Background Lung ultrasound (LUS) has received considerable interest in the clinical evaluation of patients with COVID‐19. Previously described LUS manifestations for COVID‐19 include B‐lines, consolidations, and pleural thickening. The interrater reliability (IRR) of these findings for COVID‐19 is unknown. Methods This study was conducted between March and June 2020. Nine physicians (hospitalists: n = 4; emergency medicine: n = 5) from 3 medical centers independently evaluated n = 20 LUS scans ( n = 180 independent observations) collected from patients with COVID‐19, diagnosed via RT‐PCR. These studies were randomly selected from an image database consisting of COVID‐19 patients evaluated in the emergency department with portable ultrasound devices. Physicians were blinded to any patient information or previous LUS interpretation. Kappa values ( κ ) were used to calculate IRR. Results There was substantial IRR on the following items: normal LUS scan ( κ = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.72–0.87]), presence of B‐lines ( κ = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.72–0.87]), ≥3 B‐lines observed ( κ = 0.72 [95% CI: 0.64–0.79]). Moderate IRR was observed for the presence of any consolidation ( κ = 0.57 [95% CI: 0.50–0.64]), subpleural consolidation ( κ = 0.49 [95% CI: 0.42–0.56]), and presence of effusion ( κ = 0.49 [95% CI: 0.41–0.56]). Fair IRR was observed for pleural thickening ( κ = 0.23 [95% CI: 0.15–0.30]). Discussion Many LUS manifestations for COVID‐19 appear to have moderate to substantial IRR across providers from multiple specialties utilizing differing portable devices. The most reliable LUS findings with COVID‐19 may include the presence/count of B‐lines or determining if a scan is normal. Clinical protocols for LUS with COVID‐19 may require additional observers for the confirmation of less reliable findings such as consolidations.

Objectives Lung ultrasound (LUS) can accurately diagnose several pulmonary diseases, including pneumothorax, effusion, and pneumonia. LUS may be useful in the diagnosis and management of COVID‐19. Methods This study was conducted at two United States hospitals from 3/21/2020 to 6/01/2020. Our inclusion criteria included hospitalized adults with COVID‐19 (based on symptomatology and a confirmatory RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2) who received a LUS. Providers used a 12‐zone LUS scanning protocol. The images were interpreted by the researchers based on a pre‐developed consensus document. Patients were stratified by clinical deterioration (defined as either ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death within 28 days from the initial symptom onset) and time from symptom onset to their scan. Results N = 22 patients (N = 36 scans) were included. Eleven (50%) patients experienced clinical deterioration. Among N = 36 scans, only 3 (8%) were classified as normal. The remaining scans demonstrated B‐lines (89%), consolidations (56%), pleural thickening (47%), and pleural effusion (11%). Scans from patients with clinical deterioration demonstrated higher percentages of bilateral consolidations (50 versus 15%; P = .033), anterior consolidations (47 versus 11%; P = .047), lateral consolidations (71 versus 29%; P = .030), pleural thickening (69 versus 30%; P = .045), but not B‐lines (100 versus 80%; P = .11). Abnormal findings had similar prevalences between scans collected 0–6 days and 14–28 days from symptom onset. Discussion Certain LUS findings may be common in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients, especially for those that experience clinical deterioration. These findings may occur anytime throughout the first 28 days of illness. Future efforts should investigate the predictive utility of these findings on clinical outcomes.

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an unprecedented strain on healthcare supplies. Currently there is a global shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE), especially N95 masks. In order to safeguard healthcare personnel in this critical time and to mitigate shortages of N95 respirators, reuse of N95 respirators has to be considered. Methods. Using PubMed and Science Direct, a literature search was conducted to find and synthesize relevant literature on decontamination of N95 respirators for their subsequent reuse. Peer-reviewed publications related to methods of decontamination from January 2007 to April 2020 in the English language are included in this narrative review. Bibliographies of articles for relevant literature were also scrutinized. Findings. A total of 19 studies are included in this narrative review. The appraised methods include ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI), moist heat incubation (MHI), ethylene oxide (EtO), hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV), microwave steam bags (MSB), microwave-generated steam (MGS), dry microwave oven irradiation, hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP), dry heat, liquid hydrogen peroxide, and bleach and alcohol. Conclusion. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, reuse of N95 respirators, although suboptimal, can be considered. Evidence reveals that UVGI, MHI, and HPV are amongst the safest and efficacious methods for decontamination of N95 masks. More research is needed to establish the safety and effectiveness of MGS, MSB, dry heat, EtO, liquid hydrogen peroxide, and HPGP. Alcohol, microwave irradiation, and bleach are not recommended because they damage N95 respirators.

Background: Lung ultrasound (LUS) may be used in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with COVID-19. An abnormal LUS is associated with increased risk for ICU admission in COVID-19. Previously described LUS manifestations for COVID-19 include B-lines, consolidations, and pleural thickening. The interrater reliability (IRR) of these findings for COVID-19 is unknown. Research Question: What is the interrater reliability of lung ultrasound findings in patients with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19? Study Design and Methods: This study was conducted at conducted at two academic medical centers between 03/2020-06/2020. Nine physicians (hospitalists: n=4; emergency medicine: n=5) independently evaluated n=20 LUS scans (n=180 independent observations) collected from RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients. These studies were randomly selected from an image database consisting of COVID-19 patients evaluated in the emergency department with portable ultrasound devices. Physicians were blinded to any patient information or previous LUS interpretation. Kappa values were used to calculate IRR. Results: There was substantial IRR on the following items: normal LUS scan (K=0.79 [95% CI: 0.72-0.87]), presence of B-lines (K=0.79 [95% CI: 0.72-0.87]), >=3 B-lines observed (K=0.72 [95% CI: 0.64-0.79]). Moderate IRR was observed for the presence of any consolidation (K=0.57 [95% CI: 0.50-0.64]), subpleural consolidation (K=0.49 [95% CI: 0.42-0.56]), and presence of effusion (K=0.49 [95% CI: 0.41-0.56]). Fair IRR was observed for pleural thickening (K=0.23 [95% CI: 0.15-0.30]). Interpretation: Many LUS manifestations for COVID-19 appear to have moderate to substantial IRR across providers from multiple specialties utilizing differing portable devices. The most reliable LUS findings with COVID-19 may include the presence/count of B-lines or determining if a scan is normal. Clinical protocols for LUS with COVID-19 may require additional observers for the confirmation of less reliable findings such as consolidations.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been a mainstay of clinical decision-making in the intensive care unit and emergency department for more than a decade, but adoption into hospital medicine has lagged behind. Recently, internal medicine residency programs have started to develop POCUS curricula for trainees, though concurrent hospitalist training programs have been limited to date, with little consensus on what hospitalist-oriented curricula should entail. As such, there is wide variability amongst hospitalists with respect to utilization of, training in, and proficiency in POCUS. We conducted a two-part survey of internal medicine hospitalists at our institution: (1) needs assessment that focused on prior training, attitudes and perspectives, current practices, desired use, and barriers to clinical integration; and (2) knowledge test of exam indications, image interpretation, medical decision-making, and understanding of limitations. Our results demonstrate that a majority of hospitalists felt that POCUS was important for diagnostic purposes and that they would benefit from POCUS-specific education. Inadequate training was the most cited barrier to POCUS use. Hospitalist knowledge was lacking in all domains, particularly image interpretation and clinical integration. As a result, we created a three-tiered training program meant to engage: (1) All hospitalists in basic knowledge and appropriate use of POCUS, (2) Some hospitalists in hands-on skill acquisition and image interpretation, and (3) Few hospitalists in mastery of POCUS with resultant formal credentialing. A tiered approach to POCUS training for hospitalists ensures a fundamental cognitive understanding of POCUS for all, but also facilitates hands-on training for those who are committed to further skillset development.