Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN/METHODS:Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments. SETTING/METHODS:Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States. SUBJECTS/METHODS:Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs. INTERVENTION/METHODS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational (n = 6) or local/institutional (n = 2) issues or both (n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures. CONCLUSIONS:Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness.

OBJECTIVES:To determine the association of prior use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) with mortality and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN:Retrospective observational study. SETTING:Multicenter, international COVID-19 registry. SUBJECTS:Adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients on antihypertensive agents (AHAs) prior to admission, admitted from March 31, 2020, to March 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Data were compared between three groups: patients on RAASIs only, other AHAs only, and those on both medications. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were performed after controlling for prehospitalization characteristics to estimate the effect of RAASIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization. Of 26,652 patients, 7,975 patients were on AHAs prior to hospitalization. Of these, 1,542 patients (19.3%) were on RAASIs only, 3,765 patients (47.2%) were on other AHAs only, and 2,668 (33.5%) patients were on both medications. Compared with those taking other AHAs only, patients on RAASIs only were younger (mean age 63.3 vs 66.9 yr; p < 0.0001), more often male (58.2% vs 52.4%; p = 0.0001) and more often White (55.1% vs 47.2%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, race, location, and comorbidities, patients on combination of RAASIs and other AHAs had higher in-hospital mortality than those on RAASIs only (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI [1.19-1.38]; p < 0.0001) and higher mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 1.09; 95% CI [1.03-1.15]; p = 0.0017). Patients on RAASIs only had lower mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.81-0.94]; p = 0.0003). Patients on ACEIs only had higher mortality compared with those on ARBs only (OR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.20-1.56]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were taking AHAs, prior use of a combination of RAASIs and other AHAs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than the use of RAASIs alone. When compared with ARBs, ACEIs were associated with significantly higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality is high in patients with hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. We examined the association between hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, individually and clustered as metabolic syndrome (MetS), and COVID-19 outcomes in patients hospitalized in New Orleans during the peak of the outbreak. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:Data were collected from 287 consecutive patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at two hospitals in New Orleans, LA from 30 March to 5 April 2020. MetS was identified per World Health Organization criteria. RESULTS:Among 287 patients (mean age 61.5 years; female, 56.8%; non-Hispanic black, 85.4%), MetS was present in 188 (66%). MetS was significantly associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.42 [95% CI 1.52-7.69]), intensive care unit (ICU) (aOR 4.59 [CI 2.53-8.32]), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (aOR 4.71 [CI 2.50-8.87]), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (aOR 4.70 [CI 2.25-9.82]) compared with non-MetS. Multivariable analyses of hypertension, obesity, and diabetes individually showed no association with mortality. Obesity was associated with ICU (aOR 2.18 [CI, 1.25-3.81]), ARDS (aOR 2.44 [CI 1.28-4.65]), and IMV (aOR 2.36 [CI 1.33-4.21]). Diabetes was associated with ICU (aOR 2.22 [CI 1.24-3.98]) and IMV (aOR 2.12 [CI 1.16-3.89]). Hypertension was not significantly associated with any outcome. Inflammatory biomarkers associated with MetS, CRP, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were associated with mortality (CRP [aOR 3.66] [CI 1.22-10.97] and LDH [aOR 3.49] [CI 1.78-6.83]). CONCLUSIONS:In predominantly black patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the clustering of hypertension, obesity, and diabetes as MetS increased the odds of mortality compared with these comorbidities individually.

BACKGROUND:Hospitalised patients whose inpatient teams rotate off service experience increased mortality related to end-of-rotation care transitions, yet standardised handoff practices are lacking. OBJECTIVE:Develop and implement a multidisciplinary patient-centred handoff intervention to improve outcomes for patients who are critically ill during end-of-rotation transitions. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Single-centre, controlled pilot study of medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients whose resident team was undergoing end-of-rotation transition at a university hospital from June 2017 to February 2018. INTERVENTION/METHODS:A 4-item intervention was implemented over two study periods. Intervention 1 included: (1) in-person bedside handoff between teams rotating off and on service, (2) handoff checklist, (3) nursing involvement in handoff, and (4) 30 min education session. Intervention 2 included the additional option to conduct bedside handoff via videoconferencing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Implementation was measured by repeated clinician surveys and direct observation. Patient outcomes included length of stay (LOS; ICU and hospital) and mortality (ICU, hospital and 30 days). Clinician perceptions were modelled over time using per cent positive responses in logistic regression. Patient outcomes were compared with matched control 'transition' patients from 1 year prior to implementation of the intervention. RESULTS:Among 270 transition patients, 46.3% were female with a mean age of 55.9 years. Mechanical ventilation (64.1%) and in-hospital death (27.6%) rates were prevalent. Despite high implementation rates-handoff participation (93.8%), checklist utilisation (75.0%), videoconferencing (62.5%), nursing involvement (75.0%)-the intervention did not significantly improve LOS or mortality. Multidisciplinary survey data revealed significant improvement in acceptability by nursing staff, while satisfaction significantly declined for resident physicians. CONCLUSIONS:In this controlled pilot study, a structured ICU end-of-rotation care transition strategy was feasible to implement with high fidelity. While mortality and LOS were not affected in a pilot study with limited power, the pragmatic strategy of this intervention holds promise for future trials.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized medical patients undergoing transition of care by house staff teams at the end of a ward rotation are associated with an increased risk of mortality, yet best practices surrounding this transition are lacking. AIM: To assess the impact of a warm handoff protocol for end-of-rotation care transitions. SETTING: A large, university-based internal medicine residency using three different training sites. PARTICIPANTS: PGY-2 and PGY-3 internal medicine residents. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Implementation of a warm handoff protocol whereby the incoming and outgoing residents meet at the hospital to sign out in-person and jointly round at the bedside on sicker patients using a checklist. PROGRAM EVALUATION: An eight-question survey completed by 60 of 99 eligible residents demonstrated that 85% of residents perceived warm handoffs to be safer for patients (p < 0.001), while 98% felt warm handoffs improved their knowledge and comfort level of patients on day 1 of an inpatient rotation (p < 0.001) as compared to prior handoff techniques. Finally, 88% felt warm handoffs were worthwhile despite requiring additional time (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: A warm handoff protocol represents a novel strategy to potentially mitigate the known risks associated with end-of-rotation care transitions. Additional studies analyzing patient outcomes will be needed to assess the impact of this strategy.

Importance: Shift-to-shift transitions in care among house staff are associated with adverse events. However, the association between end-of-rotation transition (in which care of the patient is transferred) and adverse events is uncertain. Objective: To examine the association of end-of-rotation house staff transitions with mortality among hospitalized patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients admitted to internal medicine services (N = 230701) at 10 university-affiliated US Veterans Health Administration hospitals (2008-2014). Exposures: Transition patients (defined as those admitted prior to an end-of-rotation transition who died or were discharged within 7 days following transition) were stratified by type of transition (intern only, resident only, or intern + resident) and compared with all other discharges (control). An alternative analysis comparing admissions within 2 days before transition with admissions on the same 2 days 2 weeks later was also conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day mortality and readmission rates. A difference-in-difference analysis assessed whether outcomes changed after the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty hour regulations. Adjustments included age, sex, race/ethnicity, month, year, length of stay, comorbidities, and hospital. Results: Among 230701 patient discharges (mean age, 65.6 years; men, 95.8%; median length of stay, 3.0 days), 25938 intern-only, 26456 resident-only, and 11517 intern + resident end-of-rotation transitions occurred. Overall mortality was 2.18% in-hospital, 9.45% at 30 days, and 14.43% at 90 days. Adjusted hospital mortality was significantly greater in transition vs control patients for the intern-only group (3.5% vs 2.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.12 [95% CI, 1.03-1.21]) and the intern + resident group (4.0% vs 2.1%; OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.06-1.33]), but not for the resident-only group (3.3% vs 2.0%; OR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.99-1.16]). Adjusted 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were greater in all transition vs control comparisons (30-day mortality: intern-only group, 14.5% vs 8.8%, OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.13-1.22]; resident-only group, 13.8% vs 8.9%, OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.04-1.18]; intern + resident group, 15.5% vs 9.1%, OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.12-1.31]; 90-day mortality: intern-only group, 21.5% vs 13.5%, OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.10-1.19]; resident-only group, 20.9% vs 13.6%, OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05-1.16]; intern + resident group, 22.8% vs 14.0%, OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.11-1.23]). Duty hour changes were associated with greater adjusted hospital mortality for transition patients in the intern-only group and intern + resident group than for controls (intern-only: OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.02-1.21]; intern + resident: OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.02-1.34]). The alternative analyses did not demonstrate any significant differences in mortality between transition and control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to internal medicine services in 10 Veterans Affairs hospitals, end-of-rotation transition in care was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality in an unrestricted analysis that included most patients, but not in an alternative restricted analysis. The association was stronger following institution of ACGME duty hour regulations.