User login
Perfect storm of SARS-CoV-2 during flu season
COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.
Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.
Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.
Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?
The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?
Minimize double whammy infections. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.
Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.
One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.
Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days1 vs. 15-23 days2 for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.
Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.
1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.
a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.
2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.
3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.
a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.
b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?
i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?
c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?
d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.
e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?
f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?
Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
References
1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.
2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.
Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.
Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.
Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?
The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?
Minimize double whammy infections. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.
Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.
One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.
Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days1 vs. 15-23 days2 for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.
Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.
1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.
a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.
2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.
3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.
a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.
b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?
i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?
c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?
d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.
e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?
f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?
Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
References
1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.
2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.
Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.
Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.
Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?
The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?
Minimize double whammy infections. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.
Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.
One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.
Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days1 vs. 15-23 days2 for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.
Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.
1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.
a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.
2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.
3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.
a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.
b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?
i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?
c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?
d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.
e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?
f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?
Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at [email protected].
References
1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.
2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
Secondary infections common in COVID-19, implications unclear
but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.
“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.
“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.
“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”
That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.
Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.
“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.
Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.
“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.
“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.
“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.
“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”
That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.
Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.
“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.
Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.
“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.
“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.
“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.
“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”
That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.
Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.
“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.
Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.
“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
80% of US counties have no ID specialists
Nearly 80% of US counties have no infectious disease (ID) specialists, and 80% of counties in the top quartile of COVID-19 cases have no ID physicians or a below-average ratio of ID specialists to the population, according to a study published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Although the majority of these counties are rural, nearly two-thirds of Americans live in the 80% of counties that have a below-average ID specialist density or no access to ID physicians at all.
There are no data yet on the association between ID physician care and COVID-19 outcomes, the researchers note. “However, for many other infectious diseases, a robust evidence base supports the association between ID physician intervention and improved outcomes, including lower mortality, shorter length of stay, fewer readmissions, and lower total health care spending,” the authors explain.
The national average density of ID specialists was 1.76 ID physicians per 100,000 people in 2017. However, the authors say this distribution “was geographically skewed”: Of the 3142 US counties, 331 (10.5%) had above-average ID physician densities and 312 (9.9%) had below-average ID physician densities. Not a single ID physician practiced in the other 2499 counties.
A US map accompanying the study shows the distribution of ID specialists across the country. The areas with the most ID specialists were in the Northeast and Florida. Below-average densities of ID physicians were shown in the Southwest and on the West Coast. Large swathes of the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West had no ID specialists.
Among the 785 counties with the highest quartile of COVID-19 burden as of mid-May, 147 (18.7%) and 117 (14.9%) had above- and below-average ID physician densities, respectively. More than two-thirds (521) of these counties had no ID specialist coverage.
Although the literature does not indicate the “right” ratio of ID specialists to a population, the authors conclude, “our current distribution during pandemic times is probably far too sparse. The deficits in our ID physician workforce today have left us poorly prepared for the unprecedented demand ahead.”
The overall shortage of ID specialists is becoming more severe, the researchers note. In 2019 to 2020, ID fellowship programs had fewer than one applicant for every open position, on average. Thirty-eight percent of ID programs were unable to fill their training slots, and 19% could fill no slots at all.
This deficit of interest in the ID field continues a long-term trend. A 2019 Merritt Hawkins report found that between the 2009-2010 and 2016-2017 fellowship matches the number of adult ID programs filling all their positions dropped by 41% and the number of applicants decreased by 31%, according to Medscape Medical News.
The authors tie the decline of interest in the field to the compensation of ID specialists, which is lower than that of procedural specialists. Because their field focuses on cognitive skills, these highly trained physicians are paid about the same as primary care physicians.
Loan Repayment
Young physicians have an average of $200,000 in loans when they graduate from medical school, coauthor Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said in an interview. With the fellowship training required to become an infectious disease specialist, they fall even further in debt. In effect, they earn less than primary care doctors do, she said.
Consequently, any strategy to bolster the ID specialist workforce should include a government loan repayment program, Dr. Walensky explained, adding that perhaps the loan repayment could be tied to practicing in underserved areas where ID specialists are especially needed.
Telehealth is the key to stretching the resources of ID specialists for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, she said. “The way to expand [the specialty] in the short run is to reimburse for telehealth.”
Dr. Walensky is also concerned about the rollback of funding for infectious disease research. “I have a whole corps of researchers ... who are really worried about their research future,” she said. “These are Harvard scientists who don’t know if they’ll be funded. If they’re not, we could lose a whole generation of researchers, and where will we be 10-15 years from now?”
Dr. Walensky is Chief of the Infectious Diseases Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
Frontline Roles
On the front line of fighting COVID-19 today, ID specialists are also critical to the research required to create a vaccine and find new treatments, Dr. Walensky explained. They are knowledgeable about current drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and can set up protocols for clinical trials.
At Massachusetts General Hospital, she continued, she and her colleagues developed infectious disease control policies to keep patients and health workers safe; they also triage patients to determine which ones should be tested for COVID-19 and give advice to treating doctors when patients who appear to have COVID-19 test negative. In addition, ID specialists are skilled in the management of complex cases, such as COVID patients who have comorbidities.
“We’re not [gastrointestinal] docs or cardiology docs,” Dr. Walensky noted. “We don’t manage a single organ system. We’re trained to worry about the entire patient. Given that this disease manifests itself in so many different ways to so many different patients and affects many different organs that nobody was anticipating — that’s our sweet spot in terms of how we care for patients.”
Dr. Walensky reports grants from Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholar Award, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 80% of US counties have no infectious disease (ID) specialists, and 80% of counties in the top quartile of COVID-19 cases have no ID physicians or a below-average ratio of ID specialists to the population, according to a study published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Although the majority of these counties are rural, nearly two-thirds of Americans live in the 80% of counties that have a below-average ID specialist density or no access to ID physicians at all.
There are no data yet on the association between ID physician care and COVID-19 outcomes, the researchers note. “However, for many other infectious diseases, a robust evidence base supports the association between ID physician intervention and improved outcomes, including lower mortality, shorter length of stay, fewer readmissions, and lower total health care spending,” the authors explain.
The national average density of ID specialists was 1.76 ID physicians per 100,000 people in 2017. However, the authors say this distribution “was geographically skewed”: Of the 3142 US counties, 331 (10.5%) had above-average ID physician densities and 312 (9.9%) had below-average ID physician densities. Not a single ID physician practiced in the other 2499 counties.
A US map accompanying the study shows the distribution of ID specialists across the country. The areas with the most ID specialists were in the Northeast and Florida. Below-average densities of ID physicians were shown in the Southwest and on the West Coast. Large swathes of the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West had no ID specialists.
Among the 785 counties with the highest quartile of COVID-19 burden as of mid-May, 147 (18.7%) and 117 (14.9%) had above- and below-average ID physician densities, respectively. More than two-thirds (521) of these counties had no ID specialist coverage.
Although the literature does not indicate the “right” ratio of ID specialists to a population, the authors conclude, “our current distribution during pandemic times is probably far too sparse. The deficits in our ID physician workforce today have left us poorly prepared for the unprecedented demand ahead.”
The overall shortage of ID specialists is becoming more severe, the researchers note. In 2019 to 2020, ID fellowship programs had fewer than one applicant for every open position, on average. Thirty-eight percent of ID programs were unable to fill their training slots, and 19% could fill no slots at all.
This deficit of interest in the ID field continues a long-term trend. A 2019 Merritt Hawkins report found that between the 2009-2010 and 2016-2017 fellowship matches the number of adult ID programs filling all their positions dropped by 41% and the number of applicants decreased by 31%, according to Medscape Medical News.
The authors tie the decline of interest in the field to the compensation of ID specialists, which is lower than that of procedural specialists. Because their field focuses on cognitive skills, these highly trained physicians are paid about the same as primary care physicians.
Loan Repayment
Young physicians have an average of $200,000 in loans when they graduate from medical school, coauthor Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said in an interview. With the fellowship training required to become an infectious disease specialist, they fall even further in debt. In effect, they earn less than primary care doctors do, she said.
Consequently, any strategy to bolster the ID specialist workforce should include a government loan repayment program, Dr. Walensky explained, adding that perhaps the loan repayment could be tied to practicing in underserved areas where ID specialists are especially needed.
Telehealth is the key to stretching the resources of ID specialists for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, she said. “The way to expand [the specialty] in the short run is to reimburse for telehealth.”
Dr. Walensky is also concerned about the rollback of funding for infectious disease research. “I have a whole corps of researchers ... who are really worried about their research future,” she said. “These are Harvard scientists who don’t know if they’ll be funded. If they’re not, we could lose a whole generation of researchers, and where will we be 10-15 years from now?”
Dr. Walensky is Chief of the Infectious Diseases Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
Frontline Roles
On the front line of fighting COVID-19 today, ID specialists are also critical to the research required to create a vaccine and find new treatments, Dr. Walensky explained. They are knowledgeable about current drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and can set up protocols for clinical trials.
At Massachusetts General Hospital, she continued, she and her colleagues developed infectious disease control policies to keep patients and health workers safe; they also triage patients to determine which ones should be tested for COVID-19 and give advice to treating doctors when patients who appear to have COVID-19 test negative. In addition, ID specialists are skilled in the management of complex cases, such as COVID patients who have comorbidities.
“We’re not [gastrointestinal] docs or cardiology docs,” Dr. Walensky noted. “We don’t manage a single organ system. We’re trained to worry about the entire patient. Given that this disease manifests itself in so many different ways to so many different patients and affects many different organs that nobody was anticipating — that’s our sweet spot in terms of how we care for patients.”
Dr. Walensky reports grants from Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholar Award, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 80% of US counties have no infectious disease (ID) specialists, and 80% of counties in the top quartile of COVID-19 cases have no ID physicians or a below-average ratio of ID specialists to the population, according to a study published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Although the majority of these counties are rural, nearly two-thirds of Americans live in the 80% of counties that have a below-average ID specialist density or no access to ID physicians at all.
There are no data yet on the association between ID physician care and COVID-19 outcomes, the researchers note. “However, for many other infectious diseases, a robust evidence base supports the association between ID physician intervention and improved outcomes, including lower mortality, shorter length of stay, fewer readmissions, and lower total health care spending,” the authors explain.
The national average density of ID specialists was 1.76 ID physicians per 100,000 people in 2017. However, the authors say this distribution “was geographically skewed”: Of the 3142 US counties, 331 (10.5%) had above-average ID physician densities and 312 (9.9%) had below-average ID physician densities. Not a single ID physician practiced in the other 2499 counties.
A US map accompanying the study shows the distribution of ID specialists across the country. The areas with the most ID specialists were in the Northeast and Florida. Below-average densities of ID physicians were shown in the Southwest and on the West Coast. Large swathes of the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West had no ID specialists.
Among the 785 counties with the highest quartile of COVID-19 burden as of mid-May, 147 (18.7%) and 117 (14.9%) had above- and below-average ID physician densities, respectively. More than two-thirds (521) of these counties had no ID specialist coverage.
Although the literature does not indicate the “right” ratio of ID specialists to a population, the authors conclude, “our current distribution during pandemic times is probably far too sparse. The deficits in our ID physician workforce today have left us poorly prepared for the unprecedented demand ahead.”
The overall shortage of ID specialists is becoming more severe, the researchers note. In 2019 to 2020, ID fellowship programs had fewer than one applicant for every open position, on average. Thirty-eight percent of ID programs were unable to fill their training slots, and 19% could fill no slots at all.
This deficit of interest in the ID field continues a long-term trend. A 2019 Merritt Hawkins report found that between the 2009-2010 and 2016-2017 fellowship matches the number of adult ID programs filling all their positions dropped by 41% and the number of applicants decreased by 31%, according to Medscape Medical News.
The authors tie the decline of interest in the field to the compensation of ID specialists, which is lower than that of procedural specialists. Because their field focuses on cognitive skills, these highly trained physicians are paid about the same as primary care physicians.
Loan Repayment
Young physicians have an average of $200,000 in loans when they graduate from medical school, coauthor Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said in an interview. With the fellowship training required to become an infectious disease specialist, they fall even further in debt. In effect, they earn less than primary care doctors do, she said.
Consequently, any strategy to bolster the ID specialist workforce should include a government loan repayment program, Dr. Walensky explained, adding that perhaps the loan repayment could be tied to practicing in underserved areas where ID specialists are especially needed.
Telehealth is the key to stretching the resources of ID specialists for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, she said. “The way to expand [the specialty] in the short run is to reimburse for telehealth.”
Dr. Walensky is also concerned about the rollback of funding for infectious disease research. “I have a whole corps of researchers ... who are really worried about their research future,” she said. “These are Harvard scientists who don’t know if they’ll be funded. If they’re not, we could lose a whole generation of researchers, and where will we be 10-15 years from now?”
Dr. Walensky is Chief of the Infectious Diseases Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
Frontline Roles
On the front line of fighting COVID-19 today, ID specialists are also critical to the research required to create a vaccine and find new treatments, Dr. Walensky explained. They are knowledgeable about current drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and can set up protocols for clinical trials.
At Massachusetts General Hospital, she continued, she and her colleagues developed infectious disease control policies to keep patients and health workers safe; they also triage patients to determine which ones should be tested for COVID-19 and give advice to treating doctors when patients who appear to have COVID-19 test negative. In addition, ID specialists are skilled in the management of complex cases, such as COVID patients who have comorbidities.
“We’re not [gastrointestinal] docs or cardiology docs,” Dr. Walensky noted. “We don’t manage a single organ system. We’re trained to worry about the entire patient. Given that this disease manifests itself in so many different ways to so many different patients and affects many different organs that nobody was anticipating — that’s our sweet spot in terms of how we care for patients.”
Dr. Walensky reports grants from Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholar Award, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hospitalists stretch into new roles on COVID-19 front lines
‘Every single day is different’
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems, hospitals, and hospitalists – especially in hot spots like New York, Detroit, or Boston – have been challenged to stretch limits, redefine roles, and redeploy critical staff in response to rapidly changing needs on the ground.
Many hospitalists are working above and beyond their normal duties, sometimes beyond their training, specialty, or comfort zone and are rising to the occasion in ways they never imagined. These include doing shifts in ICUs, working with ventilator patients, and reporting to other atypical sites of care like postanesthesia care units and post-acute or step-down units.
Valerie Vaughn, MD, MSc, a hospitalist with Michigan Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, was doing research on how to reduce overuse of antibiotics in hospitals when the COVID-19 crisis hit and dramatically redefined her job. “We were afraid that we might have 3,000 to 5,000 hospitalized COVID patients by now, based on predictive modeling done while the pandemic was still growing exponentially,” she explained. Although Michigan continues to have high COVID-19 infection rates, centered on nearby Detroit, “things are a lot better today than they were 4 weeks ago.”
Dr. Vaughn helped to mobilize a team of 25 hospitalists, along with other health care providers, who volunteered to manage COVID-19 patients in the ICU and other hospital units. She was asked to help develop an all-COVID unit called the Regional Infectious Containment Unit or RICU, which opened March 16. Then, when the RICU became full, it was supplemented by two COVID-19 Moderate Care Units staffed by hospitalists who had “learned the ropes” in the RICU.
Both of these new models were defined in relation to the ICUs at Michigan Medicine – which were doubling in capacity, up to 200 beds at last count – and to the provision of intensive-level and long-term ventilator care for the sickest patients. The moderate care units are for patients who are not on ventilators but still very sick, for example, those receiving massive high-flow oxygen, often with a medical do-not-resuscitate/do-not-intubate order. “We established these units to do everything (medically) short of vents,” Dr. Vaughn said.
“We are having in-depth conversations about goals of care with patients soon after they arrive at the hospital. We know outcomes from ventilators are worse for COVID-positive patients who have comorbidities, and we’re using that information to inform these conversations. We’ve given scripts to clinicians to help guide them in leading these conversations. We can do other things than `use ventilators to manage their symptoms. But these are still difficult conversations,” Dr. Vaughn said.
“We also engaged palliative care early on and asked them to round with us on every [COVID] patient – until demand got too high.” The bottleneck has been the number of ICU beds available, she explained. “If you want your patient to come in and take that bed, make sure you’ve talked to the family about it.”
The COVID-19 team developed guidelines printed on pocket cards addressing critical care issues such as a refresher on how to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome and how to use vasopressors. (See the COVID-19 Continuing Medical Education Portal for web-accessible educational resources developed by Michigan Health).
It’s amazing how quickly patients can become very sick with COVID-19, Dr. Vaughn said. “One of the good things to happen from the beginning with our RICU is that a group of doctors became COVID care experts very quickly. We joined four to five hospitalists and their teams with each intensivist, so one critical care expert is there to do teaching and answer clinicians’ questions. The hospitalists coordinate the COVID care and talk to the families.”
Working on the front lines of this crisis, Dr. Vaughn said, has generated a powerful sense of purpose and camaraderie, creating bonds like in war time. “All of us on our days off feel a twinge of guilt for not being there in the hospital. The sense of gratitude we get from patients and families has been enormous, even when we were telling them bad news. That just brings us to tears.”
One of the hardest things for the doctors practicing above their typical scope of practice is that, when something bad happens, they can’t know whether it was a mistake on their part or not, she noted. “But I’ve never been so proud of our group or to be a hospitalist. No one has complained or pushed back. Everyone has responded by saying: ‘What can I do to help?’ ”
Enough work in hospital medicine
Hospitalists had not been deployed to care for ICU patients at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston, a major hot spot for COVID-19, said Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, director of the hospital medicine program at BIDMC, when he spoke to The Hospitalist in mid-May. That’s because there were plenty of hospital medicine assignments to keep them busy. Dr. Li leads a service of 120 hospitalists practicing at four hospitals.
“As we speak today, we have 300 patients with COVID, with 70 or 80 of them in our ICU. I’m taking care of 17 patients today, 15 of them COVID-positive, and the other two placed in a former radiology holding suite adapted for COVID-negative patients. Our postanesthesia care unit is now an ICU filled with COVID patients,” he said.
“Half of my day is seeing patients and the other half I’m on Zoom calls. I’m also one of the resource allocation officers for BIDMC,” Dr. Li said. He helped to create a standard of care for the hospital, addressing what to do if there weren’t enough ICU beds or ventilators. “We’ve never actualized it and probably won’t, but it was important to go through this exercise, with a lot of discussion up front.”
Haki Laho, MD, an orthopedic hospitalist at New England Baptist Hospital (NEBH), also in Boston, has been redeployed to care for a different population of patients as his system tries to bunch patients. “All of a sudden – within hours and days – at the beginning of the pandemic and based on the recommendations, our whole system decided to stop all elective procedures and devote the resources to COVID,” he said.
NEBH is Beth Israel Lahey Health’s 141-bed orthopedic and surgical hospital, and the system has tried to keep the specialty facility COVID-19–free as much as possible, with the COVID-19 patients grouped together at BIDMC. Dr. Laho’s orthopedic hospitalist group, just five doctors, has been managing the influx of medical patients with multiple comorbidities – not COVID-19–infected but still a different kind of patient than they are used to.
“So far, so good. We’re dealing with it,” he said. “But if one of us got sick, the others would have to step up and do more shifts. We are physicians, internal medicine trained, but since my residency I hadn’t had to deal with these kinds of issues on a daily basis, such as setting up IV lines. I feel like I am back in residency mode.”
Convention Center medicine
Another Boston hospitalist, Amy Baughman, MD, who practices at Massachusetts General Hospital, is using her skills in a new setting, serving as a co-medical director at Boston Hope Medical Center, a 1,000-bed field hospital for patients with COVID-19. Open since April 10 and housed in the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, it is a four-way collaboration between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the City of Boston, Partners HealthCare, and the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program.
Boston Hope is divided into a post-acute care section for recovering COVID-19 patients and a respite section for undomiciled patients with COVID-19 who need a place to safely quarantine. Built for a maximum of 1,000 beds, it is currently using fewer, with 83 patients on the post-acute side and 73 on the respite side as of May 12. A total of 370 and 315, respectively, had been admitted through May 12.
The team had 5 days to put the field hospital together with the help of the Army National Guard. “During that first week I was installing hand sanitizer dispensers and making [personal protective equipment] signs. Everyone here has had to do things like that,” Dr. Baughman said. “We’ve had to be incredibly creative in our staffing, using doctors from primary care and subspecialties including dermatology, radiology, and orthopedics. We had to fast-track trainings on how to use EPIC and to provide post-acute COVID care. How do you simultaneously build a medical facility and lead teams to provide high quality care?”
Dr. Baughman still works hospitalist shifts half-time at Massachusetts General. Her prior experience providing post-acute care in the VA system was helpful in creating the post-acute level of care at Boston Hope.
“My medical director role involves supervising, staffing, and scheduling. My co-medical director, Dr. Kerri Palamara, and I also supervise the clinical care,” she said. “There are a lot of systems issues, like ordering labs or prescriptions, with couriers going back and forth. And we developed clinical pathways, such as for [deep vein thrombosis] prophylaxis or for COVID retesting to determine when it is safe to end a quarantine. We’re just now rolling out virtual specialist consultations,” she noted.
“It has gone incredibly well. So much of it has been about our ability and willingness to work hard, and take feedback and go forward. We don’t have time to harp on things. We have to be very solution oriented. At the same time, honestly, it’s been fun. Every single day is different,” Dr. Baughman said.
“It’s been an opportunity to use my skills in a totally new setting, and at a level of responsibility I haven’t had before, although that’s probably a common theme with COVID-19. I was put on this team because I am a hospitalist,” she said. “I think hospitalists have been the backbone of the response to COVID in this country. It’s been an opportunity for our specialty to shine. We need to embrace the opportunity.”
Balancing expertise and supervision
Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) in Manhattan is in the New York epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis and has mobilized large numbers of pulmonary critical care and anesthesia physicians to staff up multiple ICUs for COVID-19 patients, said Andrew Dunn, MD, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
“My hospitalist group is covering many step-down units, medical wards, and atypical locations, providing advanced oxygen therapies, [bilevel positive airway pressure], high-flow nasal cannulas, and managing some patients on ventilators,” he said.
MSH has teaching services with house staff and nonteaching services. “We combined them into a unified service with house staff dispersed across all of the teams. We drafted a lot of nonhospitalists from different specialties to be attendings, and that has given us a tiered model, with a hospitalist supervising three or four nonhospitalist-led teams. Although the supervising hospitalists carry no patient caseloads of their own, this is primarily a clinical rather than an administrative role.”
At the peak, there were 40 rounding teams at MSH, each with a typical census of 15 patients or more, which meant that 10 supervisory hospitalists were responsible for 300 to 400 patients. “What we learned first was the need to balance the level of expertise. For example, a team may include a postgraduate year 3 resident and a radiology intern,” Dr. Dunn said. As COVID-19 census has started coming down, supervisory hospitalists are returning to direct care attending roles, and some hospitalists have been shared across the Mount Sinai system’s hospitals.
Dr. Dunn’s advice for hospitalists filling a supervisory role like this in a tiered model: Make sure you talk to your team the night before the first day of a scheduling block and try to address as many of their questions as possible. “If you wait until the morning of the shift to connect with them, anxiety will be high. But after going through a couple of scheduling cycles, we find that things are getting better. I think we’ve paid a lot of attention to the risks of burnout by our physicians. We’re using a model of 4 days on/4 off.”
Another variation on these themes is Joshua Shatzkes, MD, assistant professor of medicine and cardiology at Mount Sinai, who practices outpatient cardiology at MSH and in several off-site offices in Brooklyn. He saw early on that COVID-19 would have a huge effect on his practice, so he volunteered to help out with inpatient care. “I made it known to my chief that I was available, and I was deployed in the first week, after a weekend of cramming webinars and lectures on critical care and pulling out critical concepts that I already knew.”
Dr. Shatzkes said his career path led him into outpatient cardiology 11 years ago, where he was quickly too busy to see his patients when they went into the hospital, even though he missed hospital medicine. Working as a temporary hospitalist with the arrival of COVID-19, he has been invigorated and mobilized by the experience and reminded of why he went to medical school in the first place. “Each day’s shift went quickly but felt long. At the end of the day, I was tired but not exhausted. When I walked out of a patient’s room, they could tell, ‘This is a doctor who cared for me,’ ” he said.
After Dr. Shatzkes volunteered, he got the call from his division chief. “I was officially deployed for a 4-day shift at Mount Sinai and then as a backup.” On his first morning as an inpatient doctor, he was still getting oriented when calls started coming from the nurses. “I had five patients struggling to breathe. Their degree of hypoxia was remarkable. I kept them out of the ICU, at least for that day.”
Since then, he has continued to follow some of those patients in the hospital, along with some from his outpatient practice who were hospitalized, and others referred by colleagues, while remaining available to his outpatients through telemedicine. When this is all over, Dr. Shatzkes said, he would love to find a way to incorporate a hospital practice in his job – depending on the realities of New York traffic.
“Joshua is not a hospitalist, but he went on service and felt so fulfilled and rewarded, he asked me if he could stay on service,” Dr. Dunn said. “I also got an email from the nurse manager on the unit. They want him back.”
‘Every single day is different’
‘Every single day is different’
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems, hospitals, and hospitalists – especially in hot spots like New York, Detroit, or Boston – have been challenged to stretch limits, redefine roles, and redeploy critical staff in response to rapidly changing needs on the ground.
Many hospitalists are working above and beyond their normal duties, sometimes beyond their training, specialty, or comfort zone and are rising to the occasion in ways they never imagined. These include doing shifts in ICUs, working with ventilator patients, and reporting to other atypical sites of care like postanesthesia care units and post-acute or step-down units.
Valerie Vaughn, MD, MSc, a hospitalist with Michigan Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, was doing research on how to reduce overuse of antibiotics in hospitals when the COVID-19 crisis hit and dramatically redefined her job. “We were afraid that we might have 3,000 to 5,000 hospitalized COVID patients by now, based on predictive modeling done while the pandemic was still growing exponentially,” she explained. Although Michigan continues to have high COVID-19 infection rates, centered on nearby Detroit, “things are a lot better today than they were 4 weeks ago.”
Dr. Vaughn helped to mobilize a team of 25 hospitalists, along with other health care providers, who volunteered to manage COVID-19 patients in the ICU and other hospital units. She was asked to help develop an all-COVID unit called the Regional Infectious Containment Unit or RICU, which opened March 16. Then, when the RICU became full, it was supplemented by two COVID-19 Moderate Care Units staffed by hospitalists who had “learned the ropes” in the RICU.
Both of these new models were defined in relation to the ICUs at Michigan Medicine – which were doubling in capacity, up to 200 beds at last count – and to the provision of intensive-level and long-term ventilator care for the sickest patients. The moderate care units are for patients who are not on ventilators but still very sick, for example, those receiving massive high-flow oxygen, often with a medical do-not-resuscitate/do-not-intubate order. “We established these units to do everything (medically) short of vents,” Dr. Vaughn said.
“We are having in-depth conversations about goals of care with patients soon after they arrive at the hospital. We know outcomes from ventilators are worse for COVID-positive patients who have comorbidities, and we’re using that information to inform these conversations. We’ve given scripts to clinicians to help guide them in leading these conversations. We can do other things than `use ventilators to manage their symptoms. But these are still difficult conversations,” Dr. Vaughn said.
“We also engaged palliative care early on and asked them to round with us on every [COVID] patient – until demand got too high.” The bottleneck has been the number of ICU beds available, she explained. “If you want your patient to come in and take that bed, make sure you’ve talked to the family about it.”
The COVID-19 team developed guidelines printed on pocket cards addressing critical care issues such as a refresher on how to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome and how to use vasopressors. (See the COVID-19 Continuing Medical Education Portal for web-accessible educational resources developed by Michigan Health).
It’s amazing how quickly patients can become very sick with COVID-19, Dr. Vaughn said. “One of the good things to happen from the beginning with our RICU is that a group of doctors became COVID care experts very quickly. We joined four to five hospitalists and their teams with each intensivist, so one critical care expert is there to do teaching and answer clinicians’ questions. The hospitalists coordinate the COVID care and talk to the families.”
Working on the front lines of this crisis, Dr. Vaughn said, has generated a powerful sense of purpose and camaraderie, creating bonds like in war time. “All of us on our days off feel a twinge of guilt for not being there in the hospital. The sense of gratitude we get from patients and families has been enormous, even when we were telling them bad news. That just brings us to tears.”
One of the hardest things for the doctors practicing above their typical scope of practice is that, when something bad happens, they can’t know whether it was a mistake on their part or not, she noted. “But I’ve never been so proud of our group or to be a hospitalist. No one has complained or pushed back. Everyone has responded by saying: ‘What can I do to help?’ ”
Enough work in hospital medicine
Hospitalists had not been deployed to care for ICU patients at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston, a major hot spot for COVID-19, said Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, director of the hospital medicine program at BIDMC, when he spoke to The Hospitalist in mid-May. That’s because there were plenty of hospital medicine assignments to keep them busy. Dr. Li leads a service of 120 hospitalists practicing at four hospitals.
“As we speak today, we have 300 patients with COVID, with 70 or 80 of them in our ICU. I’m taking care of 17 patients today, 15 of them COVID-positive, and the other two placed in a former radiology holding suite adapted for COVID-negative patients. Our postanesthesia care unit is now an ICU filled with COVID patients,” he said.
“Half of my day is seeing patients and the other half I’m on Zoom calls. I’m also one of the resource allocation officers for BIDMC,” Dr. Li said. He helped to create a standard of care for the hospital, addressing what to do if there weren’t enough ICU beds or ventilators. “We’ve never actualized it and probably won’t, but it was important to go through this exercise, with a lot of discussion up front.”
Haki Laho, MD, an orthopedic hospitalist at New England Baptist Hospital (NEBH), also in Boston, has been redeployed to care for a different population of patients as his system tries to bunch patients. “All of a sudden – within hours and days – at the beginning of the pandemic and based on the recommendations, our whole system decided to stop all elective procedures and devote the resources to COVID,” he said.
NEBH is Beth Israel Lahey Health’s 141-bed orthopedic and surgical hospital, and the system has tried to keep the specialty facility COVID-19–free as much as possible, with the COVID-19 patients grouped together at BIDMC. Dr. Laho’s orthopedic hospitalist group, just five doctors, has been managing the influx of medical patients with multiple comorbidities – not COVID-19–infected but still a different kind of patient than they are used to.
“So far, so good. We’re dealing with it,” he said. “But if one of us got sick, the others would have to step up and do more shifts. We are physicians, internal medicine trained, but since my residency I hadn’t had to deal with these kinds of issues on a daily basis, such as setting up IV lines. I feel like I am back in residency mode.”
Convention Center medicine
Another Boston hospitalist, Amy Baughman, MD, who practices at Massachusetts General Hospital, is using her skills in a new setting, serving as a co-medical director at Boston Hope Medical Center, a 1,000-bed field hospital for patients with COVID-19. Open since April 10 and housed in the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, it is a four-way collaboration between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the City of Boston, Partners HealthCare, and the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program.
Boston Hope is divided into a post-acute care section for recovering COVID-19 patients and a respite section for undomiciled patients with COVID-19 who need a place to safely quarantine. Built for a maximum of 1,000 beds, it is currently using fewer, with 83 patients on the post-acute side and 73 on the respite side as of May 12. A total of 370 and 315, respectively, had been admitted through May 12.
The team had 5 days to put the field hospital together with the help of the Army National Guard. “During that first week I was installing hand sanitizer dispensers and making [personal protective equipment] signs. Everyone here has had to do things like that,” Dr. Baughman said. “We’ve had to be incredibly creative in our staffing, using doctors from primary care and subspecialties including dermatology, radiology, and orthopedics. We had to fast-track trainings on how to use EPIC and to provide post-acute COVID care. How do you simultaneously build a medical facility and lead teams to provide high quality care?”
Dr. Baughman still works hospitalist shifts half-time at Massachusetts General. Her prior experience providing post-acute care in the VA system was helpful in creating the post-acute level of care at Boston Hope.
“My medical director role involves supervising, staffing, and scheduling. My co-medical director, Dr. Kerri Palamara, and I also supervise the clinical care,” she said. “There are a lot of systems issues, like ordering labs or prescriptions, with couriers going back and forth. And we developed clinical pathways, such as for [deep vein thrombosis] prophylaxis or for COVID retesting to determine when it is safe to end a quarantine. We’re just now rolling out virtual specialist consultations,” she noted.
“It has gone incredibly well. So much of it has been about our ability and willingness to work hard, and take feedback and go forward. We don’t have time to harp on things. We have to be very solution oriented. At the same time, honestly, it’s been fun. Every single day is different,” Dr. Baughman said.
“It’s been an opportunity to use my skills in a totally new setting, and at a level of responsibility I haven’t had before, although that’s probably a common theme with COVID-19. I was put on this team because I am a hospitalist,” she said. “I think hospitalists have been the backbone of the response to COVID in this country. It’s been an opportunity for our specialty to shine. We need to embrace the opportunity.”
Balancing expertise and supervision
Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) in Manhattan is in the New York epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis and has mobilized large numbers of pulmonary critical care and anesthesia physicians to staff up multiple ICUs for COVID-19 patients, said Andrew Dunn, MD, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
“My hospitalist group is covering many step-down units, medical wards, and atypical locations, providing advanced oxygen therapies, [bilevel positive airway pressure], high-flow nasal cannulas, and managing some patients on ventilators,” he said.
MSH has teaching services with house staff and nonteaching services. “We combined them into a unified service with house staff dispersed across all of the teams. We drafted a lot of nonhospitalists from different specialties to be attendings, and that has given us a tiered model, with a hospitalist supervising three or four nonhospitalist-led teams. Although the supervising hospitalists carry no patient caseloads of their own, this is primarily a clinical rather than an administrative role.”
At the peak, there were 40 rounding teams at MSH, each with a typical census of 15 patients or more, which meant that 10 supervisory hospitalists were responsible for 300 to 400 patients. “What we learned first was the need to balance the level of expertise. For example, a team may include a postgraduate year 3 resident and a radiology intern,” Dr. Dunn said. As COVID-19 census has started coming down, supervisory hospitalists are returning to direct care attending roles, and some hospitalists have been shared across the Mount Sinai system’s hospitals.
Dr. Dunn’s advice for hospitalists filling a supervisory role like this in a tiered model: Make sure you talk to your team the night before the first day of a scheduling block and try to address as many of their questions as possible. “If you wait until the morning of the shift to connect with them, anxiety will be high. But after going through a couple of scheduling cycles, we find that things are getting better. I think we’ve paid a lot of attention to the risks of burnout by our physicians. We’re using a model of 4 days on/4 off.”
Another variation on these themes is Joshua Shatzkes, MD, assistant professor of medicine and cardiology at Mount Sinai, who practices outpatient cardiology at MSH and in several off-site offices in Brooklyn. He saw early on that COVID-19 would have a huge effect on his practice, so he volunteered to help out with inpatient care. “I made it known to my chief that I was available, and I was deployed in the first week, after a weekend of cramming webinars and lectures on critical care and pulling out critical concepts that I already knew.”
Dr. Shatzkes said his career path led him into outpatient cardiology 11 years ago, where he was quickly too busy to see his patients when they went into the hospital, even though he missed hospital medicine. Working as a temporary hospitalist with the arrival of COVID-19, he has been invigorated and mobilized by the experience and reminded of why he went to medical school in the first place. “Each day’s shift went quickly but felt long. At the end of the day, I was tired but not exhausted. When I walked out of a patient’s room, they could tell, ‘This is a doctor who cared for me,’ ” he said.
After Dr. Shatzkes volunteered, he got the call from his division chief. “I was officially deployed for a 4-day shift at Mount Sinai and then as a backup.” On his first morning as an inpatient doctor, he was still getting oriented when calls started coming from the nurses. “I had five patients struggling to breathe. Their degree of hypoxia was remarkable. I kept them out of the ICU, at least for that day.”
Since then, he has continued to follow some of those patients in the hospital, along with some from his outpatient practice who were hospitalized, and others referred by colleagues, while remaining available to his outpatients through telemedicine. When this is all over, Dr. Shatzkes said, he would love to find a way to incorporate a hospital practice in his job – depending on the realities of New York traffic.
“Joshua is not a hospitalist, but he went on service and felt so fulfilled and rewarded, he asked me if he could stay on service,” Dr. Dunn said. “I also got an email from the nurse manager on the unit. They want him back.”
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems, hospitals, and hospitalists – especially in hot spots like New York, Detroit, or Boston – have been challenged to stretch limits, redefine roles, and redeploy critical staff in response to rapidly changing needs on the ground.
Many hospitalists are working above and beyond their normal duties, sometimes beyond their training, specialty, or comfort zone and are rising to the occasion in ways they never imagined. These include doing shifts in ICUs, working with ventilator patients, and reporting to other atypical sites of care like postanesthesia care units and post-acute or step-down units.
Valerie Vaughn, MD, MSc, a hospitalist with Michigan Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, was doing research on how to reduce overuse of antibiotics in hospitals when the COVID-19 crisis hit and dramatically redefined her job. “We were afraid that we might have 3,000 to 5,000 hospitalized COVID patients by now, based on predictive modeling done while the pandemic was still growing exponentially,” she explained. Although Michigan continues to have high COVID-19 infection rates, centered on nearby Detroit, “things are a lot better today than they were 4 weeks ago.”
Dr. Vaughn helped to mobilize a team of 25 hospitalists, along with other health care providers, who volunteered to manage COVID-19 patients in the ICU and other hospital units. She was asked to help develop an all-COVID unit called the Regional Infectious Containment Unit or RICU, which opened March 16. Then, when the RICU became full, it was supplemented by two COVID-19 Moderate Care Units staffed by hospitalists who had “learned the ropes” in the RICU.
Both of these new models were defined in relation to the ICUs at Michigan Medicine – which were doubling in capacity, up to 200 beds at last count – and to the provision of intensive-level and long-term ventilator care for the sickest patients. The moderate care units are for patients who are not on ventilators but still very sick, for example, those receiving massive high-flow oxygen, often with a medical do-not-resuscitate/do-not-intubate order. “We established these units to do everything (medically) short of vents,” Dr. Vaughn said.
“We are having in-depth conversations about goals of care with patients soon after they arrive at the hospital. We know outcomes from ventilators are worse for COVID-positive patients who have comorbidities, and we’re using that information to inform these conversations. We’ve given scripts to clinicians to help guide them in leading these conversations. We can do other things than `use ventilators to manage their symptoms. But these are still difficult conversations,” Dr. Vaughn said.
“We also engaged palliative care early on and asked them to round with us on every [COVID] patient – until demand got too high.” The bottleneck has been the number of ICU beds available, she explained. “If you want your patient to come in and take that bed, make sure you’ve talked to the family about it.”
The COVID-19 team developed guidelines printed on pocket cards addressing critical care issues such as a refresher on how to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome and how to use vasopressors. (See the COVID-19 Continuing Medical Education Portal for web-accessible educational resources developed by Michigan Health).
It’s amazing how quickly patients can become very sick with COVID-19, Dr. Vaughn said. “One of the good things to happen from the beginning with our RICU is that a group of doctors became COVID care experts very quickly. We joined four to five hospitalists and their teams with each intensivist, so one critical care expert is there to do teaching and answer clinicians’ questions. The hospitalists coordinate the COVID care and talk to the families.”
Working on the front lines of this crisis, Dr. Vaughn said, has generated a powerful sense of purpose and camaraderie, creating bonds like in war time. “All of us on our days off feel a twinge of guilt for not being there in the hospital. The sense of gratitude we get from patients and families has been enormous, even when we were telling them bad news. That just brings us to tears.”
One of the hardest things for the doctors practicing above their typical scope of practice is that, when something bad happens, they can’t know whether it was a mistake on their part or not, she noted. “But I’ve never been so proud of our group or to be a hospitalist. No one has complained or pushed back. Everyone has responded by saying: ‘What can I do to help?’ ”
Enough work in hospital medicine
Hospitalists had not been deployed to care for ICU patients at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston, a major hot spot for COVID-19, said Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, director of the hospital medicine program at BIDMC, when he spoke to The Hospitalist in mid-May. That’s because there were plenty of hospital medicine assignments to keep them busy. Dr. Li leads a service of 120 hospitalists practicing at four hospitals.
“As we speak today, we have 300 patients with COVID, with 70 or 80 of them in our ICU. I’m taking care of 17 patients today, 15 of them COVID-positive, and the other two placed in a former radiology holding suite adapted for COVID-negative patients. Our postanesthesia care unit is now an ICU filled with COVID patients,” he said.
“Half of my day is seeing patients and the other half I’m on Zoom calls. I’m also one of the resource allocation officers for BIDMC,” Dr. Li said. He helped to create a standard of care for the hospital, addressing what to do if there weren’t enough ICU beds or ventilators. “We’ve never actualized it and probably won’t, but it was important to go through this exercise, with a lot of discussion up front.”
Haki Laho, MD, an orthopedic hospitalist at New England Baptist Hospital (NEBH), also in Boston, has been redeployed to care for a different population of patients as his system tries to bunch patients. “All of a sudden – within hours and days – at the beginning of the pandemic and based on the recommendations, our whole system decided to stop all elective procedures and devote the resources to COVID,” he said.
NEBH is Beth Israel Lahey Health’s 141-bed orthopedic and surgical hospital, and the system has tried to keep the specialty facility COVID-19–free as much as possible, with the COVID-19 patients grouped together at BIDMC. Dr. Laho’s orthopedic hospitalist group, just five doctors, has been managing the influx of medical patients with multiple comorbidities – not COVID-19–infected but still a different kind of patient than they are used to.
“So far, so good. We’re dealing with it,” he said. “But if one of us got sick, the others would have to step up and do more shifts. We are physicians, internal medicine trained, but since my residency I hadn’t had to deal with these kinds of issues on a daily basis, such as setting up IV lines. I feel like I am back in residency mode.”
Convention Center medicine
Another Boston hospitalist, Amy Baughman, MD, who practices at Massachusetts General Hospital, is using her skills in a new setting, serving as a co-medical director at Boston Hope Medical Center, a 1,000-bed field hospital for patients with COVID-19. Open since April 10 and housed in the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, it is a four-way collaboration between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the City of Boston, Partners HealthCare, and the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program.
Boston Hope is divided into a post-acute care section for recovering COVID-19 patients and a respite section for undomiciled patients with COVID-19 who need a place to safely quarantine. Built for a maximum of 1,000 beds, it is currently using fewer, with 83 patients on the post-acute side and 73 on the respite side as of May 12. A total of 370 and 315, respectively, had been admitted through May 12.
The team had 5 days to put the field hospital together with the help of the Army National Guard. “During that first week I was installing hand sanitizer dispensers and making [personal protective equipment] signs. Everyone here has had to do things like that,” Dr. Baughman said. “We’ve had to be incredibly creative in our staffing, using doctors from primary care and subspecialties including dermatology, radiology, and orthopedics. We had to fast-track trainings on how to use EPIC and to provide post-acute COVID care. How do you simultaneously build a medical facility and lead teams to provide high quality care?”
Dr. Baughman still works hospitalist shifts half-time at Massachusetts General. Her prior experience providing post-acute care in the VA system was helpful in creating the post-acute level of care at Boston Hope.
“My medical director role involves supervising, staffing, and scheduling. My co-medical director, Dr. Kerri Palamara, and I also supervise the clinical care,” she said. “There are a lot of systems issues, like ordering labs or prescriptions, with couriers going back and forth. And we developed clinical pathways, such as for [deep vein thrombosis] prophylaxis or for COVID retesting to determine when it is safe to end a quarantine. We’re just now rolling out virtual specialist consultations,” she noted.
“It has gone incredibly well. So much of it has been about our ability and willingness to work hard, and take feedback and go forward. We don’t have time to harp on things. We have to be very solution oriented. At the same time, honestly, it’s been fun. Every single day is different,” Dr. Baughman said.
“It’s been an opportunity to use my skills in a totally new setting, and at a level of responsibility I haven’t had before, although that’s probably a common theme with COVID-19. I was put on this team because I am a hospitalist,” she said. “I think hospitalists have been the backbone of the response to COVID in this country. It’s been an opportunity for our specialty to shine. We need to embrace the opportunity.”
Balancing expertise and supervision
Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) in Manhattan is in the New York epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis and has mobilized large numbers of pulmonary critical care and anesthesia physicians to staff up multiple ICUs for COVID-19 patients, said Andrew Dunn, MD, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
“My hospitalist group is covering many step-down units, medical wards, and atypical locations, providing advanced oxygen therapies, [bilevel positive airway pressure], high-flow nasal cannulas, and managing some patients on ventilators,” he said.
MSH has teaching services with house staff and nonteaching services. “We combined them into a unified service with house staff dispersed across all of the teams. We drafted a lot of nonhospitalists from different specialties to be attendings, and that has given us a tiered model, with a hospitalist supervising three or four nonhospitalist-led teams. Although the supervising hospitalists carry no patient caseloads of their own, this is primarily a clinical rather than an administrative role.”
At the peak, there were 40 rounding teams at MSH, each with a typical census of 15 patients or more, which meant that 10 supervisory hospitalists were responsible for 300 to 400 patients. “What we learned first was the need to balance the level of expertise. For example, a team may include a postgraduate year 3 resident and a radiology intern,” Dr. Dunn said. As COVID-19 census has started coming down, supervisory hospitalists are returning to direct care attending roles, and some hospitalists have been shared across the Mount Sinai system’s hospitals.
Dr. Dunn’s advice for hospitalists filling a supervisory role like this in a tiered model: Make sure you talk to your team the night before the first day of a scheduling block and try to address as many of their questions as possible. “If you wait until the morning of the shift to connect with them, anxiety will be high. But after going through a couple of scheduling cycles, we find that things are getting better. I think we’ve paid a lot of attention to the risks of burnout by our physicians. We’re using a model of 4 days on/4 off.”
Another variation on these themes is Joshua Shatzkes, MD, assistant professor of medicine and cardiology at Mount Sinai, who practices outpatient cardiology at MSH and in several off-site offices in Brooklyn. He saw early on that COVID-19 would have a huge effect on his practice, so he volunteered to help out with inpatient care. “I made it known to my chief that I was available, and I was deployed in the first week, after a weekend of cramming webinars and lectures on critical care and pulling out critical concepts that I already knew.”
Dr. Shatzkes said his career path led him into outpatient cardiology 11 years ago, where he was quickly too busy to see his patients when they went into the hospital, even though he missed hospital medicine. Working as a temporary hospitalist with the arrival of COVID-19, he has been invigorated and mobilized by the experience and reminded of why he went to medical school in the first place. “Each day’s shift went quickly but felt long. At the end of the day, I was tired but not exhausted. When I walked out of a patient’s room, they could tell, ‘This is a doctor who cared for me,’ ” he said.
After Dr. Shatzkes volunteered, he got the call from his division chief. “I was officially deployed for a 4-day shift at Mount Sinai and then as a backup.” On his first morning as an inpatient doctor, he was still getting oriented when calls started coming from the nurses. “I had five patients struggling to breathe. Their degree of hypoxia was remarkable. I kept them out of the ICU, at least for that day.”
Since then, he has continued to follow some of those patients in the hospital, along with some from his outpatient practice who were hospitalized, and others referred by colleagues, while remaining available to his outpatients through telemedicine. When this is all over, Dr. Shatzkes said, he would love to find a way to incorporate a hospital practice in his job – depending on the realities of New York traffic.
“Joshua is not a hospitalist, but he went on service and felt so fulfilled and rewarded, he asked me if he could stay on service,” Dr. Dunn said. “I also got an email from the nurse manager on the unit. They want him back.”
Baloxavir effective, well tolerated for influenza treatment in children
according to Jeffrey Baker, MD, of Clinical Research Prime, Idaho Falls, and associates.
In the double-blind, randomized, controlled MiniSTONE-2 phase 3 trial, the investigators randomized 112 children aged 1-12 years to baloxavir and 57 to oseltamivir. The predominant influenza A subtype was H3N2 for both groups, followed by H1N1pdm09. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups, the investigators wrote in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.
The time to alleviation of signs and symptoms was a median 138 hours for those receiving baloxavir and 150 hours for those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference. Duration of fever and of all symptoms also were similar between groups, as was the time to return to normal health and activity.
A total of 122 adverse events were reported in 84 children, with 95% of adverse events being resolved or resolving by the end of the study. The incidence of adverse events was 46% in those receiving baloxavir and 53% in those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference, with the most common adverse event in both groups being gastrointestinal disorders. No deaths, serious adverse events, or hospitalizations were reported, but two patients receiving oseltamivir discontinued because of adverse events.
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Baker and a coauthor received funding through their institutions for the conduct of the study; several coauthors reported being employed by and owning stocks in F. Hoffmann–La Roche. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann–La Roche and grants from Shionogi.
SOURCE: Baker J et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002747.
according to Jeffrey Baker, MD, of Clinical Research Prime, Idaho Falls, and associates.
In the double-blind, randomized, controlled MiniSTONE-2 phase 3 trial, the investigators randomized 112 children aged 1-12 years to baloxavir and 57 to oseltamivir. The predominant influenza A subtype was H3N2 for both groups, followed by H1N1pdm09. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups, the investigators wrote in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.
The time to alleviation of signs and symptoms was a median 138 hours for those receiving baloxavir and 150 hours for those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference. Duration of fever and of all symptoms also were similar between groups, as was the time to return to normal health and activity.
A total of 122 adverse events were reported in 84 children, with 95% of adverse events being resolved or resolving by the end of the study. The incidence of adverse events was 46% in those receiving baloxavir and 53% in those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference, with the most common adverse event in both groups being gastrointestinal disorders. No deaths, serious adverse events, or hospitalizations were reported, but two patients receiving oseltamivir discontinued because of adverse events.
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Baker and a coauthor received funding through their institutions for the conduct of the study; several coauthors reported being employed by and owning stocks in F. Hoffmann–La Roche. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann–La Roche and grants from Shionogi.
SOURCE: Baker J et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002747.
according to Jeffrey Baker, MD, of Clinical Research Prime, Idaho Falls, and associates.
In the double-blind, randomized, controlled MiniSTONE-2 phase 3 trial, the investigators randomized 112 children aged 1-12 years to baloxavir and 57 to oseltamivir. The predominant influenza A subtype was H3N2 for both groups, followed by H1N1pdm09. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups, the investigators wrote in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.
The time to alleviation of signs and symptoms was a median 138 hours for those receiving baloxavir and 150 hours for those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference. Duration of fever and of all symptoms also were similar between groups, as was the time to return to normal health and activity.
A total of 122 adverse events were reported in 84 children, with 95% of adverse events being resolved or resolving by the end of the study. The incidence of adverse events was 46% in those receiving baloxavir and 53% in those receiving oseltamivir, a nonsignificant difference, with the most common adverse event in both groups being gastrointestinal disorders. No deaths, serious adverse events, or hospitalizations were reported, but two patients receiving oseltamivir discontinued because of adverse events.
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Baker and a coauthor received funding through their institutions for the conduct of the study; several coauthors reported being employed by and owning stocks in F. Hoffmann–La Roche. One coauthor reported receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann–La Roche and grants from Shionogi.
SOURCE: Baker J et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002747.
FROM THE PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
Does cultural tailoring of sexual health programs lead to safer behavior?
including abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners, a meta-analysis of 12 studies suggests.
Furthermore, cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success, the data indicate.
“It is important that culturally tailored sexual health programs be available to Hispanic communities across the United States,” the study authors stated in Pediatrics.
To examine the effects of sexual health interventions on behavioral outcomes among Hispanic adolescents and factors that may influence the success of an intervention, Reina Evans, a doctoral student in the department of psychology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues systemically reviewed published studies that included Hispanic adolescents in the United States. Included studies evaluated a sexual health intervention using an experimental or quasiexperimental design and assessed a behavioral outcome.
The researchers synthesized effect sizes from 12 studies that included 4,673 Hispanic adolescents. “As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen’s d, was used,” they said. Effect size was interpreted as small at 0.20, medium at 0.50, and large at 0.80.
Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.
Eight of the 12 interventions incorporated Hispanic-specific practices and values such as familialism into the intervention materials. Culturally tailored interventions produced greater change in condom use, compared with interventions that were not culturally tailored. One intervention with a large effect on condom use was developed by researchers in collaboration with community members, the authors said. Another program with a large effect on condom use was designed for Hispanic families.
Ten of the 12 studies included males and females, and two included only females. Intervention dose ranged from less than 10 hours of program content to more than 20 hours of content.
Definitions of abstinence and time frames for reporting recent condom use varied across studies, the researchers noted. Data about patient characteristics, such as the percentage of participants born in the United States, and pregnancy outcomes were limited. These domains could be areas of future research.
“Latinx adolescents are disproportionately burdened with unplanned pregnancy and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. In this meta-analysis, it is shown that sexual health interventions can play a role in combating these health disparities,” Ms. Evans and associates said.
Among Hispanic adolescents, persistent disparities in sexual and reproductive health “remain a national public health priority,” and “strengthening the effects of future ... interventions for Hispanic adolescents is needed,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos is a professor of social work and director and founder of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at New York University.
“Evans et al. highlighted that reporting on the foreign-born participant proportions was incomplete across studies, thereby excluding this clinical heterogeneity domain from formal moderation analyses,” said Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues. People who develop Hispanic sexual and reproductive health interventions may consider whether this domain or other domains moderate intervention effectiveness.
Although sensitivity analyses focused on several potential sources of bias, “other domains of potential methodologic heterogeneity, such as refusal bias, differential attrition, or information bias, remained unaccounted for,” they said.
“Attention to clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity across studies can yield insights into factors associated with bolstering intervention effectiveness. Cultural tailoring to increase the effectiveness of condom interventions for Hispanic adolescents is one such intervention effect modifier,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and associates concluded.
The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University. The editorialists are supported by the William T. Grant Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare outside the submitted work and serves as a member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and as the vice chair of the board of directors of the Latino Commission on AIDS. His coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCES: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572; Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1406.
including abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners, a meta-analysis of 12 studies suggests.
Furthermore, cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success, the data indicate.
“It is important that culturally tailored sexual health programs be available to Hispanic communities across the United States,” the study authors stated in Pediatrics.
To examine the effects of sexual health interventions on behavioral outcomes among Hispanic adolescents and factors that may influence the success of an intervention, Reina Evans, a doctoral student in the department of psychology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues systemically reviewed published studies that included Hispanic adolescents in the United States. Included studies evaluated a sexual health intervention using an experimental or quasiexperimental design and assessed a behavioral outcome.
The researchers synthesized effect sizes from 12 studies that included 4,673 Hispanic adolescents. “As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen’s d, was used,” they said. Effect size was interpreted as small at 0.20, medium at 0.50, and large at 0.80.
Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.
Eight of the 12 interventions incorporated Hispanic-specific practices and values such as familialism into the intervention materials. Culturally tailored interventions produced greater change in condom use, compared with interventions that were not culturally tailored. One intervention with a large effect on condom use was developed by researchers in collaboration with community members, the authors said. Another program with a large effect on condom use was designed for Hispanic families.
Ten of the 12 studies included males and females, and two included only females. Intervention dose ranged from less than 10 hours of program content to more than 20 hours of content.
Definitions of abstinence and time frames for reporting recent condom use varied across studies, the researchers noted. Data about patient characteristics, such as the percentage of participants born in the United States, and pregnancy outcomes were limited. These domains could be areas of future research.
“Latinx adolescents are disproportionately burdened with unplanned pregnancy and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. In this meta-analysis, it is shown that sexual health interventions can play a role in combating these health disparities,” Ms. Evans and associates said.
Among Hispanic adolescents, persistent disparities in sexual and reproductive health “remain a national public health priority,” and “strengthening the effects of future ... interventions for Hispanic adolescents is needed,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos is a professor of social work and director and founder of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at New York University.
“Evans et al. highlighted that reporting on the foreign-born participant proportions was incomplete across studies, thereby excluding this clinical heterogeneity domain from formal moderation analyses,” said Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues. People who develop Hispanic sexual and reproductive health interventions may consider whether this domain or other domains moderate intervention effectiveness.
Although sensitivity analyses focused on several potential sources of bias, “other domains of potential methodologic heterogeneity, such as refusal bias, differential attrition, or information bias, remained unaccounted for,” they said.
“Attention to clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity across studies can yield insights into factors associated with bolstering intervention effectiveness. Cultural tailoring to increase the effectiveness of condom interventions for Hispanic adolescents is one such intervention effect modifier,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and associates concluded.
The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University. The editorialists are supported by the William T. Grant Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare outside the submitted work and serves as a member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and as the vice chair of the board of directors of the Latino Commission on AIDS. His coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCES: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572; Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1406.
including abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners, a meta-analysis of 12 studies suggests.
Furthermore, cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success, the data indicate.
“It is important that culturally tailored sexual health programs be available to Hispanic communities across the United States,” the study authors stated in Pediatrics.
To examine the effects of sexual health interventions on behavioral outcomes among Hispanic adolescents and factors that may influence the success of an intervention, Reina Evans, a doctoral student in the department of psychology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues systemically reviewed published studies that included Hispanic adolescents in the United States. Included studies evaluated a sexual health intervention using an experimental or quasiexperimental design and assessed a behavioral outcome.
The researchers synthesized effect sizes from 12 studies that included 4,673 Hispanic adolescents. “As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen’s d, was used,” they said. Effect size was interpreted as small at 0.20, medium at 0.50, and large at 0.80.
Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.
Eight of the 12 interventions incorporated Hispanic-specific practices and values such as familialism into the intervention materials. Culturally tailored interventions produced greater change in condom use, compared with interventions that were not culturally tailored. One intervention with a large effect on condom use was developed by researchers in collaboration with community members, the authors said. Another program with a large effect on condom use was designed for Hispanic families.
Ten of the 12 studies included males and females, and two included only females. Intervention dose ranged from less than 10 hours of program content to more than 20 hours of content.
Definitions of abstinence and time frames for reporting recent condom use varied across studies, the researchers noted. Data about patient characteristics, such as the percentage of participants born in the United States, and pregnancy outcomes were limited. These domains could be areas of future research.
“Latinx adolescents are disproportionately burdened with unplanned pregnancy and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. In this meta-analysis, it is shown that sexual health interventions can play a role in combating these health disparities,” Ms. Evans and associates said.
Among Hispanic adolescents, persistent disparities in sexual and reproductive health “remain a national public health priority,” and “strengthening the effects of future ... interventions for Hispanic adolescents is needed,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos is a professor of social work and director and founder of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at New York University.
“Evans et al. highlighted that reporting on the foreign-born participant proportions was incomplete across studies, thereby excluding this clinical heterogeneity domain from formal moderation analyses,” said Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues. People who develop Hispanic sexual and reproductive health interventions may consider whether this domain or other domains moderate intervention effectiveness.
Although sensitivity analyses focused on several potential sources of bias, “other domains of potential methodologic heterogeneity, such as refusal bias, differential attrition, or information bias, remained unaccounted for,” they said.
“Attention to clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity across studies can yield insights into factors associated with bolstering intervention effectiveness. Cultural tailoring to increase the effectiveness of condom interventions for Hispanic adolescents is one such intervention effect modifier,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and associates concluded.
The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University. The editorialists are supported by the William T. Grant Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare outside the submitted work and serves as a member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and as the vice chair of the board of directors of the Latino Commission on AIDS. His coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCES: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572; Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1406.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point: Among Hispanic adolescents, sexual health interventions have a small but significant effect on improving safe sexual behavior. Cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success.
Major finding: Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.
Study details: A meta-analysis of 12 studies with 4,673 participants.
Disclosures: The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University.
Source: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572.
AGA Clinical practice update: Maintain IBD remission during pandemic
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) does not seem to make patients any more likely to contract SARS-COV-2 or develop COVID-19, but a rapid review commissioned by the American Gastroenterological Association acknowledges that determination is based on limited evidence and IBD patients should nonetheless maintain remission to reduce their risk of relapse or hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The AGA has published a clinical practice update based on that rapid review online in Gastroenterology (2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012).
Because of the widespread use of immunosuppressive or immune-modifying drugs, “It is understandable why patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis have specific concerns and potential for increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” wrote David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago and colleagues in the expert commentary.
They noted that, while association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 RNA in stool samples isn’t clear, given the reports of GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients – ranging from 10% (JAMA. 2020:323:1061-9) to half of patients (Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115:766-73) – “the clinical implications of this are quite important.” In IBD patients, changes in digestive symptoms without accompanying fever or respiratory symptoms can be monitored for symptoms that could merit testing for the virus as well as “trigger additional treatment adjustments.”
In accordance with the IOIBD (International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease) consensus, the update noted that IBD patients should continue going to infusion centers for therapies, provided that the centers use a COVID-19 screening protocol.
Patients with IBD who contract COVID-19 seem more likely to be hospitalized for one or the other disease, but that’s based on data from the international SECURE-IBD registry that had 164 patients as of the writing of the update. The update provides guidance for three scenarios for IBD patients during the pandemic:
- Patients not infected with SARS-CoV-2 should maintain their IBD therapies to sustain remission and avoid relapses. “Aside from the obvious negative consequences of a relapse, relapsing IBD will strain available medical resources, may require steroid therapy or necessitate hospitalization, outcomes that are all much worse than the known risks of existing IBD therapies,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.
- Patients who are infected but have no symptoms of COVID-19 should have their dosing of prednisone adjusted to less than 20 mg/day or switched to budesonide; suspend thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib; and delay dosing of monoclonal antibodies (anti–tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF] drugs, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab) for 2 weeks while their symptoms for COVID-19 are monitored. “Restarting therapy after 2 weeks if the patient has not developed manifestations of COVID-19 is reasonable,” wrote Dr. Rubin and colleagues. Emerging serial testing should indicate antibody status, but the effectiveness of stool testing for SARS-CoV-2 in these cases “remains to be seen.”
- In the patient with confirmed COVID-19, adjustment of IBD therapy “is appropriate, based on the understanding of the immune activity of the therapy and whether that therapy may worsen outcomes with COVID-19,” the update stated. Therapy adjustment should focus on reducing immune suppression during the active viral infection. Some studies are evaluating anticytokine-based therapies as COVID-19 treatments, so continued anti-TNF therapies might prevent acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure, Dr. Rubin and colleagues wrote. “However, in the absence of those data, guidance is currently based on deciding whether to hold or to continue specific IBD therapies.”
The update considers most IBD therapies, specifically aminosalicylates, topical rectal therapy, dietary management, and antibiotics “safe and may be continued,” and oral budesonide can be continued if it’s needed for ongoing IBD control. However, corticosteroids “should be avoided and discontinued quickly.”
Likewise, during the acute stage of COVID-19, thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib should be discontinued, and anti-TNF drugs and ustekinumab should be stopped during viral illness. Holding vedolizumab during viral illness is also appropriate, according to the update, although the IOIBD group was uncertain if doing so was necessary.
If the IBD patient has digestive symptoms with COVID-19, ongoing supportive care of the COVID-19 is “reasonable,” but investigating the causes of the digestive symptoms “is critically important.” That should include ruling out enteric infections and confirming active inflammation with nonendoscopic testing. Endoscopy should be relegated to only urgent and emergent cases.
Management of IBD in COVID-19 patients also depends on disease severity. Safer therapies are indicated for mild disease, but withholding IBD therapy in moderate to severe cases may not be practical. “In this setting, the risks and benefits of escalating IBD therapy must be carefully weighed against the severity of the COVID-19,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.
In hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and poor prognoses, “IBD therapy will likely take a back seat,” the update stated, although COVID-19 therapies should take the concomitant IBD into account. In patients with milder cases of COVID-19, IBD management should focus on acute manifestations, but intravenous steroid therapy shouldn’t exceed 3 days. The update urged providers to submit cases of IBD and confirmed COVID-19 to the SECURE-IBD registry at COVIDIBD.org.
Dr. Rubin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Syneos, Gilead Sciences, Takeda, and many other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors disclosed relationships with those companies and Medimmune, Novus Therapeutics, Osiris Therapeutics, RedHill Biopharma, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Rubin DT, et al. Gastroenterology. 2020: doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) does not seem to make patients any more likely to contract SARS-COV-2 or develop COVID-19, but a rapid review commissioned by the American Gastroenterological Association acknowledges that determination is based on limited evidence and IBD patients should nonetheless maintain remission to reduce their risk of relapse or hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The AGA has published a clinical practice update based on that rapid review online in Gastroenterology (2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012).
Because of the widespread use of immunosuppressive or immune-modifying drugs, “It is understandable why patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis have specific concerns and potential for increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” wrote David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago and colleagues in the expert commentary.
They noted that, while association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 RNA in stool samples isn’t clear, given the reports of GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients – ranging from 10% (JAMA. 2020:323:1061-9) to half of patients (Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115:766-73) – “the clinical implications of this are quite important.” In IBD patients, changes in digestive symptoms without accompanying fever or respiratory symptoms can be monitored for symptoms that could merit testing for the virus as well as “trigger additional treatment adjustments.”
In accordance with the IOIBD (International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease) consensus, the update noted that IBD patients should continue going to infusion centers for therapies, provided that the centers use a COVID-19 screening protocol.
Patients with IBD who contract COVID-19 seem more likely to be hospitalized for one or the other disease, but that’s based on data from the international SECURE-IBD registry that had 164 patients as of the writing of the update. The update provides guidance for three scenarios for IBD patients during the pandemic:
- Patients not infected with SARS-CoV-2 should maintain their IBD therapies to sustain remission and avoid relapses. “Aside from the obvious negative consequences of a relapse, relapsing IBD will strain available medical resources, may require steroid therapy or necessitate hospitalization, outcomes that are all much worse than the known risks of existing IBD therapies,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.
- Patients who are infected but have no symptoms of COVID-19 should have their dosing of prednisone adjusted to less than 20 mg/day or switched to budesonide; suspend thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib; and delay dosing of monoclonal antibodies (anti–tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF] drugs, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab) for 2 weeks while their symptoms for COVID-19 are monitored. “Restarting therapy after 2 weeks if the patient has not developed manifestations of COVID-19 is reasonable,” wrote Dr. Rubin and colleagues. Emerging serial testing should indicate antibody status, but the effectiveness of stool testing for SARS-CoV-2 in these cases “remains to be seen.”
- In the patient with confirmed COVID-19, adjustment of IBD therapy “is appropriate, based on the understanding of the immune activity of the therapy and whether that therapy may worsen outcomes with COVID-19,” the update stated. Therapy adjustment should focus on reducing immune suppression during the active viral infection. Some studies are evaluating anticytokine-based therapies as COVID-19 treatments, so continued anti-TNF therapies might prevent acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure, Dr. Rubin and colleagues wrote. “However, in the absence of those data, guidance is currently based on deciding whether to hold or to continue specific IBD therapies.”
The update considers most IBD therapies, specifically aminosalicylates, topical rectal therapy, dietary management, and antibiotics “safe and may be continued,” and oral budesonide can be continued if it’s needed for ongoing IBD control. However, corticosteroids “should be avoided and discontinued quickly.”
Likewise, during the acute stage of COVID-19, thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib should be discontinued, and anti-TNF drugs and ustekinumab should be stopped during viral illness. Holding vedolizumab during viral illness is also appropriate, according to the update, although the IOIBD group was uncertain if doing so was necessary.
If the IBD patient has digestive symptoms with COVID-19, ongoing supportive care of the COVID-19 is “reasonable,” but investigating the causes of the digestive symptoms “is critically important.” That should include ruling out enteric infections and confirming active inflammation with nonendoscopic testing. Endoscopy should be relegated to only urgent and emergent cases.
Management of IBD in COVID-19 patients also depends on disease severity. Safer therapies are indicated for mild disease, but withholding IBD therapy in moderate to severe cases may not be practical. “In this setting, the risks and benefits of escalating IBD therapy must be carefully weighed against the severity of the COVID-19,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.
In hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and poor prognoses, “IBD therapy will likely take a back seat,” the update stated, although COVID-19 therapies should take the concomitant IBD into account. In patients with milder cases of COVID-19, IBD management should focus on acute manifestations, but intravenous steroid therapy shouldn’t exceed 3 days. The update urged providers to submit cases of IBD and confirmed COVID-19 to the SECURE-IBD registry at COVIDIBD.org.
Dr. Rubin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Syneos, Gilead Sciences, Takeda, and many other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors disclosed relationships with those companies and Medimmune, Novus Therapeutics, Osiris Therapeutics, RedHill Biopharma, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Rubin DT, et al. Gastroenterology. 2020: doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) does not seem to make patients any more likely to contract SARS-COV-2 or develop COVID-19, but a rapid review commissioned by the American Gastroenterological Association acknowledges that determination is based on limited evidence and IBD patients should nonetheless maintain remission to reduce their risk of relapse or hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The AGA has published a clinical practice update based on that rapid review online in Gastroenterology (2020. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012).
Because of the widespread use of immunosuppressive or immune-modifying drugs, “It is understandable why patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis have specific concerns and potential for increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” wrote David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago and colleagues in the expert commentary.
They noted that, while association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 RNA in stool samples isn’t clear, given the reports of GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients – ranging from 10% (JAMA. 2020:323:1061-9) to half of patients (Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115:766-73) – “the clinical implications of this are quite important.” In IBD patients, changes in digestive symptoms without accompanying fever or respiratory symptoms can be monitored for symptoms that could merit testing for the virus as well as “trigger additional treatment adjustments.”
In accordance with the IOIBD (International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease) consensus, the update noted that IBD patients should continue going to infusion centers for therapies, provided that the centers use a COVID-19 screening protocol.
Patients with IBD who contract COVID-19 seem more likely to be hospitalized for one or the other disease, but that’s based on data from the international SECURE-IBD registry that had 164 patients as of the writing of the update. The update provides guidance for three scenarios for IBD patients during the pandemic:
- Patients not infected with SARS-CoV-2 should maintain their IBD therapies to sustain remission and avoid relapses. “Aside from the obvious negative consequences of a relapse, relapsing IBD will strain available medical resources, may require steroid therapy or necessitate hospitalization, outcomes that are all much worse than the known risks of existing IBD therapies,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.
- Patients who are infected but have no symptoms of COVID-19 should have their dosing of prednisone adjusted to less than 20 mg/day or switched to budesonide; suspend thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib; and delay dosing of monoclonal antibodies (anti–tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF] drugs, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab) for 2 weeks while their symptoms for COVID-19 are monitored. “Restarting therapy after 2 weeks if the patient has not developed manifestations of COVID-19 is reasonable,” wrote Dr. Rubin and colleagues. Emerging serial testing should indicate antibody status, but the effectiveness of stool testing for SARS-CoV-2 in these cases “remains to be seen.”
- In the patient with confirmed COVID-19, adjustment of IBD therapy “is appropriate, based on the understanding of the immune activity of the therapy and whether that therapy may worsen outcomes with COVID-19,” the update stated. Therapy adjustment should focus on reducing immune suppression during the active viral infection. Some studies are evaluating anticytokine-based therapies as COVID-19 treatments, so continued anti-TNF therapies might prevent acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure, Dr. Rubin and colleagues wrote. “However, in the absence of those data, guidance is currently based on deciding whether to hold or to continue specific IBD therapies.”
The update considers most IBD therapies, specifically aminosalicylates, topical rectal therapy, dietary management, and antibiotics “safe and may be continued,” and oral budesonide can be continued if it’s needed for ongoing IBD control. However, corticosteroids “should be avoided and discontinued quickly.”
Likewise, during the acute stage of COVID-19, thiopurines, methotrexate, and tofacitinib should be discontinued, and anti-TNF drugs and ustekinumab should be stopped during viral illness. Holding vedolizumab during viral illness is also appropriate, according to the update, although the IOIBD group was uncertain if doing so was necessary.
If the IBD patient has digestive symptoms with COVID-19, ongoing supportive care of the COVID-19 is “reasonable,” but investigating the causes of the digestive symptoms “is critically important.” That should include ruling out enteric infections and confirming active inflammation with nonendoscopic testing. Endoscopy should be relegated to only urgent and emergent cases.
Management of IBD in COVID-19 patients also depends on disease severity. Safer therapies are indicated for mild disease, but withholding IBD therapy in moderate to severe cases may not be practical. “In this setting, the risks and benefits of escalating IBD therapy must be carefully weighed against the severity of the COVID-19,” Dr. Rubin and colleagues noted.
In hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and poor prognoses, “IBD therapy will likely take a back seat,” the update stated, although COVID-19 therapies should take the concomitant IBD into account. In patients with milder cases of COVID-19, IBD management should focus on acute manifestations, but intravenous steroid therapy shouldn’t exceed 3 days. The update urged providers to submit cases of IBD and confirmed COVID-19 to the SECURE-IBD registry at COVIDIBD.org.
Dr. Rubin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Syneos, Gilead Sciences, Takeda, and many other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors disclosed relationships with those companies and Medimmune, Novus Therapeutics, Osiris Therapeutics, RedHill Biopharma, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, and multiple other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Rubin DT, et al. Gastroenterology. 2020: doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.012
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
WHO clarifies comments on asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2
A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”
Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.
Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.
But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”
Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”
The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.
Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.
Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.
Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct."
This article was updated 6/10/20.
A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”
Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.
Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.
But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”
Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”
The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.
Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.
Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.
Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct."
This article was updated 6/10/20.
A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”
Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.
Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.
But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”
Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”
The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.
Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.
Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.
Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.
Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct."
This article was updated 6/10/20.
COVID-19 drives nursing homes to overhaul infection control efforts
The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.
“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.
Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.
“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.
Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:
- Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
- Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
- A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
- More resources and attention to structural reform
“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
Prepandemic experience
When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.
Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”
Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”
Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.
As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.
Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”
“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.
An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).
Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.
The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.
Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.
CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)
However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.
Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”
Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.
“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
Moving forward
IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”
Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.
Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.
“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.
“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.
As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.
The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.
Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.
However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”
In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.
At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.
Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”
The barriers
Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.
Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.
Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”
Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”
Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.
Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”
Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)
“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”
A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”
For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”
The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.
“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.
Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.
“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.
Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:
- Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
- Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
- A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
- More resources and attention to structural reform
“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
Prepandemic experience
When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.
Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”
Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”
Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.
As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.
Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”
“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.
An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).
Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.
The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.
Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.
CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)
However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.
Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”
Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.
“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
Moving forward
IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”
Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.
Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.
“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.
“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.
As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.
The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.
Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.
However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”
In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.
At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.
Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”
The barriers
Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.
Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.
Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”
Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”
Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.
Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”
Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)
“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”
A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”
For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”
The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.
“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.
Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.
“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.
Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:
- Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
- Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
- A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
- More resources and attention to structural reform
“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
Prepandemic experience
When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.
Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”
Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”
Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.
As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.
Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”
“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.
An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).
Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.
The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.
Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.
CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)
However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.
Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”
Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.
“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
Moving forward
IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”
Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.
Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.
“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.
“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.
As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.
The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.
Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.
However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.
Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”
In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.
At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.
Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”
The barriers
Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.
Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.
Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”
Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”
Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.
Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”
Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)
“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”
A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”
For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”
Human sitters in the COVID era
Data collection needed for care of suicidal hospitalized patients
I am writing this commentary to bring to readers’ attention a medical and ethical complexity related to human sitters for presumably suicidal, COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.
To shape and bundle the ethics issues addressed here into a single question, I offer the following: Should policies and practices requiring that patients in presumed need of a sitter because of assessed suicidality change when the patient is COVID-19–positive? Although the analysis might be similar when a sitter is monitoring a Patient Under Investigation (PUI), here I focus only on COVID-19–positive patients. Similarly, there are other reasons for sitters, of course, such as to prevent elopement, or, if a patient is in restraints, to prevent the patient from pulling out lines or tubes. Again, discussion of some of these ethical complications is beyond the scope of this piece. Just considering the matter of potential suicidality and sitters is complex enough. And so, to start, I sought out existing sources for guidance.
In looking for such sources, I first turned to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before COVID-19. CMS has required that there be a sitter for a patient who is suicidal and that the sitter remain in the room so that the sitter can intervene expeditiously if the patient tries to hurt himself or herself. There has been no change in this guidance since the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substantive guidance for protecting sitters from contagion other than PPE. Given this, it begs the question:
In my hospital, I already have begun discussing the potential risks of harm and potential benefits to our suicidal patients of having a sitter directly outside the patient’s room. I also have considered whether to have one sitter watching several room cameras at once, commonly referred to as “telehealth strategies.”
To be sure, sitting for hours in the room of a COVID-19–positive patient is onerous. The sitter is required to be in full PPE (N-95 mask, gown, and gloves), which is hot and uncomfortable. Current practice is resource intensive in other ways. It requires changing out the sitter every 2 hours, which uses substantial amounts of PPE and multiple sitters.
Regardless, however, there are really no data upon which to base any sound ethics judgment about what should or should not be tried. We just have no information on how to attempt to balance potential risks and prospects for the benefit of whom and when. And, given that good clinical ethics always begin with the facts, I write this piece to see whether readers have thought about these issues before – and whether any of clinicians have started collecting the valuable data needed to begin making sound ethical judgments about how to care for our presumably suicidal COVID-19–positive patients and the sitters who watch over them.
Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].
This column is an outcome of a discussion that occurred during Psych/Ethics rounds on June 5, and does not represent any official statements of Medstar Washington Hospital Center or any entity of the MedStar Corp. Dr. Ritchie would like to thank Evan G. DeRenzo, PhD, of the John J. Lynch Center for Ethics, for her thoughtful review of a previous draft of this commentary.
Data collection needed for care of suicidal hospitalized patients
Data collection needed for care of suicidal hospitalized patients
I am writing this commentary to bring to readers’ attention a medical and ethical complexity related to human sitters for presumably suicidal, COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.
To shape and bundle the ethics issues addressed here into a single question, I offer the following: Should policies and practices requiring that patients in presumed need of a sitter because of assessed suicidality change when the patient is COVID-19–positive? Although the analysis might be similar when a sitter is monitoring a Patient Under Investigation (PUI), here I focus only on COVID-19–positive patients. Similarly, there are other reasons for sitters, of course, such as to prevent elopement, or, if a patient is in restraints, to prevent the patient from pulling out lines or tubes. Again, discussion of some of these ethical complications is beyond the scope of this piece. Just considering the matter of potential suicidality and sitters is complex enough. And so, to start, I sought out existing sources for guidance.
In looking for such sources, I first turned to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before COVID-19. CMS has required that there be a sitter for a patient who is suicidal and that the sitter remain in the room so that the sitter can intervene expeditiously if the patient tries to hurt himself or herself. There has been no change in this guidance since the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substantive guidance for protecting sitters from contagion other than PPE. Given this, it begs the question:
In my hospital, I already have begun discussing the potential risks of harm and potential benefits to our suicidal patients of having a sitter directly outside the patient’s room. I also have considered whether to have one sitter watching several room cameras at once, commonly referred to as “telehealth strategies.”
To be sure, sitting for hours in the room of a COVID-19–positive patient is onerous. The sitter is required to be in full PPE (N-95 mask, gown, and gloves), which is hot and uncomfortable. Current practice is resource intensive in other ways. It requires changing out the sitter every 2 hours, which uses substantial amounts of PPE and multiple sitters.
Regardless, however, there are really no data upon which to base any sound ethics judgment about what should or should not be tried. We just have no information on how to attempt to balance potential risks and prospects for the benefit of whom and when. And, given that good clinical ethics always begin with the facts, I write this piece to see whether readers have thought about these issues before – and whether any of clinicians have started collecting the valuable data needed to begin making sound ethical judgments about how to care for our presumably suicidal COVID-19–positive patients and the sitters who watch over them.
Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].
This column is an outcome of a discussion that occurred during Psych/Ethics rounds on June 5, and does not represent any official statements of Medstar Washington Hospital Center or any entity of the MedStar Corp. Dr. Ritchie would like to thank Evan G. DeRenzo, PhD, of the John J. Lynch Center for Ethics, for her thoughtful review of a previous draft of this commentary.
I am writing this commentary to bring to readers’ attention a medical and ethical complexity related to human sitters for presumably suicidal, COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.
To shape and bundle the ethics issues addressed here into a single question, I offer the following: Should policies and practices requiring that patients in presumed need of a sitter because of assessed suicidality change when the patient is COVID-19–positive? Although the analysis might be similar when a sitter is monitoring a Patient Under Investigation (PUI), here I focus only on COVID-19–positive patients. Similarly, there are other reasons for sitters, of course, such as to prevent elopement, or, if a patient is in restraints, to prevent the patient from pulling out lines or tubes. Again, discussion of some of these ethical complications is beyond the scope of this piece. Just considering the matter of potential suicidality and sitters is complex enough. And so, to start, I sought out existing sources for guidance.
In looking for such sources, I first turned to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before COVID-19. CMS has required that there be a sitter for a patient who is suicidal and that the sitter remain in the room so that the sitter can intervene expeditiously if the patient tries to hurt himself or herself. There has been no change in this guidance since the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substantive guidance for protecting sitters from contagion other than PPE. Given this, it begs the question:
In my hospital, I already have begun discussing the potential risks of harm and potential benefits to our suicidal patients of having a sitter directly outside the patient’s room. I also have considered whether to have one sitter watching several room cameras at once, commonly referred to as “telehealth strategies.”
To be sure, sitting for hours in the room of a COVID-19–positive patient is onerous. The sitter is required to be in full PPE (N-95 mask, gown, and gloves), which is hot and uncomfortable. Current practice is resource intensive in other ways. It requires changing out the sitter every 2 hours, which uses substantial amounts of PPE and multiple sitters.
Regardless, however, there are really no data upon which to base any sound ethics judgment about what should or should not be tried. We just have no information on how to attempt to balance potential risks and prospects for the benefit of whom and when. And, given that good clinical ethics always begin with the facts, I write this piece to see whether readers have thought about these issues before – and whether any of clinicians have started collecting the valuable data needed to begin making sound ethical judgments about how to care for our presumably suicidal COVID-19–positive patients and the sitters who watch over them.
Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].
This column is an outcome of a discussion that occurred during Psych/Ethics rounds on June 5, and does not represent any official statements of Medstar Washington Hospital Center or any entity of the MedStar Corp. Dr. Ritchie would like to thank Evan G. DeRenzo, PhD, of the John J. Lynch Center for Ethics, for her thoughtful review of a previous draft of this commentary.