IMPORTANCE During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, there may be too few ventilators to meet medical demands. It is unknown how many US states have ventilator allocation guidelines and how these state guidelines compare with one another. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the number of publicly available US state guidelines for ventilator allocation and the variation in state recommendations for how ventilator allocation decisions should occur and to assess whether unique criteria exist for pediatric patients. EVIDENCE REVIEW This systematic review evaluated publicly available guidelines about ventilator allocation for all states in the US and in the District of Columbia using department of health websites for each state and internet searches. Documents with any discussion of a process to triage mechanical ventilatory support during a public health emergency were screened for inclusion. Articles were excluded if they did not include specific ventilator allocation recommendations, were in draft status, did not include their state department of health, or were not the most up-to-date guideline. All documents were individually assessed and reassessed by 2 independent reviewers from March 30 to April 2 and May 8 to 10, 2020. FINDINGS As of May 10, 2020, 26 states had publicly available ventilator guidelines, and 14 states had pediatric guidelines. Use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in the initial rank of adult patients was recommended in 15 state guidelines (58%), and assessment of limited life expectancy from underlying conditions or comorbidities was included in 6 state guidelines (23%). Priority was recommended for specific groups in the initial evaluation of patients in 6 states (23%) (ie, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah). Many states recommended exclusion criteria in adult (11 of 26 states [42%]) and pediatric (10 of 14 states [71%]) ventilator allocation. Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation from a patient to give to another if a shortage occurs was discussed in 22 of 26 adult guidelines (85%) and 9 of 14 pediatric guidelines (64%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that although allocation guidelines for mechanical ventilatory support are essential in a public health emergency, only 26 US states provided public guidance on how this allocation should occur. Guidelines among states, including adjacent states, varied significantly and could cause inequity in the allocation of mechanical ventilatory support during a public health emergency, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
Purpose: Visitor restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic limit in-person family meetings for hospitalized patients. We aimed to evaluate the quantity of family meetings by telephone, video and in-person during the COVID-19 pandemic by manual chart review. Secondary outcomes included rate of change in patient goals of care between video and in-person meetings, the timing of family meetings, and variability in meetings by race and ethnicity. Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluated patients admitted to the intensive care unit at an urban academic hospital between March and June 2020. Patients lacking decision-making capacity and receiving a referral for a video meeting were included in this study. Results: Most patients meeting inclusion criteria (N = 61/481, 13%) had COVID-19 pneumonia (n = 57/61, 93%). A total of 650 documented family meetings occurred. Few occurred in-person (n = 70/650, 11%) or discussed goals of care (n = 233/650, 36%). For meetings discussing goals of care, changes in patient goals of care occurred more often for in-person meetings rather than by video (36% vs. 11%, p = 0.0006). The average time to the first goals of care family meeting was 11.4 days from admission. More documented telephone meetings per admission were observed for White (10.5, SD 9.5) and Black/African-American (7.1, SD 6.6) patients compared to Hispanic or Latino patients (4.9, SD 4.9) (p = 0.02). Conclusions: During this period of strict visitor restrictions, few family meetings occurred in-person. Statistically significant fewer changes in patient goals of care occurred following video meetings compared to in-person meetings, providing support limiting in-person meetings may affect patient care.
Purpose: Spirituality and religion affect patient health. This topic is often not included in medical resident education. We aimed to evaluate resident knowledge, attitudes, and skill regarding spirituality, religion, and medicine and to develop, implement, and evaluate a curriculum to improve these measures. Methods: Internal medicine residents at a large, urban academic center were surveyed to determine their baseline knowledge, attitudes, and skill regarding spirituality and religion (37.4% response rate, n = 46/123). A lecture and discussion-based curriculum was implemented over 1 year, followed by another survey (41.4% response rate, n = 51/123); χ2 statistic was used to compare pre- and postsurveys to evaluate the curriculum. Results: Baseline resident attitudes toward spirituality, religion, and medicine were high with most agreeing chaplains are valuable in patient care (93.5%) and that patient spiritual and religious beliefs can affect health (93.5%). Resident self-reported knowledge and skill were low with few knowing the training chaplains receive (4.3%) or reporting competence taking a spiritual history (15.2%). After the curriculum, resident self-reported knowledge increased regarding the role of chaplains (56.5%-80.4%, P = .011) and the training chaplains receive (4.3%-27.5%, P = .002). No significant postcurriculum change was seen in attitudes or skill. Conclusions: Most internal medicine residents have positive attitudes toward spirituality, religion, and medicine. They do not have adequate knowledge or skill to care for patients in this area, however. Implementation of a curriculum in spirituality, religion, and medicine improved resident self-reported knowledge. Future work should focus on revising the curriculum to better improve resident knowledge and skill.
Purpose: Family meetings in the medical intensive care unit can improve outcomes. Little is known about when meetings occur in practice. We aimed to determine the time from admission to family meetings in the medical intensive care unit and assess the relationship of meetings with mortality. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study of critically ill adult patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit at an urban academic medical center. Using manual chart review, the primary outcome was any attempt at holding a family meeting within 72 hours of admission. Competing risk models estimated the time from admission to family meeting and to patient death or discharge. Results: Of the 131 patients who met inclusion criteria in the 12-month study period, the median time from admission to family meeting was 4 days. Fewer than half of patients had a documented family meeting within 72 hours of admission (n = 60/131, 46%), with substantial interphysician variability in meeting rates ranging from 28% to 63%. Patients with family meetings within 72 hours were 30 times more likely to die within 72 hours (32% vs 1%, P < .001). Of the 55 patients who died in the intensive care unit, 27 (49%) had their first family meeting within 1 day of death. Conclusions: Family meetings occur considerably later than 72 hours and are often held in close proximity to a patient’s death. This suggests for some physicians, family meetings may primarily be used to negotiate withdrawal of life support rather than to support the patient and family.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.