In a large health system in the United States, investigators examined whether mortality, receipt of mechanical ventilation, and patient acuity changed over time among adult patients with COVID-19–related critical illness admitted to intensive care units.

No abstract

Objectives-B-lines are a lung ultrasound (LUS) artifact that often indicate pathology. Little is known about the optimal ultrasound machine settings to assess B-lines. We compared settings typically used to evaluate B-lines at our institution with adjusted settings based on recent studies.Methods-In order to determine typical settings for B-line assessment, we retrospectively reviewed LUS images obtained at our institution. We then prospectively performed LUS with both typical and adjusted settings, using curvilinear and phased array probes, in 20 patients presenting to the emergency department with shortness of breath. The prospectively obtained clips were rated for quality and quantity of Blines by 14 clinicians with experience in LUS, with 1 assigned for typical settings "much greater," 2 for typical settings "slightly greater," 3 for both settings "similar," 4 for adjusted settings "slightly greater," and 5 for adjusted settings "much greater."Results-Mean ratings and 95% confidence intervals significantly exceeded the null value of 3 for both B line quality (curvilinear probe: 4.68, 4.50-4.85; phased array probe: 4.02, 3.70-4.35) and B line quantity (curvilinear probe: 4.16, 3.84-4.49; phased array probe: 3.68, 3.41-3.96).Conclusions-B-line quality and quantity were rated higher using adjusted settings based on recently published evidence than when using settings that are typically employed in our institution. Our findings suggest that B-line assessment should be performed with focal zone at the level of the pleura, harmonics off, and gain increased in the far field.

No abstract

Background Advancements in technology continue to transform the landscape of medical education. The need for technology-enhanced distance learning has been further accelerated by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The relatively recent emergence of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and alternate reality has expanded the possible applications of simulation-based education (SBE) outside of the traditional simulation laboratory, making SBE accessible asynchronously and in geographically diverse locations. Objective In this review, we will explore the evidence base for use of emerging technologies in SBE as well as the strengths and limitations of each modality in a variety of settings. Methods PubMed was searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1995 and 2021 that focused on VR in medical education. The search terms included medical education, VR, simulation, AR, and alternate reality. We also searched reference lists from selected articles to identify additional relevant studies. Results VR simulations have been used successfully in resuscitation, communication, and bronchoscopy training. In contrast, AR has demonstrated utility in teaching anatomical correlates with the use of diagnostic imaging, such as point-of-care ultrasound. Alternate reality has been used as a tool for developing clinical reasoning skills, longitudinal patient panel management, and crisis resource management via multiplayer platforms. Conclusion Although each of these modalities has a variety of educational applications in health profession education, there are benefits and limitations to each that are important to recognize prior to the design and implementation of educational content, including differences in equipment requirements, cost, and scalability.