with which, over the coming months, we may have to become increasingly comfortable. This is an enormous responsibility, the shift of resources between one population in need and another, and decisions should be based on data, not bias or hunch. We know that untreated cancer is life threatening, but there is a difference between untreated and delayed. What is a safe time to wait for gynecologic cancer surgery after diagnosis without negatively affecting survival from that cancer?
As I looked through my own upcoming surgical schedule, I sought guidance from the American College of Surgeons’ website, updated on March 17, 2020. In this site they tabulate an “Elective Surgery Acuity Scale” in which “most cancers” fit into tier 3a, which corresponds to high acuity surgery – “do not postpone.” This definition is fairly generalized and blunt; it does not account for the differences in cancers and occasional voluntary needs to postpone a patient’s cancer surgery for health optimization. There are limited data that measure the impact of surgical wait times on survival from gynecologic cancer. Most of this research is observational, and therefore, is influenced by confounders causing delay in surgery (e.g., comorbid conditions or socioeconomic factors that limit access to care). However, the current enforced delays are involuntary; driven by the system, not the patient; and access is universally restricted.
Endometrial cancer
Most data regarding outcomes and gynecologic cancer delay come from endometrial cancer. In 2016, Shalowitz et al. evaluated 182,000 endometrial cancer cases documented within the National Cancer Database (NCDB), which captures approximately 70% of cancer surgeries in the United States.1 They separated these patients into groups of low-grade (grade 1 and 2 endometrioid) and high-grade (grade 3 endometrioid and nonendometrioid) cancers, and evaluated the groups for their overall survival, stratified by the time period between diagnosis and surgery. Interestingly, those whose surgery was performed under 2 weeks from diagnosis had worse perioperative mortality and long-term survival. This seems to be a function of lack of medical optimization; low-volume, nonspecialized centers having less wait time; and the presentation of more advanced and symptomatic disease demanding a more urgent surgery. After those initial 2 weeks of worse outcomes, there was a period of stable outcomes and safety in waiting that extended up to 8 weeks for patients with low-grade cancers and up to 18 weeks for patients with high-grade cancers.
It may be counterintuitive to think that surgical delay affects patients with high-grade endometrial cancers less. These are more aggressive cancers, and there is patient and provider concern for metastatic spread with time elapsed. But an expedited surgery does not appear to be necessary for this group. The Shalowitz study demonstrated no risk for upstaging with surgical delay, meaning that advanced stage was not more likely to be identified in patients whose surgery was delayed, compared with those performed earlier. This observation suggests that the survival from high-grade endometrial cancers is largely determined by factors that cannot be controlled by the surgeon such as the stage at diagnosis, occult spread, and decreased responsiveness of the tumor to adjuvant therapy. In other words, fast-tracking these patients to surgery has limited influence on the outcomes for high-grade endometrial cancers.
For low-grade cancers, adverse outcomes were seen with a surgical delay of more than 8 weeks. But this may not have been caused by progression of disease (low-grade cancers also were not upstaged with delays), but rather may reflect that, in normal times, elective delays of more than 8 weeks are a function of necessary complex medical optimization of comorbidities (such as obesity-related disease). The survival that is measured by NCDB is not disease specific, and patients with comorbidities will be more likely to have impaired overall survival.
A systematic review of all papers that looked at endometrial cancer outcomes associated with surgical delay determined that it is reasonable to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks.2
Ovarian cancer
The data for ovarian cancer surgery is more limited. Most literature discusses the impact of delay in the time between surgery and the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, but there are limited data exploring how a delay in primary debulking negatively affects patients. This is perhaps because advanced ovarian cancer surgery rarely is delayed because of symptoms and apparent advanced stage at diagnosis. When a patient’s surgery does need to be voluntarily delayed, for example for medical optimization, there is the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in which surgery is performed after three or more cycles of chemotherapy. NACT has been shown in multiple studies to have noninferior cancer outcomes, compared with primary debulking surgery.3,4
Perhaps in this current environment in which access to operating rooms and supplies is rationed, we should consider offering more, or all, patients NACT? Hospital stays after primary cytoreductive surgeries are typically 3-7 days in length, and these patients are at a higher risk, compared with other gynecologic cancer surgeries, of ICU admission and blood transfusions, both limited resources in this current environment. The disadvantage of this approach is that, while chemotherapy can keep patients out of the hospital so that they can practice social distancing, this particular therapy adds to the immunocompromised population. However, even patients who undergo primary surgical cytoreductive surgery will need to rapidly transition to immunosuppressive cytotoxic therapy; therefore it is unlikely that this can be avoided entirely during this time.
Lower genital tract cancers
Surgery for patients with lower genital tract cancers – such as cervical and vulvar cancer – also can probably be safely delayed for a 4-week period, and possibly longer. A Canadian retrospective study looked collectively at cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers evaluating for disease progression associated with delay to surgery, using 28 days as a benchmark for delayed surgery.5 They found no significant increased progression associated with surgical delay greater than 28 days. This study evaluated progression of cancer and did not measure cancer survival, although it is unlikely we would see impaired survival without a significant increase in disease progression.
We also can look to outcomes from delayed radical hysterectomy for stage I cervical cancer in pregnancy to provided us with some data. A retrospective cohort study observed no difference in survival when 28 women with early-stage cervical cancer who were diagnosed in pregnancy (average wait time 20 weeks from diagnosis to treatment) were compared with the outcomes of 52 matched nonpregnant control patients (average wait time 8 weeks). Their survival was 89% versus 94% respectively (P = .08).6
Summary
Synthesizing this data, it appears that, in an environment of competing needs and resources, it is reasonable and safe to delay surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers for 4-6 weeks and potentially longer. This includes patients with high-grade endometrial cancers. Clearly, these decisions should be individualized to patients and different health systems. For example, a patient who presents with a cancer-associated life-threatening bowel obstruction or hemorrhage may need an immediate intervention, and communities minimally affected by the coronavirus pandemic may have more allowances for surgery. With respect to patient anxiety, most patients with cancer are keen to have surgery promptly, and breaking the news to them that their surgery may be delayed because of institutional and public health needs will be difficult. However, the data support that this is likely safe.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].
References
1. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):268 e1-68 e18.
2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;246:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.01.004.
3. N Engl J Med 2010;363(10):943-53.
4. Lancet 2015;386(9990):249-57.
5. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37(4):338-44.
6. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):276 e1-76 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.034.
As I write this column, there are more than 25,000 current cases of COVID-19 in the United States with an expected exponential rise in these numbers. Hospitals are issuing directives to cancel or postpone “elective” surgery to preserve the finite essential personal protective equipment (PPE), encourage social distancing, prevent exposure of at-risk patients within the hospital, and ensure bed and ventilator capacity for the impending surge in COVID-19 patients.
Many health systems have defined which surgeries they consider permissible, typically by using time parameters such as would not cause patient harm if not performed within 4 weeks, or 7 days, or 24 hours. This leaves surgeons in the unfamiliar position of rationing health care, a role with which, over the coming months, we may have to become increasingly comfortable. This is an enormous responsibility, the shift of resources between one population in need and another, and decisions should be based on data, not bias or hunch. We know that untreated cancer is life threatening, but there is a difference between untreated and delayed. What is a safe time to wait for gynecologic cancer surgery after diagnosis without negatively affecting survival from that cancer?
As I looked through my own upcoming surgical schedule, I sought guidance from the American College of Surgeons’ website, updated on March 17, 2020. In this site they tabulate an “Elective Surgery Acuity Scale” in which “most cancers” fit into tier 3a, which corresponds to high acuity surgery – “do not postpone.” This definition is fairly generalized and blunt; it does not account for the differences in cancers and occasional voluntary needs to postpone a patient’s cancer surgery for health optimization. There are limited data that measure the impact of surgical wait times on survival from gynecologic cancer. Most of this research is observational, and therefore, is influenced by confounders causing delay in surgery (e.g., comorbid conditions or socioeconomic factors that limit access to care). However, the current enforced delays are involuntary; driven by the system, not the patient; and access is universally restricted.
Endometrial cancer
Most data regarding outcomes and gynecologic cancer delay come from endometrial cancer. In 2016, Shalowitz et al. evaluated 182,000 endometrial cancer cases documented within the National Cancer Database (NCDB), which captures approximately 70% of cancer surgeries in the United States.1 They separated these patients into groups of low-grade (grade 1 and 2 endometrioid) and high-grade (grade 3 endometrioid and nonendometrioid) cancers, and evaluated the groups for their overall survival, stratified by the time period between diagnosis and surgery. Interestingly, those whose surgery was performed under 2 weeks from diagnosis had worse perioperative mortality and long-term survival. This seems to be a function of lack of medical optimization; low-volume, nonspecialized centers having less wait time; and the presentation of more advanced and symptomatic disease demanding a more urgent surgery. After those initial 2 weeks of worse outcomes, there was a period of stable outcomes and safety in waiting that extended up to 8 weeks for patients with low-grade cancers and up to 18 weeks for patients with high-grade cancers.
It may be counterintuitive to think that surgical delay affects patients with high-grade endometrial cancers less. These are more aggressive cancers, and there is patient and provider concern for metastatic spread with time elapsed. But an expedited surgery does not appear to be necessary for this group. The Shalowitz study demonstrated no risk for upstaging with surgical delay, meaning that advanced stage was not more likely to be identified in patients whose surgery was delayed, compared with those performed earlier. This observation suggests that the survival from high-grade endometrial cancers is largely determined by factors that cannot be controlled by the surgeon such as the stage at diagnosis, occult spread, and decreased responsiveness of the tumor to adjuvant therapy. In other words, fast-tracking these patients to surgery has limited influence on the outcomes for high-grade endometrial cancers.
For low-grade cancers, adverse outcomes were seen with a surgical delay of more than 8 weeks. But this may not have been caused by progression of disease (low-grade cancers also were not upstaged with delays), but rather may reflect that, in normal times, elective delays of more than 8 weeks are a function of necessary complex medical optimization of comorbidities (such as obesity-related disease). The survival that is measured by NCDB is not disease specific, and patients with comorbidities will be more likely to have impaired overall survival.
A systematic review of all papers that looked at endometrial cancer outcomes associated with surgical delay determined that it is reasonable to delay surgery for up to 8 weeks.2
Ovarian cancer
The data for ovarian cancer surgery is more limited. Most literature discusses the impact of delay in the time between surgery and the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, but there are limited data exploring how a delay in primary debulking negatively affects patients. This is perhaps because advanced ovarian cancer surgery rarely is delayed because of symptoms and apparent advanced stage at diagnosis. When a patient’s surgery does need to be voluntarily delayed, for example for medical optimization, there is the option of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in which surgery is performed after three or more cycles of chemotherapy. NACT has been shown in multiple studies to have noninferior cancer outcomes, compared with primary debulking surgery.3,4
Perhaps in this current environment in which access to operating rooms and supplies is rationed, we should consider offering more, or all, patients NACT? Hospital stays after primary cytoreductive surgeries are typically 3-7 days in length, and these patients are at a higher risk, compared with other gynecologic cancer surgeries, of ICU admission and blood transfusions, both limited resources in this current environment. The disadvantage of this approach is that, while chemotherapy can keep patients out of the hospital so that they can practice social distancing, this particular therapy adds to the immunocompromised population. However, even patients who undergo primary surgical cytoreductive surgery will need to rapidly transition to immunosuppressive cytotoxic therapy; therefore it is unlikely that this can be avoided entirely during this time.
Lower genital tract cancers
Surgery for patients with lower genital tract cancers – such as cervical and vulvar cancer – also can probably be safely delayed for a 4-week period, and possibly longer. A Canadian retrospective study looked collectively at cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers evaluating for disease progression associated with delay to surgery, using 28 days as a benchmark for delayed surgery.5 They found no significant increased progression associated with surgical delay greater than 28 days. This study evaluated progression of cancer and did not measure cancer survival, although it is unlikely we would see impaired survival without a significant increase in disease progression.
We also can look to outcomes from delayed radical hysterectomy for stage I cervical cancer in pregnancy to provided us with some data. A retrospective cohort study observed no difference in survival when 28 women with early-stage cervical cancer who were diagnosed in pregnancy (average wait time 20 weeks from diagnosis to treatment) were compared with the outcomes of 52 matched nonpregnant control patients (average wait time 8 weeks). Their survival was 89% versus 94% respectively (P = .08).6
Summary
Synthesizing this data, it appears that, in an environment of competing needs and resources, it is reasonable and safe to delay surgery for patients with gynecologic cancers for 4-6 weeks and potentially longer. This includes patients with high-grade endometrial cancers. Clearly, these decisions should be individualized to patients and different health systems. For example, a patient who presents with a cancer-associated life-threatening bowel obstruction or hemorrhage may need an immediate intervention, and communities minimally affected by the coronavirus pandemic may have more allowances for surgery. With respect to patient anxiety, most patients with cancer are keen to have surgery promptly, and breaking the news to them that their surgery may be delayed because of institutional and public health needs will be difficult. However, the data support that this is likely safe.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].
References
1. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):268 e1-68 e18.
2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;246:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.01.004.
3. N Engl J Med 2010;363(10):943-53.
4. Lancet 2015;386(9990):249-57.
5. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37(4):338-44.
6. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(3):276 e1-76 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.034.
AMA offers resources for front-line physicians
.
The literature include news, advocacy, and other information to help front-line physicians provide care to patients and keep themselves safe “in a rapidly changing environment,” the organization said in a statement.
“The AMA continues to forcefully advocate for [personal protective equipment] and critical policy and regulatory changes needed to address our public health and health system needs. Because so many of the challenges of the pandemic are felt at a practice level, we are also providing new tools and information to help physicians respond,” AMA President Patrice A. Harris, MD, said in the statement.
The COVID-19 physician and practice resources released by the AMA include:
- A Physicians Guide to COVID-19 .
- An AMA COVID-19 online resource center and a COVID-19 FAQ.
- A Quick Guide to Telemedicine in Practice.
- Ethical guidance for physicians .
- Evidence-based resources from the The JAMA Network COVID-19 Resource Center.
- CME for physicians through the JAMA Network’s JN Learning website.
.
The literature include news, advocacy, and other information to help front-line physicians provide care to patients and keep themselves safe “in a rapidly changing environment,” the organization said in a statement.
“The AMA continues to forcefully advocate for [personal protective equipment] and critical policy and regulatory changes needed to address our public health and health system needs. Because so many of the challenges of the pandemic are felt at a practice level, we are also providing new tools and information to help physicians respond,” AMA President Patrice A. Harris, MD, said in the statement.
The COVID-19 physician and practice resources released by the AMA include:
- A Physicians Guide to COVID-19 .
- An AMA COVID-19 online resource center and a COVID-19 FAQ.
- A Quick Guide to Telemedicine in Practice.
- Ethical guidance for physicians .
- Evidence-based resources from the The JAMA Network COVID-19 Resource Center.
- CME for physicians through the JAMA Network’s JN Learning website.
.
The literature include news, advocacy, and other information to help front-line physicians provide care to patients and keep themselves safe “in a rapidly changing environment,” the organization said in a statement.
“The AMA continues to forcefully advocate for [personal protective equipment] and critical policy and regulatory changes needed to address our public health and health system needs. Because so many of the challenges of the pandemic are felt at a practice level, we are also providing new tools and information to help physicians respond,” AMA President Patrice A. Harris, MD, said in the statement.
The COVID-19 physician and practice resources released by the AMA include:
- A Physicians Guide to COVID-19 .
- An AMA COVID-19 online resource center and a COVID-19 FAQ.
- A Quick Guide to Telemedicine in Practice.
- Ethical guidance for physicians .
- Evidence-based resources from the The JAMA Network COVID-19 Resource Center.
- CME for physicians through the JAMA Network’s JN Learning website.
Hand washing and hand sanitizer on the skin and COVID-19 infection risk
As we deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, hand washing and the use of hand sanitizers have been key for infection prevention. With drier, colder weather in many of the communities initially affected by COVID-19, skin was already prone to dryness and a skin barrier compromised, and hand eczema was more prevalent because of these factors alone. This article explores the while maintaining the maximum possible degree of infection prevention.
With many viruses, including coronavirus, the virus is a self-assembled nanoparticle in which the most vulnerable structure is the outer lipid bilayer. Soaps dissolve the lipid membrane and the virus breaks apart, inactivating it; they are also alkaline surfactants that pick up particles – including dirt, bacteria, and viruses – which are removed from the surface of the skin when the soaps are rinsed off. In the process of washing, the alkalinity of the soap (pH approximately 9-10), compared with the normal outer skin pH of approximately 5.5 or lower, also can affect the skin barrier as well as the resident skin microflora. In a study by Lambers et al., it was found that an acid skin pH (4-4.5) keeps the resident bacterial flora attached to the skin, whereas an alkaline pH (8-9) promotes the dispersal from the skin in assessments of the volar forearm.
With regard to the effectiveness of hand washing against viruses, the length of time spent hand washing has been shown to have an impact on influenza-like illness. In a recent study of 2,082 participants by Bin Abdulrahman et al., those who spent only 5-10 seconds hand washing with soap and hand rubbing were at a higher risk of more frequent influenza-like illness (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.75), compared with those who washed their hands for 15 seconds or longer. Moreover, hand washing with soap and rubbing after shaking hands was found to be an independent protective factor against frequent influenza-like illness (adjusted OR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.94). Previous studies on the impact of hand washing on bacterial and parasitic illnesses also found similar results: Hand washing for 15-20 seconds or longer reduces infection.
Alcohol, long known as a disinfectant, has been recommended for disinfecting the hands since the late 1800s. Most alcohol-based hand antiseptics contain isopropanol, ethanol, N-propanol, or a combination of two of these products. The antimicrobial activity of alcohols can be attributed to their ability to denature and coagulate proteins, thereby lysing microorganisms’ cells, and disrupting their cellular metabolism. Alcohol solutions containing 60%-95% alcohol are the most effective. Notably, very high concentrations of alcohol are less potent because less water is found in higher concentrations of alcohol and proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers also often contain humectants, such as glycerin and/or aloe vera, to help prevent skin dryness and replace water content that is stripped by the use of alcohol on the skin surface.
Other topical disinfectants can also be used to inactivate coronaviruses from surfaces, including the skin. A recently published analysis of 22 studies found that human coronaviruses – such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus, or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) – can persist on inanimate surfaces such as metal, glass, or plastic for up to 9 days (COVID-19 was found in a study to persist on metal for up to 2-3 days), but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62%-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents, such as 0.05%-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate, are less effective.
In the case of SARS, treatment of SARS-CoV with povidone-iodine products for 2 minutes reduced virus infectivity to below the detectable level, equivalent to the effect of ethanol, in one study. Formalin fixation of the infected cells and heating the virus to 56° C, as used in routine tissue processing, were found to inactivate several coronaviruses as well. Based on this information, ethanol-based hand sanitizers, typically containing ethanol content of 60% or higher, can be used to inactivate coronaviruses on the skin, including COVID-19.
In patients with influenza-virus infections, whether pathogens were in wet or dried mucus played a role in whether hand washing or rubbing with hand sanitizer was more effective. In a study that examined the effects of hand washing versus antiseptic hand rubbing with an ethanol-based hand disinfectant on inactivation of influenza A virus adhered to the hands, the investigators showed that the effectiveness of the ethanol-based disinfectant against influenza A virus in mucus was reduced, compared with influenza A virus in saline. Influenza A in mucus remained active, despite 120 seconds of hand rubbing with hand sanitizer; however, influenza A in saline was completely inactivated within 30 seconds. Interestingly, rubbing hands with an ethanol-based disinfectant inactivated influenza A virus in mucus within 30 seconds with mucus that had dried completely because the hydrogel characteristics had been eliminated. Hand washing rapidly inactivated influenza A virus whether in mucus form, saline, or dried mucous.
It is important to note that in COVID-19 infections, a productive cough or rhinorrhea are not as common compared with dry cough. Regardless, the findings of the study described above should be considered if mucous symptoms develop during a COVID-19 infection when determining infection control. Luckily, with COVID-19, both hand washing and use of an ethanol-based hand sanitizer are seemingly effective in inactivating the virus or removing it from the skin surface.
After frequent hand washing, we all can experience dryness and potentially cracked skin as well. With hand sanitizer, the alcohol content can also cause burning of skin, especially compromised skin.
Vanilloid receptor-1 (VR1), a heat-gated ion channel, is responsible for the burning sensation caused by capsaicin. Ethanol lowers the amount of heat needed to turn on VR1 nocioceptive pain receptors by almost ten degrees, resulting in a potential burning sensation when applied.
Nails are affected as well with frequent hand washing and/or application of hand sanitizer and can become cracked or brittle. Contact dermatitis, both irritant and allergic, can occur with increased use of disinfectants, particularly household cleaners without proper barrier protection.
We’ve previously mentioned the effect of hand washing disrupting the resident skin microflora. Maintaining the skin microflora and barrier is an important component of skin health for preventing both dermatitis and infection. Hand washing or use of hand sanitizer is of paramount importance and effective in infection control for COVID-19. To maintain skin health and the skin barrier, applying lotion or cream after hand washing is recommended. It is recommended to avoid scrubbing hands while washing, since this causes breaks in the skin. Using water that is too hot is not recommended as it can inflame the skin further and disrupt the skin barrier.
Wearing gloves, if possible, is recommended when using household disinfectant products to further decrease skin irritation, barrier disruption, and risk of contact dermatitis. I have found hand emollients that contain ceramides or ingredients higher in omega 6 fatty acids, such as borage seed oil or other oils high in linoleic acid content, to be helpful. In addition to improving the skin barrier, emollients and perhaps those with topical pre- or probiotics, may help restore the skin microflora, potentially improving infection control further. Application of hand moisturizer each time after hand washing to maintain better infection control and barrier protection was also recommended by the recent consensus statement of Chinese experts on protection of skin and mucous membrane barrier for health care workers fighting against COVID-19.
We and our patients have remarked how it seems like our hands have aged 20-50 years in the previous 2 weeks. No one is complaining, everyone understands that protecting themselves and others against a potentially lethal virus is paramount. Maintaining skin health is of secondary concern, but maintaining healthy skin may also protect the skin barrier, another important component of potential infection control.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].
Resources
Lambers H et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Oct;28(5):359-70.
Bin Abdulrahman AK et al. BMC Public Health. 2019 Oct 22;19(1):1324. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-77.
Kariwa H et al. Dermatology. 2006;212 Suppl 1:119-23.
HIrose R et al. mSphere. 2019 Sep 18;4(5). pii: e00474-19. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00474-19.
Trevisani M et al. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):546-51.
Yan Y et al. Dermatol Ther. 2020 Mar 13:e13310. doi: 10.1111/dth.13310.
As we deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, hand washing and the use of hand sanitizers have been key for infection prevention. With drier, colder weather in many of the communities initially affected by COVID-19, skin was already prone to dryness and a skin barrier compromised, and hand eczema was more prevalent because of these factors alone. This article explores the while maintaining the maximum possible degree of infection prevention.
With many viruses, including coronavirus, the virus is a self-assembled nanoparticle in which the most vulnerable structure is the outer lipid bilayer. Soaps dissolve the lipid membrane and the virus breaks apart, inactivating it; they are also alkaline surfactants that pick up particles – including dirt, bacteria, and viruses – which are removed from the surface of the skin when the soaps are rinsed off. In the process of washing, the alkalinity of the soap (pH approximately 9-10), compared with the normal outer skin pH of approximately 5.5 or lower, also can affect the skin barrier as well as the resident skin microflora. In a study by Lambers et al., it was found that an acid skin pH (4-4.5) keeps the resident bacterial flora attached to the skin, whereas an alkaline pH (8-9) promotes the dispersal from the skin in assessments of the volar forearm.
With regard to the effectiveness of hand washing against viruses, the length of time spent hand washing has been shown to have an impact on influenza-like illness. In a recent study of 2,082 participants by Bin Abdulrahman et al., those who spent only 5-10 seconds hand washing with soap and hand rubbing were at a higher risk of more frequent influenza-like illness (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.75), compared with those who washed their hands for 15 seconds or longer. Moreover, hand washing with soap and rubbing after shaking hands was found to be an independent protective factor against frequent influenza-like illness (adjusted OR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.94). Previous studies on the impact of hand washing on bacterial and parasitic illnesses also found similar results: Hand washing for 15-20 seconds or longer reduces infection.
Alcohol, long known as a disinfectant, has been recommended for disinfecting the hands since the late 1800s. Most alcohol-based hand antiseptics contain isopropanol, ethanol, N-propanol, or a combination of two of these products. The antimicrobial activity of alcohols can be attributed to their ability to denature and coagulate proteins, thereby lysing microorganisms’ cells, and disrupting their cellular metabolism. Alcohol solutions containing 60%-95% alcohol are the most effective. Notably, very high concentrations of alcohol are less potent because less water is found in higher concentrations of alcohol and proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers also often contain humectants, such as glycerin and/or aloe vera, to help prevent skin dryness and replace water content that is stripped by the use of alcohol on the skin surface.
Other topical disinfectants can also be used to inactivate coronaviruses from surfaces, including the skin. A recently published analysis of 22 studies found that human coronaviruses – such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus, or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) – can persist on inanimate surfaces such as metal, glass, or plastic for up to 9 days (COVID-19 was found in a study to persist on metal for up to 2-3 days), but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62%-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents, such as 0.05%-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate, are less effective.
In the case of SARS, treatment of SARS-CoV with povidone-iodine products for 2 minutes reduced virus infectivity to below the detectable level, equivalent to the effect of ethanol, in one study. Formalin fixation of the infected cells and heating the virus to 56° C, as used in routine tissue processing, were found to inactivate several coronaviruses as well. Based on this information, ethanol-based hand sanitizers, typically containing ethanol content of 60% or higher, can be used to inactivate coronaviruses on the skin, including COVID-19.
In patients with influenza-virus infections, whether pathogens were in wet or dried mucus played a role in whether hand washing or rubbing with hand sanitizer was more effective. In a study that examined the effects of hand washing versus antiseptic hand rubbing with an ethanol-based hand disinfectant on inactivation of influenza A virus adhered to the hands, the investigators showed that the effectiveness of the ethanol-based disinfectant against influenza A virus in mucus was reduced, compared with influenza A virus in saline. Influenza A in mucus remained active, despite 120 seconds of hand rubbing with hand sanitizer; however, influenza A in saline was completely inactivated within 30 seconds. Interestingly, rubbing hands with an ethanol-based disinfectant inactivated influenza A virus in mucus within 30 seconds with mucus that had dried completely because the hydrogel characteristics had been eliminated. Hand washing rapidly inactivated influenza A virus whether in mucus form, saline, or dried mucous.
It is important to note that in COVID-19 infections, a productive cough or rhinorrhea are not as common compared with dry cough. Regardless, the findings of the study described above should be considered if mucous symptoms develop during a COVID-19 infection when determining infection control. Luckily, with COVID-19, both hand washing and use of an ethanol-based hand sanitizer are seemingly effective in inactivating the virus or removing it from the skin surface.
After frequent hand washing, we all can experience dryness and potentially cracked skin as well. With hand sanitizer, the alcohol content can also cause burning of skin, especially compromised skin.
Vanilloid receptor-1 (VR1), a heat-gated ion channel, is responsible for the burning sensation caused by capsaicin. Ethanol lowers the amount of heat needed to turn on VR1 nocioceptive pain receptors by almost ten degrees, resulting in a potential burning sensation when applied.
Nails are affected as well with frequent hand washing and/or application of hand sanitizer and can become cracked or brittle. Contact dermatitis, both irritant and allergic, can occur with increased use of disinfectants, particularly household cleaners without proper barrier protection.
We’ve previously mentioned the effect of hand washing disrupting the resident skin microflora. Maintaining the skin microflora and barrier is an important component of skin health for preventing both dermatitis and infection. Hand washing or use of hand sanitizer is of paramount importance and effective in infection control for COVID-19. To maintain skin health and the skin barrier, applying lotion or cream after hand washing is recommended. It is recommended to avoid scrubbing hands while washing, since this causes breaks in the skin. Using water that is too hot is not recommended as it can inflame the skin further and disrupt the skin barrier.
Wearing gloves, if possible, is recommended when using household disinfectant products to further decrease skin irritation, barrier disruption, and risk of contact dermatitis. I have found hand emollients that contain ceramides or ingredients higher in omega 6 fatty acids, such as borage seed oil or other oils high in linoleic acid content, to be helpful. In addition to improving the skin barrier, emollients and perhaps those with topical pre- or probiotics, may help restore the skin microflora, potentially improving infection control further. Application of hand moisturizer each time after hand washing to maintain better infection control and barrier protection was also recommended by the recent consensus statement of Chinese experts on protection of skin and mucous membrane barrier for health care workers fighting against COVID-19.
We and our patients have remarked how it seems like our hands have aged 20-50 years in the previous 2 weeks. No one is complaining, everyone understands that protecting themselves and others against a potentially lethal virus is paramount. Maintaining skin health is of secondary concern, but maintaining healthy skin may also protect the skin barrier, another important component of potential infection control.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].
Resources
Lambers H et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Oct;28(5):359-70.
Bin Abdulrahman AK et al. BMC Public Health. 2019 Oct 22;19(1):1324. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-77.
Kariwa H et al. Dermatology. 2006;212 Suppl 1:119-23.
HIrose R et al. mSphere. 2019 Sep 18;4(5). pii: e00474-19. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00474-19.
Trevisani M et al. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):546-51.
Yan Y et al. Dermatol Ther. 2020 Mar 13:e13310. doi: 10.1111/dth.13310.
As we deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, hand washing and the use of hand sanitizers have been key for infection prevention. With drier, colder weather in many of the communities initially affected by COVID-19, skin was already prone to dryness and a skin barrier compromised, and hand eczema was more prevalent because of these factors alone. This article explores the while maintaining the maximum possible degree of infection prevention.
With many viruses, including coronavirus, the virus is a self-assembled nanoparticle in which the most vulnerable structure is the outer lipid bilayer. Soaps dissolve the lipid membrane and the virus breaks apart, inactivating it; they are also alkaline surfactants that pick up particles – including dirt, bacteria, and viruses – which are removed from the surface of the skin when the soaps are rinsed off. In the process of washing, the alkalinity of the soap (pH approximately 9-10), compared with the normal outer skin pH of approximately 5.5 or lower, also can affect the skin barrier as well as the resident skin microflora. In a study by Lambers et al., it was found that an acid skin pH (4-4.5) keeps the resident bacterial flora attached to the skin, whereas an alkaline pH (8-9) promotes the dispersal from the skin in assessments of the volar forearm.
With regard to the effectiveness of hand washing against viruses, the length of time spent hand washing has been shown to have an impact on influenza-like illness. In a recent study of 2,082 participants by Bin Abdulrahman et al., those who spent only 5-10 seconds hand washing with soap and hand rubbing were at a higher risk of more frequent influenza-like illness (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.75), compared with those who washed their hands for 15 seconds or longer. Moreover, hand washing with soap and rubbing after shaking hands was found to be an independent protective factor against frequent influenza-like illness (adjusted OR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.94). Previous studies on the impact of hand washing on bacterial and parasitic illnesses also found similar results: Hand washing for 15-20 seconds or longer reduces infection.
Alcohol, long known as a disinfectant, has been recommended for disinfecting the hands since the late 1800s. Most alcohol-based hand antiseptics contain isopropanol, ethanol, N-propanol, or a combination of two of these products. The antimicrobial activity of alcohols can be attributed to their ability to denature and coagulate proteins, thereby lysing microorganisms’ cells, and disrupting their cellular metabolism. Alcohol solutions containing 60%-95% alcohol are the most effective. Notably, very high concentrations of alcohol are less potent because less water is found in higher concentrations of alcohol and proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers also often contain humectants, such as glycerin and/or aloe vera, to help prevent skin dryness and replace water content that is stripped by the use of alcohol on the skin surface.
Other topical disinfectants can also be used to inactivate coronaviruses from surfaces, including the skin. A recently published analysis of 22 studies found that human coronaviruses – such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus, or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) – can persist on inanimate surfaces such as metal, glass, or plastic for up to 9 days (COVID-19 was found in a study to persist on metal for up to 2-3 days), but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62%-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents, such as 0.05%-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate, are less effective.
In the case of SARS, treatment of SARS-CoV with povidone-iodine products for 2 minutes reduced virus infectivity to below the detectable level, equivalent to the effect of ethanol, in one study. Formalin fixation of the infected cells and heating the virus to 56° C, as used in routine tissue processing, were found to inactivate several coronaviruses as well. Based on this information, ethanol-based hand sanitizers, typically containing ethanol content of 60% or higher, can be used to inactivate coronaviruses on the skin, including COVID-19.
In patients with influenza-virus infections, whether pathogens were in wet or dried mucus played a role in whether hand washing or rubbing with hand sanitizer was more effective. In a study that examined the effects of hand washing versus antiseptic hand rubbing with an ethanol-based hand disinfectant on inactivation of influenza A virus adhered to the hands, the investigators showed that the effectiveness of the ethanol-based disinfectant against influenza A virus in mucus was reduced, compared with influenza A virus in saline. Influenza A in mucus remained active, despite 120 seconds of hand rubbing with hand sanitizer; however, influenza A in saline was completely inactivated within 30 seconds. Interestingly, rubbing hands with an ethanol-based disinfectant inactivated influenza A virus in mucus within 30 seconds with mucus that had dried completely because the hydrogel characteristics had been eliminated. Hand washing rapidly inactivated influenza A virus whether in mucus form, saline, or dried mucous.
It is important to note that in COVID-19 infections, a productive cough or rhinorrhea are not as common compared with dry cough. Regardless, the findings of the study described above should be considered if mucous symptoms develop during a COVID-19 infection when determining infection control. Luckily, with COVID-19, both hand washing and use of an ethanol-based hand sanitizer are seemingly effective in inactivating the virus or removing it from the skin surface.
After frequent hand washing, we all can experience dryness and potentially cracked skin as well. With hand sanitizer, the alcohol content can also cause burning of skin, especially compromised skin.
Vanilloid receptor-1 (VR1), a heat-gated ion channel, is responsible for the burning sensation caused by capsaicin. Ethanol lowers the amount of heat needed to turn on VR1 nocioceptive pain receptors by almost ten degrees, resulting in a potential burning sensation when applied.
Nails are affected as well with frequent hand washing and/or application of hand sanitizer and can become cracked or brittle. Contact dermatitis, both irritant and allergic, can occur with increased use of disinfectants, particularly household cleaners without proper barrier protection.
We’ve previously mentioned the effect of hand washing disrupting the resident skin microflora. Maintaining the skin microflora and barrier is an important component of skin health for preventing both dermatitis and infection. Hand washing or use of hand sanitizer is of paramount importance and effective in infection control for COVID-19. To maintain skin health and the skin barrier, applying lotion or cream after hand washing is recommended. It is recommended to avoid scrubbing hands while washing, since this causes breaks in the skin. Using water that is too hot is not recommended as it can inflame the skin further and disrupt the skin barrier.
Wearing gloves, if possible, is recommended when using household disinfectant products to further decrease skin irritation, barrier disruption, and risk of contact dermatitis. I have found hand emollients that contain ceramides or ingredients higher in omega 6 fatty acids, such as borage seed oil or other oils high in linoleic acid content, to be helpful. In addition to improving the skin barrier, emollients and perhaps those with topical pre- or probiotics, may help restore the skin microflora, potentially improving infection control further. Application of hand moisturizer each time after hand washing to maintain better infection control and barrier protection was also recommended by the recent consensus statement of Chinese experts on protection of skin and mucous membrane barrier for health care workers fighting against COVID-19.
We and our patients have remarked how it seems like our hands have aged 20-50 years in the previous 2 weeks. No one is complaining, everyone understands that protecting themselves and others against a potentially lethal virus is paramount. Maintaining skin health is of secondary concern, but maintaining healthy skin may also protect the skin barrier, another important component of potential infection control.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].
Resources
Lambers H et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Oct;28(5):359-70.
Bin Abdulrahman AK et al. BMC Public Health. 2019 Oct 22;19(1):1324. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-77.
Kariwa H et al. Dermatology. 2006;212 Suppl 1:119-23.
HIrose R et al. mSphere. 2019 Sep 18;4(5). pii: e00474-19. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00474-19.
Trevisani M et al. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):546-51.
Yan Y et al. Dermatol Ther. 2020 Mar 13:e13310. doi: 10.1111/dth.13310.
Cancer care and COVID-19 in Seattle, the first U.S. epicenter
Two months after the first patient with COVID-19 was identified in China, the first case was reported in the United States in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area.
Seattle rapidly became the first US epicenter for COVID-19, and local experts are now offering their expertise and advice on how to provide optimal cancer care during the pandemic in a special feature published online March 20 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
“We began implementing measures in early March, including infection control and screening of visitors, staff, and patients at the door,” said lead author Masumi Ueda, MD, who holds positions at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the University of Washington, and the Fred Hutchinson Research Center.
“A lot of changes have been implemented, and it changes on a daily basis. We are responding to the growing rate of COVID-19 infection in the community,” she told Medscape Medical News.
Ueda notes that as a result of the quick implementation of new procedures, so far, very few cancer patients at their facilities have been infected by the virus. “It has not hit our cancer population hard, which is a good thing,” she said.
Create “Incident Command Structure”
In sharing their experience, the authors emphasize the importance of keeping channels of communication open between all stakeholders ― administrators and staff, patients, caregivers, and the general public. They also recommend that each facility create an “incident command structure” that can provide early coordination of institution-wide efforts and that can rapidly respond to changing information.
Ueda noted that their command structure was set up very early on, “so we could get communication set up and start building an infrastructure for response.”
Several areas of care that required new strategies were addressed, both to protect patients and to work around staff shortages caused by possible exposure and/or school closings, as well as projected shortages of supplies and hospital resources.
First and foremost was to identify patients and visitors who had respiratory symptoms and to provide them with masks. Although this is always routine practice during the respiratory virus season, screening has now been initiated at entry points throughout the system.
“We were lucky in Seattle and Washington state in that the University of Washington virology lab developed PCR [polymerase chain reaction] testing early on for COVID-19, which subsequently got FDA approval,” said Ueda. “So we were able to have local testing and didn’t have to rely on the state lab. Testing has also been rapidly scaled up.”
Initiating a comprehensive policy for testing staff, tracking results and exposures for persons under investigation, and defining when it is possible to return to work are essential elements for maintaining a stable workforce. In addition, reinforcing a strict “stay at home when ill” policy and providing access to testing for symptomatic staff have been key to limiting exposures.
“What is unique to our region is that we had testing early on, and we are turning it around in 24 hours,” she pointed out. “This is important for staff to be able to return to work.” Currently, staff, patients, and visitors are being tested only if they show the cardinal symptoms associated with COVID-19: fever, shortness of breath, and cough, although muscle aches have recently been added to their testing protocol.
“I think if we had unlimited capacity, we might consider testing people who are asymptomatic,” Ueda noted, “although if you don’t have symptoms, you may not have the viral load needed for an accurate test.”
Educational materials explaining infection control were also needed for patients and families, along with signs and a website to provide COVID-19 education. These were quickly developed.
In addition, a telephone triage line was established for patients with mild symptoms in order to minimize exposures in clinics and to lessen the number of patients presenting at emergency departments.
Outpatient Care
Because theirs is a referral center, many cancer patients come from out of town, and so there is concern about exposing nonlocal patients to COVID-19 as the virus spreads in the Seattle area. In addition, staffing shortages due to factors such as illness, exposure, and school closures are anticipated.
To address these problems, an initial priority was to establish a “multilayer” coverage system for the clinics in the event that practitioners had to be quarantined on short notice, the authors explain.
One decision was to reschedule all wellness visits for current patients or to use telemedicine. Capacity for that option expanded quickly, which was greatly helped by the recent decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to lift Medicare restrictions on the use of certain telemedicine services.
Another approach is to defer all consultations for second opinions for patients who were already undergoing treatment and to increase clinic hours of operations and capabilities for acute evaluations. This helps reserve emergency departments and hospital resources for patients who require higher-level care, the authors comment.
Treatment Decisions
Treatment decisions were more challenging to make, the authors note. One decision was that, despite the risk for COVID-19 for patients with solid tumors, adjuvant therapy with curative intent should proceed, they note. Similarly, patients with metastatic disease might lose the window of opportunity for treatment if it is delayed.
Treatment for aggressive hematologic malignancies is usually urgent, and stem cell transplant and cellular immunotherapies that provide curative treatments cannot be delayed in many cases.
Enrollment in clinical trials will most likely be limited to those trials that are most likely to benefit the patient.
Ueda noted that, because their patients come from all over the country, they are now conducting consultations for stem cell transplant by telephone so that nonlocal patients do not have to travel to Seattle. “If there is some way we can delay the treatment, we have taken that approach,” Ueda told Medscape Medical News. “If we can divert a patient to an area that is not as heavily affected, that’s another option we are taking.”
Although cancer surgery is not considered elective, surgical intervention needs to be prioritized, the authors comment. In the Seattle system, there is currently a 2-week ban on elective surgery in the healthcare system, owing to limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing, and beds.
The oncology teams are currently reviewing treatment regimens to determine which treatments might lessen immunosuppression and which treatment options can be moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting or can be delayed.
Inpatient Care
For hospitalized patients, several issues are being addressed. The priority is to prepare for an upcoming shortage of beds and resources because of the surge of patients with COVID-19 that is predicted. For both clinic and hospitalized patients, shortages of blood products have necessitated stricter adherence to thresholds for transfusion, and consideration is being given to lowering those thresholds.
Another important problem is the need to conserve PPE, which includes masks, gowns, gloves, and other products. The Seattle teams have implemented solutions such as favoring handwashing with soap and water over the use of hand gel for standard-precaution rooms, limiting the number of personnel entering patient rooms (so as to use less PPE), and reducing nursing procedures that require PPE, such as measuring urine output, unless they are necessary.
In addition, a no-visitor policy has been adopted in inpatient units to conserve PPE, with the exception of end-of-life situations.
The Future
The future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, Ueda commented. She emphasized that “we must continue to prepare for its widespread impact. The unknown is what we are looking at. We are expecting it to evolve, and the number of infections cannot go down.”
Ueda and coauthors end their article on a positive note. “To many of us, this has become the health care challenge of our generation, one that modern cancer therapy has never had to face. We will prevail, and when the pandemic ends, we will all be proud of what we did for our patients and each other in this critical moment for humanity.”
Two months after the first patient with COVID-19 was identified in China, the first case was reported in the United States in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area.
Seattle rapidly became the first US epicenter for COVID-19, and local experts are now offering their expertise and advice on how to provide optimal cancer care during the pandemic in a special feature published online March 20 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
“We began implementing measures in early March, including infection control and screening of visitors, staff, and patients at the door,” said lead author Masumi Ueda, MD, who holds positions at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the University of Washington, and the Fred Hutchinson Research Center.
“A lot of changes have been implemented, and it changes on a daily basis. We are responding to the growing rate of COVID-19 infection in the community,” she told Medscape Medical News.
Ueda notes that as a result of the quick implementation of new procedures, so far, very few cancer patients at their facilities have been infected by the virus. “It has not hit our cancer population hard, which is a good thing,” she said.
Create “Incident Command Structure”
In sharing their experience, the authors emphasize the importance of keeping channels of communication open between all stakeholders ― administrators and staff, patients, caregivers, and the general public. They also recommend that each facility create an “incident command structure” that can provide early coordination of institution-wide efforts and that can rapidly respond to changing information.
Ueda noted that their command structure was set up very early on, “so we could get communication set up and start building an infrastructure for response.”
Several areas of care that required new strategies were addressed, both to protect patients and to work around staff shortages caused by possible exposure and/or school closings, as well as projected shortages of supplies and hospital resources.
First and foremost was to identify patients and visitors who had respiratory symptoms and to provide them with masks. Although this is always routine practice during the respiratory virus season, screening has now been initiated at entry points throughout the system.
“We were lucky in Seattle and Washington state in that the University of Washington virology lab developed PCR [polymerase chain reaction] testing early on for COVID-19, which subsequently got FDA approval,” said Ueda. “So we were able to have local testing and didn’t have to rely on the state lab. Testing has also been rapidly scaled up.”
Initiating a comprehensive policy for testing staff, tracking results and exposures for persons under investigation, and defining when it is possible to return to work are essential elements for maintaining a stable workforce. In addition, reinforcing a strict “stay at home when ill” policy and providing access to testing for symptomatic staff have been key to limiting exposures.
“What is unique to our region is that we had testing early on, and we are turning it around in 24 hours,” she pointed out. “This is important for staff to be able to return to work.” Currently, staff, patients, and visitors are being tested only if they show the cardinal symptoms associated with COVID-19: fever, shortness of breath, and cough, although muscle aches have recently been added to their testing protocol.
“I think if we had unlimited capacity, we might consider testing people who are asymptomatic,” Ueda noted, “although if you don’t have symptoms, you may not have the viral load needed for an accurate test.”
Educational materials explaining infection control were also needed for patients and families, along with signs and a website to provide COVID-19 education. These were quickly developed.
In addition, a telephone triage line was established for patients with mild symptoms in order to minimize exposures in clinics and to lessen the number of patients presenting at emergency departments.
Outpatient Care
Because theirs is a referral center, many cancer patients come from out of town, and so there is concern about exposing nonlocal patients to COVID-19 as the virus spreads in the Seattle area. In addition, staffing shortages due to factors such as illness, exposure, and school closures are anticipated.
To address these problems, an initial priority was to establish a “multilayer” coverage system for the clinics in the event that practitioners had to be quarantined on short notice, the authors explain.
One decision was to reschedule all wellness visits for current patients or to use telemedicine. Capacity for that option expanded quickly, which was greatly helped by the recent decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to lift Medicare restrictions on the use of certain telemedicine services.
Another approach is to defer all consultations for second opinions for patients who were already undergoing treatment and to increase clinic hours of operations and capabilities for acute evaluations. This helps reserve emergency departments and hospital resources for patients who require higher-level care, the authors comment.
Treatment Decisions
Treatment decisions were more challenging to make, the authors note. One decision was that, despite the risk for COVID-19 for patients with solid tumors, adjuvant therapy with curative intent should proceed, they note. Similarly, patients with metastatic disease might lose the window of opportunity for treatment if it is delayed.
Treatment for aggressive hematologic malignancies is usually urgent, and stem cell transplant and cellular immunotherapies that provide curative treatments cannot be delayed in many cases.
Enrollment in clinical trials will most likely be limited to those trials that are most likely to benefit the patient.
Ueda noted that, because their patients come from all over the country, they are now conducting consultations for stem cell transplant by telephone so that nonlocal patients do not have to travel to Seattle. “If there is some way we can delay the treatment, we have taken that approach,” Ueda told Medscape Medical News. “If we can divert a patient to an area that is not as heavily affected, that’s another option we are taking.”
Although cancer surgery is not considered elective, surgical intervention needs to be prioritized, the authors comment. In the Seattle system, there is currently a 2-week ban on elective surgery in the healthcare system, owing to limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing, and beds.
The oncology teams are currently reviewing treatment regimens to determine which treatments might lessen immunosuppression and which treatment options can be moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting or can be delayed.
Inpatient Care
For hospitalized patients, several issues are being addressed. The priority is to prepare for an upcoming shortage of beds and resources because of the surge of patients with COVID-19 that is predicted. For both clinic and hospitalized patients, shortages of blood products have necessitated stricter adherence to thresholds for transfusion, and consideration is being given to lowering those thresholds.
Another important problem is the need to conserve PPE, which includes masks, gowns, gloves, and other products. The Seattle teams have implemented solutions such as favoring handwashing with soap and water over the use of hand gel for standard-precaution rooms, limiting the number of personnel entering patient rooms (so as to use less PPE), and reducing nursing procedures that require PPE, such as measuring urine output, unless they are necessary.
In addition, a no-visitor policy has been adopted in inpatient units to conserve PPE, with the exception of end-of-life situations.
The Future
The future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, Ueda commented. She emphasized that “we must continue to prepare for its widespread impact. The unknown is what we are looking at. We are expecting it to evolve, and the number of infections cannot go down.”
Ueda and coauthors end their article on a positive note. “To many of us, this has become the health care challenge of our generation, one that modern cancer therapy has never had to face. We will prevail, and when the pandemic ends, we will all be proud of what we did for our patients and each other in this critical moment for humanity.”
Two months after the first patient with COVID-19 was identified in China, the first case was reported in the United States in the Seattle, Washington, metropolitan area.
Seattle rapidly became the first US epicenter for COVID-19, and local experts are now offering their expertise and advice on how to provide optimal cancer care during the pandemic in a special feature published online March 20 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
“We began implementing measures in early March, including infection control and screening of visitors, staff, and patients at the door,” said lead author Masumi Ueda, MD, who holds positions at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the University of Washington, and the Fred Hutchinson Research Center.
“A lot of changes have been implemented, and it changes on a daily basis. We are responding to the growing rate of COVID-19 infection in the community,” she told Medscape Medical News.
Ueda notes that as a result of the quick implementation of new procedures, so far, very few cancer patients at their facilities have been infected by the virus. “It has not hit our cancer population hard, which is a good thing,” she said.
Create “Incident Command Structure”
In sharing their experience, the authors emphasize the importance of keeping channels of communication open between all stakeholders ― administrators and staff, patients, caregivers, and the general public. They also recommend that each facility create an “incident command structure” that can provide early coordination of institution-wide efforts and that can rapidly respond to changing information.
Ueda noted that their command structure was set up very early on, “so we could get communication set up and start building an infrastructure for response.”
Several areas of care that required new strategies were addressed, both to protect patients and to work around staff shortages caused by possible exposure and/or school closings, as well as projected shortages of supplies and hospital resources.
First and foremost was to identify patients and visitors who had respiratory symptoms and to provide them with masks. Although this is always routine practice during the respiratory virus season, screening has now been initiated at entry points throughout the system.
“We were lucky in Seattle and Washington state in that the University of Washington virology lab developed PCR [polymerase chain reaction] testing early on for COVID-19, which subsequently got FDA approval,” said Ueda. “So we were able to have local testing and didn’t have to rely on the state lab. Testing has also been rapidly scaled up.”
Initiating a comprehensive policy for testing staff, tracking results and exposures for persons under investigation, and defining when it is possible to return to work are essential elements for maintaining a stable workforce. In addition, reinforcing a strict “stay at home when ill” policy and providing access to testing for symptomatic staff have been key to limiting exposures.
“What is unique to our region is that we had testing early on, and we are turning it around in 24 hours,” she pointed out. “This is important for staff to be able to return to work.” Currently, staff, patients, and visitors are being tested only if they show the cardinal symptoms associated with COVID-19: fever, shortness of breath, and cough, although muscle aches have recently been added to their testing protocol.
“I think if we had unlimited capacity, we might consider testing people who are asymptomatic,” Ueda noted, “although if you don’t have symptoms, you may not have the viral load needed for an accurate test.”
Educational materials explaining infection control were also needed for patients and families, along with signs and a website to provide COVID-19 education. These were quickly developed.
In addition, a telephone triage line was established for patients with mild symptoms in order to minimize exposures in clinics and to lessen the number of patients presenting at emergency departments.
Outpatient Care
Because theirs is a referral center, many cancer patients come from out of town, and so there is concern about exposing nonlocal patients to COVID-19 as the virus spreads in the Seattle area. In addition, staffing shortages due to factors such as illness, exposure, and school closures are anticipated.
To address these problems, an initial priority was to establish a “multilayer” coverage system for the clinics in the event that practitioners had to be quarantined on short notice, the authors explain.
One decision was to reschedule all wellness visits for current patients or to use telemedicine. Capacity for that option expanded quickly, which was greatly helped by the recent decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to lift Medicare restrictions on the use of certain telemedicine services.
Another approach is to defer all consultations for second opinions for patients who were already undergoing treatment and to increase clinic hours of operations and capabilities for acute evaluations. This helps reserve emergency departments and hospital resources for patients who require higher-level care, the authors comment.
Treatment Decisions
Treatment decisions were more challenging to make, the authors note. One decision was that, despite the risk for COVID-19 for patients with solid tumors, adjuvant therapy with curative intent should proceed, they note. Similarly, patients with metastatic disease might lose the window of opportunity for treatment if it is delayed.
Treatment for aggressive hematologic malignancies is usually urgent, and stem cell transplant and cellular immunotherapies that provide curative treatments cannot be delayed in many cases.
Enrollment in clinical trials will most likely be limited to those trials that are most likely to benefit the patient.
Ueda noted that, because their patients come from all over the country, they are now conducting consultations for stem cell transplant by telephone so that nonlocal patients do not have to travel to Seattle. “If there is some way we can delay the treatment, we have taken that approach,” Ueda told Medscape Medical News. “If we can divert a patient to an area that is not as heavily affected, that’s another option we are taking.”
Although cancer surgery is not considered elective, surgical intervention needs to be prioritized, the authors comment. In the Seattle system, there is currently a 2-week ban on elective surgery in the healthcare system, owing to limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), staffing, and beds.
The oncology teams are currently reviewing treatment regimens to determine which treatments might lessen immunosuppression and which treatment options can be moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting or can be delayed.
Inpatient Care
For hospitalized patients, several issues are being addressed. The priority is to prepare for an upcoming shortage of beds and resources because of the surge of patients with COVID-19 that is predicted. For both clinic and hospitalized patients, shortages of blood products have necessitated stricter adherence to thresholds for transfusion, and consideration is being given to lowering those thresholds.
Another important problem is the need to conserve PPE, which includes masks, gowns, gloves, and other products. The Seattle teams have implemented solutions such as favoring handwashing with soap and water over the use of hand gel for standard-precaution rooms, limiting the number of personnel entering patient rooms (so as to use less PPE), and reducing nursing procedures that require PPE, such as measuring urine output, unless they are necessary.
In addition, a no-visitor policy has been adopted in inpatient units to conserve PPE, with the exception of end-of-life situations.
The Future
The future trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, Ueda commented. She emphasized that “we must continue to prepare for its widespread impact. The unknown is what we are looking at. We are expecting it to evolve, and the number of infections cannot go down.”
Ueda and coauthors end their article on a positive note. “To many of us, this has become the health care challenge of our generation, one that modern cancer therapy has never had to face. We will prevail, and when the pandemic ends, we will all be proud of what we did for our patients and each other in this critical moment for humanity.”
7 tips for running your practice in the coronavirus crisis
At one large practice in Bergen County, New Jersey, the waiting room is empty — but its patients are still receiving care. As of mid-March, the practice is still operating, thanks to the group’s willingness to adapt its work flow, sometimes radically, to mitigate the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For example, patients now call the receptionist from their vehicles when they arrive, and wait there until receiving a call back telling them the clinician is ready. The practice has also started using telemedicine for the first time, to the extent it can be adopted in a hurry, and some clinicians are working from home on tasks such as medication refills.
Still, the rapidly increasing numbers of COVID-19 cases in the United States raises the possibility that some physician offices will decide or be forced to close temporarily, as occurred in London last month.
Many practices across the country are having to adjust the way they operate, amid daily changes in the pandemic. What should you do to adapt to this new way of operating your practice?
1. Create a task force to manage change
The readiness of medical practices to address the myriad challenges posed by this crisis has so far been a mixed bag, said Owen Dahl, MBA, a Texas-based medical practice management consultant. “Leadership is going to have to assess what’s happening in the community, what’s happening with staff members who may or may not have the disease and may or may not have to self-quarantine,” Dahl said.
The physicians, the administrator, CEO, or managing partner should be involved in decision making as the global crisis unfolds, added Laurie Morgan, MBA, a California-based practice management consultant. And depending on the size of the practice, it may be useful to delegate specific components of this work to various department managers or other individuals in the group.
The team should assess:
- Recommendations and/or mandates from local, state, and federal governments
- Guidance from specialty and state medical societies
- How to triage patients over the phone, virtual visits, or referral to an alternate site of care
- Where to send patients for testing
- The practice’s inventory of personal protective equipment (PPE)
- Review of and possible revision of current infection control policies
- Possible collaborations within the community
- Reimbursement policies for suspected COVID-19 triage, testing, and follow-up treatment — in office or virtually
- Whether some employees’ work (eg, billing, coding) can be done remotely
- Options for paying personnel in the case of a temporary shutdown
- What’s covered and excluded by the group’s business interruption insurance
2. Consider postponing nonessential appointments
What’s more, it’s crucial for practices to form a strategy that does not involve bringing patients into the office, said Javeed Siddiqui, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician, epidemiologist, and chief medical officer of TeleMed2U. “One thing we really have to recognize in this pandemic is that we don’t want people going and sitting in our waiting room. We don’t want people coming, and not only exposing other patients, but also further exposing staff. Forward triaging is going to be essential in this type of pandemic.”
Reliant Medical Group, with multiple locations in Massachusetts, for example, announced to patients recently that it will postpone appointments for some routine and elective procedures, as determined by the group’s physicians and clinical staff.
“Taking this step will help limit the number of people passing through our facilities, which will help slow the spread of illness [as recommended by the CDC],” noted an email blast to patients.
3. Overcommunicate to patients
With a situation as dynamic and unprecedented as this, constant and clear communication with patients is crucial. “In general, in my experience, practices don’t realize how much communication is necessary,” said Morgan. “In order to be effective and get the word out, you have to be overcommunicating.”
Today’s practices have multiple ways to communicate to keep people informed, including email, text messaging, social media, patient portals, and even local television and radio.
One email or text message to the patient population can help direct them to the appropriate streams of information. Helping direct patients to updated information is critical.
In contrast, having the front desk field multitudes of calls from concerned patients ties up precious resources, according Siddiqui. “Right now, practices are absolutely inundated, patients are waiting on hold, and that creates a great deal of frustration,” he said.
“We really need to take a page from every other industry in the United States, and that is using secure SMS, email communication, and telehealth,” Siddiqui said. “Healthcare generally tends to be a laggard in this because so many people think, ‘Well, you can’t do that in healthcare,’ as opposed to thinking, ‘How can we do that in healthcare?’”
4. Take advantage of telemedicine
Fortunately, technology to interact with patients remotely is almost ubiquitous. Even for practices with little experience in this arena, various vendors exist that can get secure, HIPAA-compliant technologies up and running quickly.
Various payers have issued guidance regarding reimbursement for telemedicine specific to COVID-19, and on March 6, Congress passed a law regarding Medicare coverage and payment for virtual services during a government-declared state of emergency. Some of the rules about HIPAA compliance in telemedicine have been eased for this emergency.
But even with well-established telemedicine modalities in place, it’s crunch time for applying it to COVID-19. “You need to find a way to have telemedicine available and use it, because depending on how this goes, that’s going to be clearly the safest, best way to care for a huge number of people,” said Darryl Elmouchi, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Spectrum Health System and president of Spectrum Health Medical Group in Michigan.
“What we recognize now, both with our past experience with telehealth for many years and specifically with this coronavirus testing we’ve done, is that it’s incredibly useful both for the clinicians and the patients,” Elmouchi said.
One possibility to consider is the tactic used by Spectrum, a large integrated healthcare system. The company mobilized its existing telemedicine program to offer free virtual screenings for anyone in Michigan showing possible symptoms of COVID-19. “We wanted to keep people out of our clinics, emergency rooms, and urgent care centers if they didn’t need to be there, and help allay fears,” he said.
Elmouchi said his company faced the problems that other physicians would also have to deal with. “It was a ton of work with a dedicated team that was focused on this. The hardest part was probably trying to determine how we can staff it,” he said.
With their dedicated virtual team still seeing regularly scheduled virtual patients, the system had to reassign its traditional teams, such as urgent care and primary care clinicians, to the virtual screening effort. “Then we had to figure out how we could operationalize it. It was a lot of work,” Elmouchi said.
Telemedicine capabilities are not limited to screening patients, but can also be used to stay in touch with patients who may be quarantined and provide follow-up care, he noted.
5. Identify COVID-19 testing sites
Access to tests remains a problem in the US, but is improving by the week. For practices that can attain the tests themselves, it will still require some creativity to administer them with as little risk as possible. In South Korea, for example, and increasingly in the United States, healthcare organizations are instructing patients waiting to be tested to stay in their cars and have a practitioner wearing the proper PPE go out to patients to test them there.
Alternatively, some practices may opt to have PPE-wearing staff members bring PPE to patients in their cars and then escort them to a designated testing area in the building —through the back door if noninfected patients are still being seen.
“Once in the office, you still need to isolate virus patients in any way you can,” Dahl said. “In fact, you want a negative-pressure environment if possible, with the air being sucked out rather than circulating,” he said, adding that a large restroom with a ventilation system could be repurposed as a makeshift exam room.
Community testing sites are another possibility, given proper coordination with other healthcare organizations and community officials. Siddiqui has been working with several communities in which individual clinics and hospitals are unable to handle testing on their own, and have instead collaborated to create community testing sites in tents on local athletic fields.
“One of our communities is looking at using the local college parking lot to do drive-through testing there,” he said. “We really need to embrace collaboration much more than we’ve ever done.”
Collaboration also requires sharing supplies and PPE, noted Dahl. “Don’t hoard them because of the shortage. Look at your inventory and make sure you can help out whomever you may be sending patients to.” And if your office is falling short, Dahl advises checking with offices in your community that may be closing — such as dentists or plastic surgeons — for supplies you can purchase or simply have.
The US Food and Drug Administration has issued some guidance to healthcare providers about shortages of surgical masks and gowns, including advice about reusable cloth alternatives to gowns.
In addition, some hospitals have asked clinicians to keep their masks and provided guidance on how to conserve supplies.
6. Preparing to potentially shut down
A temporary closure may be inevitable for some practices. “Maybe the physician owners will not feel like they have a choice,” said Morgan. “They might feel like they want to stay open for as long as they can; but if it’s not safe for patients or not safe for employees, maybe they’ll feel it’s better if they check out for a bit.”
Should practices make the decision to close or reduce hours, multimodal communication with patients and the public is paramount. Patients will want to know whom to call if they are feeling ill for any reason, where to seek care, and when the practice expects to reopen. Again, proactive outreach will be more efficient and comforting to patients.
Handling financial ramifications of closure is a top priority as well, and will require a full understanding of what is and isn’t covered by the practice’s business interruption insurance. Practices that don’t have a line of credit should reach out to banks and the Small Business Administration immediately, according to Dahl. Practices that have lines of credit already may want to ask for an increase, added Morgan.
Protecting employees’ income is challenging as well. For employees who are furloughed, consider allowing them to use their sick and vacation time during the shutdown — and possibly let staff ‘borrow’ not-yet accrued paid time off.
“However, there’s a risk with certain jobs in a medical practice that tend to have extremely high turnover, so physicians and administrators may be reluctant to pay people too much because they don’t know for sure those employees will come back to those jobs,” Morgan said. “On the other hand, if you have had a stable team for a very long time and feel confident that those employees are going to stay, then you may make a different decision.”
7. Seize work-from-home opportunities
Even if the practice isn’t seeing patients, there may be opportunities for some employees, such as billers and schedulers, to continue to work from home,” Morgan noted. Particularly if a practice is behind on its billing, a closure or slowdown is an ideal time to catch up. This measure will keep at least some people working — perhaps including some individuals who can be cross-trained to do other tasks — and maintain some cashflow when the practice needs it most.
Other remote-friendly jobs that often fall by the wayside when practices are busy include marketing tasks such as setting up or updating Google business pages, Healthgrades profiles, and so on, noted Morgan.
“Another thing that can be even more important, and is often overlooked, is making sure health plan directories have correct information about your practice,” she added. “These are pesky, often tedious tasks that may require repeated contact with health plans to fix things — perfect things to do when the office is not busy or closed.”
For administrators and billers, if the practice is able to keep paying these employees while partially or fully closed, it can also be an excellent time to do the sort of analysis that takes a lot of focused attention and is hard to do when busy. Some examples: a detailed comparison of payer performance, analysis of referral patterns, or a review of coding accuracy, Morgan suggested.
Although practices have varying levels of comfort in letting employees work from home, it’s not much different from working with external billing or scheduling services that have grown more popular in recent years, Morgan said.
As with many technologies, HIPAA is a leading concern, though it needn’t be, according to Morgan. “If you are on a cloud-based electronic medical record and practice management system, there’s a good chance that it’s very straightforward to set someone up to work from elsewhere and have that data be secure,” she said.
Finally, as the crisis begins to abate, practices must keep working in teams to evaluate and structure an orderly return to business as usual, gleaning best practices from colleagues whenever possible.
“I would tell practices this is not a time when anyone is competing with anyone,” said Elmouchi. “The more collaboration between practices and health systems that have larger resources, the better.”
This article was originally published on Medscape.com.
At one large practice in Bergen County, New Jersey, the waiting room is empty — but its patients are still receiving care. As of mid-March, the practice is still operating, thanks to the group’s willingness to adapt its work flow, sometimes radically, to mitigate the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For example, patients now call the receptionist from their vehicles when they arrive, and wait there until receiving a call back telling them the clinician is ready. The practice has also started using telemedicine for the first time, to the extent it can be adopted in a hurry, and some clinicians are working from home on tasks such as medication refills.
Still, the rapidly increasing numbers of COVID-19 cases in the United States raises the possibility that some physician offices will decide or be forced to close temporarily, as occurred in London last month.
Many practices across the country are having to adjust the way they operate, amid daily changes in the pandemic. What should you do to adapt to this new way of operating your practice?
1. Create a task force to manage change
The readiness of medical practices to address the myriad challenges posed by this crisis has so far been a mixed bag, said Owen Dahl, MBA, a Texas-based medical practice management consultant. “Leadership is going to have to assess what’s happening in the community, what’s happening with staff members who may or may not have the disease and may or may not have to self-quarantine,” Dahl said.
The physicians, the administrator, CEO, or managing partner should be involved in decision making as the global crisis unfolds, added Laurie Morgan, MBA, a California-based practice management consultant. And depending on the size of the practice, it may be useful to delegate specific components of this work to various department managers or other individuals in the group.
The team should assess:
- Recommendations and/or mandates from local, state, and federal governments
- Guidance from specialty and state medical societies
- How to triage patients over the phone, virtual visits, or referral to an alternate site of care
- Where to send patients for testing
- The practice’s inventory of personal protective equipment (PPE)
- Review of and possible revision of current infection control policies
- Possible collaborations within the community
- Reimbursement policies for suspected COVID-19 triage, testing, and follow-up treatment — in office or virtually
- Whether some employees’ work (eg, billing, coding) can be done remotely
- Options for paying personnel in the case of a temporary shutdown
- What’s covered and excluded by the group’s business interruption insurance
2. Consider postponing nonessential appointments
What’s more, it’s crucial for practices to form a strategy that does not involve bringing patients into the office, said Javeed Siddiqui, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician, epidemiologist, and chief medical officer of TeleMed2U. “One thing we really have to recognize in this pandemic is that we don’t want people going and sitting in our waiting room. We don’t want people coming, and not only exposing other patients, but also further exposing staff. Forward triaging is going to be essential in this type of pandemic.”
Reliant Medical Group, with multiple locations in Massachusetts, for example, announced to patients recently that it will postpone appointments for some routine and elective procedures, as determined by the group’s physicians and clinical staff.
“Taking this step will help limit the number of people passing through our facilities, which will help slow the spread of illness [as recommended by the CDC],” noted an email blast to patients.
3. Overcommunicate to patients
With a situation as dynamic and unprecedented as this, constant and clear communication with patients is crucial. “In general, in my experience, practices don’t realize how much communication is necessary,” said Morgan. “In order to be effective and get the word out, you have to be overcommunicating.”
Today’s practices have multiple ways to communicate to keep people informed, including email, text messaging, social media, patient portals, and even local television and radio.
One email or text message to the patient population can help direct them to the appropriate streams of information. Helping direct patients to updated information is critical.
In contrast, having the front desk field multitudes of calls from concerned patients ties up precious resources, according Siddiqui. “Right now, practices are absolutely inundated, patients are waiting on hold, and that creates a great deal of frustration,” he said.
“We really need to take a page from every other industry in the United States, and that is using secure SMS, email communication, and telehealth,” Siddiqui said. “Healthcare generally tends to be a laggard in this because so many people think, ‘Well, you can’t do that in healthcare,’ as opposed to thinking, ‘How can we do that in healthcare?’”
4. Take advantage of telemedicine
Fortunately, technology to interact with patients remotely is almost ubiquitous. Even for practices with little experience in this arena, various vendors exist that can get secure, HIPAA-compliant technologies up and running quickly.
Various payers have issued guidance regarding reimbursement for telemedicine specific to COVID-19, and on March 6, Congress passed a law regarding Medicare coverage and payment for virtual services during a government-declared state of emergency. Some of the rules about HIPAA compliance in telemedicine have been eased for this emergency.
But even with well-established telemedicine modalities in place, it’s crunch time for applying it to COVID-19. “You need to find a way to have telemedicine available and use it, because depending on how this goes, that’s going to be clearly the safest, best way to care for a huge number of people,” said Darryl Elmouchi, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Spectrum Health System and president of Spectrum Health Medical Group in Michigan.
“What we recognize now, both with our past experience with telehealth for many years and specifically with this coronavirus testing we’ve done, is that it’s incredibly useful both for the clinicians and the patients,” Elmouchi said.
One possibility to consider is the tactic used by Spectrum, a large integrated healthcare system. The company mobilized its existing telemedicine program to offer free virtual screenings for anyone in Michigan showing possible symptoms of COVID-19. “We wanted to keep people out of our clinics, emergency rooms, and urgent care centers if they didn’t need to be there, and help allay fears,” he said.
Elmouchi said his company faced the problems that other physicians would also have to deal with. “It was a ton of work with a dedicated team that was focused on this. The hardest part was probably trying to determine how we can staff it,” he said.
With their dedicated virtual team still seeing regularly scheduled virtual patients, the system had to reassign its traditional teams, such as urgent care and primary care clinicians, to the virtual screening effort. “Then we had to figure out how we could operationalize it. It was a lot of work,” Elmouchi said.
Telemedicine capabilities are not limited to screening patients, but can also be used to stay in touch with patients who may be quarantined and provide follow-up care, he noted.
5. Identify COVID-19 testing sites
Access to tests remains a problem in the US, but is improving by the week. For practices that can attain the tests themselves, it will still require some creativity to administer them with as little risk as possible. In South Korea, for example, and increasingly in the United States, healthcare organizations are instructing patients waiting to be tested to stay in their cars and have a practitioner wearing the proper PPE go out to patients to test them there.
Alternatively, some practices may opt to have PPE-wearing staff members bring PPE to patients in their cars and then escort them to a designated testing area in the building —through the back door if noninfected patients are still being seen.
“Once in the office, you still need to isolate virus patients in any way you can,” Dahl said. “In fact, you want a negative-pressure environment if possible, with the air being sucked out rather than circulating,” he said, adding that a large restroom with a ventilation system could be repurposed as a makeshift exam room.
Community testing sites are another possibility, given proper coordination with other healthcare organizations and community officials. Siddiqui has been working with several communities in which individual clinics and hospitals are unable to handle testing on their own, and have instead collaborated to create community testing sites in tents on local athletic fields.
“One of our communities is looking at using the local college parking lot to do drive-through testing there,” he said. “We really need to embrace collaboration much more than we’ve ever done.”
Collaboration also requires sharing supplies and PPE, noted Dahl. “Don’t hoard them because of the shortage. Look at your inventory and make sure you can help out whomever you may be sending patients to.” And if your office is falling short, Dahl advises checking with offices in your community that may be closing — such as dentists or plastic surgeons — for supplies you can purchase or simply have.
The US Food and Drug Administration has issued some guidance to healthcare providers about shortages of surgical masks and gowns, including advice about reusable cloth alternatives to gowns.
In addition, some hospitals have asked clinicians to keep their masks and provided guidance on how to conserve supplies.
6. Preparing to potentially shut down
A temporary closure may be inevitable for some practices. “Maybe the physician owners will not feel like they have a choice,” said Morgan. “They might feel like they want to stay open for as long as they can; but if it’s not safe for patients or not safe for employees, maybe they’ll feel it’s better if they check out for a bit.”
Should practices make the decision to close or reduce hours, multimodal communication with patients and the public is paramount. Patients will want to know whom to call if they are feeling ill for any reason, where to seek care, and when the practice expects to reopen. Again, proactive outreach will be more efficient and comforting to patients.
Handling financial ramifications of closure is a top priority as well, and will require a full understanding of what is and isn’t covered by the practice’s business interruption insurance. Practices that don’t have a line of credit should reach out to banks and the Small Business Administration immediately, according to Dahl. Practices that have lines of credit already may want to ask for an increase, added Morgan.
Protecting employees’ income is challenging as well. For employees who are furloughed, consider allowing them to use their sick and vacation time during the shutdown — and possibly let staff ‘borrow’ not-yet accrued paid time off.
“However, there’s a risk with certain jobs in a medical practice that tend to have extremely high turnover, so physicians and administrators may be reluctant to pay people too much because they don’t know for sure those employees will come back to those jobs,” Morgan said. “On the other hand, if you have had a stable team for a very long time and feel confident that those employees are going to stay, then you may make a different decision.”
7. Seize work-from-home opportunities
Even if the practice isn’t seeing patients, there may be opportunities for some employees, such as billers and schedulers, to continue to work from home,” Morgan noted. Particularly if a practice is behind on its billing, a closure or slowdown is an ideal time to catch up. This measure will keep at least some people working — perhaps including some individuals who can be cross-trained to do other tasks — and maintain some cashflow when the practice needs it most.
Other remote-friendly jobs that often fall by the wayside when practices are busy include marketing tasks such as setting up or updating Google business pages, Healthgrades profiles, and so on, noted Morgan.
“Another thing that can be even more important, and is often overlooked, is making sure health plan directories have correct information about your practice,” she added. “These are pesky, often tedious tasks that may require repeated contact with health plans to fix things — perfect things to do when the office is not busy or closed.”
For administrators and billers, if the practice is able to keep paying these employees while partially or fully closed, it can also be an excellent time to do the sort of analysis that takes a lot of focused attention and is hard to do when busy. Some examples: a detailed comparison of payer performance, analysis of referral patterns, or a review of coding accuracy, Morgan suggested.
Although practices have varying levels of comfort in letting employees work from home, it’s not much different from working with external billing or scheduling services that have grown more popular in recent years, Morgan said.
As with many technologies, HIPAA is a leading concern, though it needn’t be, according to Morgan. “If you are on a cloud-based electronic medical record and practice management system, there’s a good chance that it’s very straightforward to set someone up to work from elsewhere and have that data be secure,” she said.
Finally, as the crisis begins to abate, practices must keep working in teams to evaluate and structure an orderly return to business as usual, gleaning best practices from colleagues whenever possible.
“I would tell practices this is not a time when anyone is competing with anyone,” said Elmouchi. “The more collaboration between practices and health systems that have larger resources, the better.”
This article was originally published on Medscape.com.
At one large practice in Bergen County, New Jersey, the waiting room is empty — but its patients are still receiving care. As of mid-March, the practice is still operating, thanks to the group’s willingness to adapt its work flow, sometimes radically, to mitigate the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For example, patients now call the receptionist from their vehicles when they arrive, and wait there until receiving a call back telling them the clinician is ready. The practice has also started using telemedicine for the first time, to the extent it can be adopted in a hurry, and some clinicians are working from home on tasks such as medication refills.
Still, the rapidly increasing numbers of COVID-19 cases in the United States raises the possibility that some physician offices will decide or be forced to close temporarily, as occurred in London last month.
Many practices across the country are having to adjust the way they operate, amid daily changes in the pandemic. What should you do to adapt to this new way of operating your practice?
1. Create a task force to manage change
The readiness of medical practices to address the myriad challenges posed by this crisis has so far been a mixed bag, said Owen Dahl, MBA, a Texas-based medical practice management consultant. “Leadership is going to have to assess what’s happening in the community, what’s happening with staff members who may or may not have the disease and may or may not have to self-quarantine,” Dahl said.
The physicians, the administrator, CEO, or managing partner should be involved in decision making as the global crisis unfolds, added Laurie Morgan, MBA, a California-based practice management consultant. And depending on the size of the practice, it may be useful to delegate specific components of this work to various department managers or other individuals in the group.
The team should assess:
- Recommendations and/or mandates from local, state, and federal governments
- Guidance from specialty and state medical societies
- How to triage patients over the phone, virtual visits, or referral to an alternate site of care
- Where to send patients for testing
- The practice’s inventory of personal protective equipment (PPE)
- Review of and possible revision of current infection control policies
- Possible collaborations within the community
- Reimbursement policies for suspected COVID-19 triage, testing, and follow-up treatment — in office or virtually
- Whether some employees’ work (eg, billing, coding) can be done remotely
- Options for paying personnel in the case of a temporary shutdown
- What’s covered and excluded by the group’s business interruption insurance
2. Consider postponing nonessential appointments
What’s more, it’s crucial for practices to form a strategy that does not involve bringing patients into the office, said Javeed Siddiqui, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician, epidemiologist, and chief medical officer of TeleMed2U. “One thing we really have to recognize in this pandemic is that we don’t want people going and sitting in our waiting room. We don’t want people coming, and not only exposing other patients, but also further exposing staff. Forward triaging is going to be essential in this type of pandemic.”
Reliant Medical Group, with multiple locations in Massachusetts, for example, announced to patients recently that it will postpone appointments for some routine and elective procedures, as determined by the group’s physicians and clinical staff.
“Taking this step will help limit the number of people passing through our facilities, which will help slow the spread of illness [as recommended by the CDC],” noted an email blast to patients.
3. Overcommunicate to patients
With a situation as dynamic and unprecedented as this, constant and clear communication with patients is crucial. “In general, in my experience, practices don’t realize how much communication is necessary,” said Morgan. “In order to be effective and get the word out, you have to be overcommunicating.”
Today’s practices have multiple ways to communicate to keep people informed, including email, text messaging, social media, patient portals, and even local television and radio.
One email or text message to the patient population can help direct them to the appropriate streams of information. Helping direct patients to updated information is critical.
In contrast, having the front desk field multitudes of calls from concerned patients ties up precious resources, according Siddiqui. “Right now, practices are absolutely inundated, patients are waiting on hold, and that creates a great deal of frustration,” he said.
“We really need to take a page from every other industry in the United States, and that is using secure SMS, email communication, and telehealth,” Siddiqui said. “Healthcare generally tends to be a laggard in this because so many people think, ‘Well, you can’t do that in healthcare,’ as opposed to thinking, ‘How can we do that in healthcare?’”
4. Take advantage of telemedicine
Fortunately, technology to interact with patients remotely is almost ubiquitous. Even for practices with little experience in this arena, various vendors exist that can get secure, HIPAA-compliant technologies up and running quickly.
Various payers have issued guidance regarding reimbursement for telemedicine specific to COVID-19, and on March 6, Congress passed a law regarding Medicare coverage and payment for virtual services during a government-declared state of emergency. Some of the rules about HIPAA compliance in telemedicine have been eased for this emergency.
But even with well-established telemedicine modalities in place, it’s crunch time for applying it to COVID-19. “You need to find a way to have telemedicine available and use it, because depending on how this goes, that’s going to be clearly the safest, best way to care for a huge number of people,” said Darryl Elmouchi, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Spectrum Health System and president of Spectrum Health Medical Group in Michigan.
“What we recognize now, both with our past experience with telehealth for many years and specifically with this coronavirus testing we’ve done, is that it’s incredibly useful both for the clinicians and the patients,” Elmouchi said.
One possibility to consider is the tactic used by Spectrum, a large integrated healthcare system. The company mobilized its existing telemedicine program to offer free virtual screenings for anyone in Michigan showing possible symptoms of COVID-19. “We wanted to keep people out of our clinics, emergency rooms, and urgent care centers if they didn’t need to be there, and help allay fears,” he said.
Elmouchi said his company faced the problems that other physicians would also have to deal with. “It was a ton of work with a dedicated team that was focused on this. The hardest part was probably trying to determine how we can staff it,” he said.
With their dedicated virtual team still seeing regularly scheduled virtual patients, the system had to reassign its traditional teams, such as urgent care and primary care clinicians, to the virtual screening effort. “Then we had to figure out how we could operationalize it. It was a lot of work,” Elmouchi said.
Telemedicine capabilities are not limited to screening patients, but can also be used to stay in touch with patients who may be quarantined and provide follow-up care, he noted.
5. Identify COVID-19 testing sites
Access to tests remains a problem in the US, but is improving by the week. For practices that can attain the tests themselves, it will still require some creativity to administer them with as little risk as possible. In South Korea, for example, and increasingly in the United States, healthcare organizations are instructing patients waiting to be tested to stay in their cars and have a practitioner wearing the proper PPE go out to patients to test them there.
Alternatively, some practices may opt to have PPE-wearing staff members bring PPE to patients in their cars and then escort them to a designated testing area in the building —through the back door if noninfected patients are still being seen.
“Once in the office, you still need to isolate virus patients in any way you can,” Dahl said. “In fact, you want a negative-pressure environment if possible, with the air being sucked out rather than circulating,” he said, adding that a large restroom with a ventilation system could be repurposed as a makeshift exam room.
Community testing sites are another possibility, given proper coordination with other healthcare organizations and community officials. Siddiqui has been working with several communities in which individual clinics and hospitals are unable to handle testing on their own, and have instead collaborated to create community testing sites in tents on local athletic fields.
“One of our communities is looking at using the local college parking lot to do drive-through testing there,” he said. “We really need to embrace collaboration much more than we’ve ever done.”
Collaboration also requires sharing supplies and PPE, noted Dahl. “Don’t hoard them because of the shortage. Look at your inventory and make sure you can help out whomever you may be sending patients to.” And if your office is falling short, Dahl advises checking with offices in your community that may be closing — such as dentists or plastic surgeons — for supplies you can purchase or simply have.
The US Food and Drug Administration has issued some guidance to healthcare providers about shortages of surgical masks and gowns, including advice about reusable cloth alternatives to gowns.
In addition, some hospitals have asked clinicians to keep their masks and provided guidance on how to conserve supplies.
6. Preparing to potentially shut down
A temporary closure may be inevitable for some practices. “Maybe the physician owners will not feel like they have a choice,” said Morgan. “They might feel like they want to stay open for as long as they can; but if it’s not safe for patients or not safe for employees, maybe they’ll feel it’s better if they check out for a bit.”
Should practices make the decision to close or reduce hours, multimodal communication with patients and the public is paramount. Patients will want to know whom to call if they are feeling ill for any reason, where to seek care, and when the practice expects to reopen. Again, proactive outreach will be more efficient and comforting to patients.
Handling financial ramifications of closure is a top priority as well, and will require a full understanding of what is and isn’t covered by the practice’s business interruption insurance. Practices that don’t have a line of credit should reach out to banks and the Small Business Administration immediately, according to Dahl. Practices that have lines of credit already may want to ask for an increase, added Morgan.
Protecting employees’ income is challenging as well. For employees who are furloughed, consider allowing them to use their sick and vacation time during the shutdown — and possibly let staff ‘borrow’ not-yet accrued paid time off.
“However, there’s a risk with certain jobs in a medical practice that tend to have extremely high turnover, so physicians and administrators may be reluctant to pay people too much because they don’t know for sure those employees will come back to those jobs,” Morgan said. “On the other hand, if you have had a stable team for a very long time and feel confident that those employees are going to stay, then you may make a different decision.”
7. Seize work-from-home opportunities
Even if the practice isn’t seeing patients, there may be opportunities for some employees, such as billers and schedulers, to continue to work from home,” Morgan noted. Particularly if a practice is behind on its billing, a closure or slowdown is an ideal time to catch up. This measure will keep at least some people working — perhaps including some individuals who can be cross-trained to do other tasks — and maintain some cashflow when the practice needs it most.
Other remote-friendly jobs that often fall by the wayside when practices are busy include marketing tasks such as setting up or updating Google business pages, Healthgrades profiles, and so on, noted Morgan.
“Another thing that can be even more important, and is often overlooked, is making sure health plan directories have correct information about your practice,” she added. “These are pesky, often tedious tasks that may require repeated contact with health plans to fix things — perfect things to do when the office is not busy or closed.”
For administrators and billers, if the practice is able to keep paying these employees while partially or fully closed, it can also be an excellent time to do the sort of analysis that takes a lot of focused attention and is hard to do when busy. Some examples: a detailed comparison of payer performance, analysis of referral patterns, or a review of coding accuracy, Morgan suggested.
Although practices have varying levels of comfort in letting employees work from home, it’s not much different from working with external billing or scheduling services that have grown more popular in recent years, Morgan said.
As with many technologies, HIPAA is a leading concern, though it needn’t be, according to Morgan. “If you are on a cloud-based electronic medical record and practice management system, there’s a good chance that it’s very straightforward to set someone up to work from elsewhere and have that data be secure,” she said.
Finally, as the crisis begins to abate, practices must keep working in teams to evaluate and structure an orderly return to business as usual, gleaning best practices from colleagues whenever possible.
“I would tell practices this is not a time when anyone is competing with anyone,” said Elmouchi. “The more collaboration between practices and health systems that have larger resources, the better.”
This article was originally published on Medscape.com.