Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

The abuse of 'bath salts' has raised concerns because of their adverse effects, which include delirium, violent behavior, and suicide ideation in severe cases. The bath salt constituent 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) has been closely linked to these and other adverse effects. The abnormal behavioral pattern produced by acute high-dose MDPV intake suggests possible disruptions of neural communication between brain regions. Therefore, we determined if MDPV exerts disruptive effects on brain functional connectivity, particularly in areas of the prefrontal cortex. Male rats were imaged following administration of a single dose of MDPV (0.3, 1.0, or 3.0 mg/kg) or saline. Resting state brain blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) images were acquired at 4.7 T. To determine the role of dopamine transmission in MDPV-induced changes in functional connectivity, a group of rats received the dopamine D 1 /D 2 receptor antagonist cis-flupenthixol (0.5 mg/kg) 30 min before MDPV. MDPV dose-dependently reduced functional connectivity. Detailed analysis of its effects revealed that connectivity between frontal cortical and striatal areas was reduced. This included connectivity between the prelimbic prefrontal cortex and other areas of the frontal cortex and the insular cortex with hypothalamic, ventral, and dorsal striatal areas. Although the reduced connectivity appeared widespread, connectivity between these regions and somatosensory cortex was not as severely affected. Dopamine receptor blockade did not prevent the MDPV-induced decrease in functional connectivity. The results provide a novel signature of MDPV's in vivo mechanism of action. Reduced brain functional connectivity has been reported in patients suffering from psychosis and has been linked to cognitive dysfunction, audiovisual hallucinations, and negative affective states akin to those reported for MDPV-induced intoxication. The present results suggest that disruption of functional connectivity networks involving frontal cortical and striatal regions could contribute to the adverse effects of MDPV.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Advance care planning (ACP) and advance care directives (ACDs) play a vital role in preparing for end-of-life care. However, current literature suggests that uptake of ACP and ACDs in rural Australia is low, which may contribute to lower quality care for the older rural population, as patients' end-of-life wishes may not be recognised and acknowledged. This study aims to provide a current perspective on the attitudes and practices of healthcare workers from residential aged care facilities towards ACP and ACDs in the central west, far west and Orana regions of New South Wales, Australia. Methods: This was a mixed-methods study incorporating anonymous survey and individual interviews. Healthcare workers from 12 residential aged care facilities within the studied region completed surveys (n=109). The 40-item survey assessed participant demographics, training and experience with ACP and ACD, attitudes towards ACP and ACDs, and barriers and facilitators towards the use of ACP and ACDs in their organisation. Five participants were interviewed to explore these issues in more depth.Results: Almost three-quarters (71%) of respondents thought that ACP is necessary while almost half (48%) were involved with >5 ACDs in the past 12 months. Formal training was seen as beneficial by most (81%) but the importance of practical experience was also acknowledged. No statistically significant differences were found in attitudes between those with <5 years and those with >5 years of experience. Avoidance of unnecessary resuscitation was a consistent theme in all interviews and the potential of a nurse-led model of delivery was identified. Patient factors such as decreased capacity to make informed decisions were identified as barriers that could be circumvented by pre-emptive implementation of ACP discussion. The rural setting was identified as a facilitator due to a supportive community, which helped to mitigate barriers such as limited staffing. Conclusions: Attitudes towards ACP in rural New South Wales are highly positive. The rural setting is a facilitator to ACP, and ACDs are approached in a multidisciplinary fashion. Further training is an identified need although on-the-ground experience may be more beneficial.

IntroductionThe number of primary care physicians in the United States continues to lag behind the number of uninsured people. There has been a growing demand for medical students to improve their self-efficacy, comfortableness, attitude, and interest in working with the underserved and in primary care. This study aims to discern whether volunteering at a student-run, free healthcare clinic has a positive impact on these five variables of interest or not.MethodsA 95-item survey was distributed through Qualtrics Survey Software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA) to medical students from the Class of 2018 and Class of 2019 at the University of Central Florida College of Medicine. They were recruited via emails, Facebook, and in-classroom announcements. Mean responses on a Likert-like scale to different survey items were collected and compared between two study cohorts: Keeping Neighbors In Good Health Through Service (KNIGHTS) Clinic volunteers and non-volunteers.ResultsResults from 128 students showed no significant differences in the means between the two cohorts (p-values were not significant). When volunteers were asked the survey item, “KNIGHTS Clinic positively influenced my attitude towards working with underserved patients,” 62% strongly agreed, 26% agreed, 10% were neutral, and 2% disagreed.DiscussionBased on the results, volunteering at KNIGHTS Clinic may not have a positive impact on the five variables of interest. However, the lack of significance may also be due to certain limitations of this study addressed elsewhere in this paper. With the majority of KNIGHTS Clinic volunteers agreeing that “KNIGHTS Clinic positively influenced […their] attitude towards working with underserved patients,” there may be a positive impact of volunteering on volunteers’ attitude towards working with the underserved.

It is increasingly evident that patient health outcomes are improved when they are treated by an effective interdisciplinary healthcare team. Many also endorse that learning to function collaboratively in interdisciplinary settings should start at the onset of one’s medical education. Student-run free clinics, such as the University of Central Florida College of Medicine’s (UCF COM) KNIGHTS (Keeping Neighbors In Good Health Through Service) Clinic, provide opportunities for students to work in concert with other healthcare professionals. This study aimed to discern whether volunteering in this setting had a positive impact on medical students’ perception of working within an interdisciplinary team. A single survey was distributed via Qualtrics to all first and second-year medical students (N = 248) at the UCF COM. The items of interest examined in this study were part of a larger study described elsewhere. The mean responses on a 5-point Likert-like scale to these survey items were recorded and compared between two cohorts: KNIGHTS volunteers and non-volunteers. One hundred twenty-three (49.6%) students responded to the survey and most items showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p-value > 0.05). However, there were a few items of interest that did show a significant difference. These included KNIGHTS volunteers being much more likely to have worked with other healthcare professionals (p < 0.001) as well as believing themselves to have a better understanding of the role of medicine within an interprofessional team (p = 0.016). Additionally, KNIGHTS volunteers were more likely to feel like they understood the role of patient education (p = 0.031) and pharmacy (p = 0.040) within an interprofessional team. Interestingly, KNIGHTS volunteers were also more likely to believe that problem-solving skills should be learned with students within their own discipline (p = 0.009) as well as that there is little overlap between the roles of medical students and students from other healthcare disciplines (p = 0.044). Still, overall results showed that both volunteers and non-volunteers had an overall positive perception of interdisciplinary teams and working with other healthcare professionals.