MDedge Psychiatry

It is clear that the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic is one of the most extraordinary epochs of our professional and personal lives. Besides the challenges to the techniques and technologies of care for this illness, we are seeing challenges to the fundamentals of health care, both to the systems whereby it is delivered, and to the ethical principles that guide that delivery. There is unprecedented relevance of certain ethical issues in the practice of medicine, many of which have previously been discussed in classrooms and textbooks, but now are at play in daily practice, particularly at the frontlines of the war against COVID-19.¹ In this article, I highlight several ethical dilemmas that are salient to these unique times. Some of the most compelling issues can be sorted into 2 clearly overlapping domains: triage ethics and equity ethics.

Triage ethics

In the areas most greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, scarcity of treatment resources, such as ventilators, is a legitimate concern. French surgeon Dominique Jean Larry was the first to establish medical sorting protocols in the context of the battles of the Napoleonic wars, for which he used the French word triage, meaning “sorting.”² He articulated 3 prognostic categories: 1) those who would die even with treatment, 2) those who would live without treatment, and 3) those who would die unless treated. Triage decisions arise in the context of insufficient resources, particularly space, staff, and supplies. Although usually identified with disasters, these decisions can arise in other contexts where personnel or technological resources are inadequate. Indeed, one of the first modern incarnations of triage ethics in American civilian life was in the early days of hemodialysis, when so-called “God committees” made complex decisions about which patients would be able to use this new, rare technology.³

Two fundamental moral constructs undergird medical ethics: deontological and utilitarian. The former, in which most clinicians traffic in ordinary practice, is driven by principles or moral rules such as the sanctity of life, the rule of fairness, and the principle of autonomy.⁴ They apply primarily in the context of treating an individual patient. The utilitarian way of reasoning is not as familiar to clinicians. It is focused on the broader context, the common good, the health of the group. It asks to calculate “the greatest good for the greatest number” as a means of navigating ethical dilemmas.⁵ The utilitarian perspective is far more familiar to policymakers, health care administrators, and public health professionals. It tends to be anathema to clinicians. However, disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic ask some clinicians, particularly inpatient physicians, to shift from their usual deontological perspective to a utilitarian one, because triage ethics fundamentally draw on utilitarian reasoning. This can be quite anguishing to clinicians who typically work with individual patients in settings of more adequate, if not abundant, resources. What may feel wrong in a deontological mode can be seen as ethically right in a utilitarian framework.

The Table compares and contrasts these 2 paradigms and how they manifest in the clinical trenches, in a protracted health care crisis with limited resources.

The COVID-19 crisis has produced an unprecedented and extended exposure of clinicians to triage situations in the face of limited resources such as ventilators, personnel, personal protective equipment, etc.⁶ Numerous possible approaches to deploying limited supplies are being considered. On what basis should such decisions be made? How can fairness be optimally manifest? Some possibilities include:

• first come, first served
• youngest first
• lottery
• short-term survivability
• long-term prognosis for quality of life
• value of a patient to the lives of others (eg, parents, health care workers, vaccine researchers).

One particularly interesting exploration of these questions was done in Maryland and reported in the “Maryland Framework for the Allocation of Scarce Life-sustaining Medical Resources in a Catastrophic Public Health Emergency.”⁷ This was the product of a multi-year consultation, ending in 2017, with several constituencies, including clinicians, politicians, hospital administrators, and members of the public brainstorming about approaches to allocating a hypothetical scarcity of ventilators. Interestingly, there was one broad consensus among these groups: a ventilator should not be withdrawn from a patient already using it to give to a “better” candidate who comes along later.

Some institutions have developed a method of making triage decisions that takes such decisions out of the hands of individual clinicians and instead assigns them to specialized “triage teams” made up of ethicists and clinicians experienced in critical care, to develop more distance from the emotions at the bedside. To minimize bias, such teams are often insulated from getting personal information about the patient, and receive only acute clinical information.⁸

Continue to: The pros and cons of these approaches...

The pros and cons of these approaches and the underlying ethical reasoning is beyond the scope of this overview. Policy documents from different states, regions, nations, and institutions have various approaches to making these choices. Presently, there is no coherent national or international agreement on triage ethics.⁹ It is important, however, that there be transparency in whatever approach an institution adopts for triage decisions.

Equity ethics

Though the equitable distribution of health care delivery has long been a concern, this problem has become magnified by the COVID-19 crisis. Race, sex, age, socioeconomic class, and type of illness have all been perennial sources of division between those who have better or worse access to health care and its outcomes. All of these distinctions have created differentials in rates of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁰

The shifting of acute health care facilities to mostly COVID-19–related treatment, and postponing less critical and more “elective” care, creates a divide based on illness type. Many facilities have stopped taking admissions for other kinds of cases. This is particularly relevant to psychiatric units, many of which have had to decrease their bed capacities to make all rooms private, and limit their usual treatments offered to inpatients.¹¹ Many long-term units, such as at state hospitals, are closing to new admissions. Many day hospitals and intensive outpatient programs remain closed, not even shifting to telehealth. In areas most affected by COVID-19, some institutions have closed psychiatric wards and reallocated psychiatrists to cover some of the medical units. So the availability of the more intensive, institutionally-based levels of care is significantly reduced, particularly for psychiatric patients.¹² These patients already are a disadvantaged population in the distribution of health care resources, and the care of individuals with serious mental illness is more likely to be seen as “nonessential” in this time of suddenly scarcer institutional resources.

One of the cherished ethical values in health care is autonomy, and in a deontological triage environment, honoring patient autonomy is carefully and tenderly administered. However, in a utilitarian-driven triage environment, considerations of the common good can trump autonomy, even in subtle ways that create inequities. Clinicians have been advised to have more frank conversations with patients, particularly those with chronic illnesses, stepping up initiatives to make advanced directives during this crisis, explicitly reminding patients that there may not be enough ventilators for all who need one.¹³ Some have argued that such physician-initiated conversations can be inherently coercive, making these decisions not as autonomous as it may appear, similar to physicians suggesting medical euthanasia as an option.¹⁴ Interestingly, some jurisdictions that offer euthanasia have been suspending such services during the COVID-19 crisis.¹⁵ Some hospitals have even wrestled with the possibility that all COVID-19 admissions should be considered “do not resuscitate,” especially because cardiopulmonary resuscitation significantly elevates the risks of viral exposure for the treatment team.^16,17 A more explicit example of how current standards protecting patient autonomy may be challenged is patients who are admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric unit. These are patients whose presumptively impaired autonomy is already being overridden by the involuntary nature of the admission. If a psychiatric unit requires admissions to be COVID-19–negative, and if patients refuse COVID-19 testing, should the testing be forced upon them to protect the entire milieu?

Many ethicists are highlighting the embedded equity bias known as “ableism” inherent in triage decisions—implicitly disfavoring resources for patients with COVID-19 who are already physically or intellectually disabled, chronically ill, aged, homeless, psychosocially low functioning, etc.¹⁸ Without explicit protections for individuals who are chronically disabled, triage decisions unguided by policy safeguards may reflexively favor the more “abled.” This bias towards the more abled is often inherent in how difficult it is to access health care. It can also be manifested in bedside triage decisions made in the moment by individual clinicians. Many disability rights advocates have been sounding this alarm during the COVID-19 crisis.¹⁹

Continue to: A special circumstance of equity...

A special circumstance of equity is arising during this ongoing pandemic—the possibility of treating health care workers as a privileged class. Unlike typical disasters, where health care workers come in afterwards, and therefore are in relatively less danger, pandemics create particularly high risks of danger for such individuals, with repeated exposure to the virus. They are both responders and potential victims. Should they have higher priority for ventilators, vaccines, funding, etc?⁶ This is a more robust degree of compensatory justice than merely giving appreciation. Giving health care workers such advantages may seem intuitively appealing, but perhaps professionalism and the self-obligation of duty mitigates such claims.²⁰

A unique opportunity

The magnitude and pervasiveness of this pandemic crisis is unique in our lifetimes, as both professionals and as citizens. In the crucible of this extraordinary time, these and other medical ethics dilemmas burn hotter than ever before. Different societies and institutions may come up with different answers, based on their cultures and values. It is important, however, that the venerable ethos of medical ethics, which has evolved through the millennia, codified in oaths, codes, and scholarship, can be a compass at the bedside and in the meetings of legislatures, leaders, and policymakers. Perhaps we can emerge from this time with more clarity about how to balance the preciousness of individual rights with the needs of the common good.

Bottom Line

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought increased attention to triage ethics and equity ethics. There is no coherent national or international agreement on how to best deploy limited supplies such as ventilators and personal protective equipment. Although the equitable distribution of health care delivery has long been a concern, this problem has become magnified by COVID-19. Clinicians may be asked to view health care through the less familiar lens of the common good, as opposed to focusing strictly on an individual patient.

Related Resources

• Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Coronavirus ethics and policy insights and resources. https://bioethics.jhu.edu/research-and-outreach/covid-19-bioethics-expert-insights/.
• Daugherty-Biddison L, Gwon H, Regenberg A, et al. Maryland framework for the allocation of scarce lifesustaining medical resources in a catastrophic public health emergency. www.law.umaryland.edu/media/SOL/pdfs/Programs/Health-Law/MHECN/ASR%20Framework_Final.pdf.

It is clear that the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic is one of the most extraordinary epochs of our professional and personal lives. Besides the challenges to the techniques and technologies of care for this illness, we are seeing challenges to the fundamentals of health care, both to the systems whereby it is delivered, and to the ethical principles that guide that delivery. There is unprecedented relevance of certain ethical issues in the practice of medicine, many of which have previously been discussed in classrooms and textbooks, but now are at play in daily practice, particularly at the frontlines of the war against COVID-19.¹ In this article, I highlight several ethical dilemmas that are salient to these unique times. Some of the most compelling issues can be sorted into 2 clearly overlapping domains: triage ethics and equity ethics.

Triage ethics

In the areas most greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, scarcity of treatment resources, such as ventilators, is a legitimate concern. French surgeon Dominique Jean Larry was the first to establish medical sorting protocols in the context of the battles of the Napoleonic wars, for which he used the French word triage, meaning “sorting.”² He articulated 3 prognostic categories: 1) those who would die even with treatment, 2) those who would live without treatment, and 3) those who would die unless treated. Triage decisions arise in the context of insufficient resources, particularly space, staff, and supplies. Although usually identified with disasters, these decisions can arise in other contexts where personnel or technological resources are inadequate. Indeed, one of the first modern incarnations of triage ethics in American civilian life was in the early days of hemodialysis, when so-called “God committees” made complex decisions about which patients would be able to use this new, rare technology.³

Two fundamental moral constructs undergird medical ethics: deontological and utilitarian. The former, in which most clinicians traffic in ordinary practice, is driven by principles or moral rules such as the sanctity of life, the rule of fairness, and the principle of autonomy.⁴ They apply primarily in the context of treating an individual patient. The utilitarian way of reasoning is not as familiar to clinicians. It is focused on the broader context, the common good, the health of the group. It asks to calculate “the greatest good for the greatest number” as a means of navigating ethical dilemmas.⁵ The utilitarian perspective is far more familiar to policymakers, health care administrators, and public health professionals. It tends to be anathema to clinicians. However, disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic ask some clinicians, particularly inpatient physicians, to shift from their usual deontological perspective to a utilitarian one, because triage ethics fundamentally draw on utilitarian reasoning. This can be quite anguishing to clinicians who typically work with individual patients in settings of more adequate, if not abundant, resources. What may feel wrong in a deontological mode can be seen as ethically right in a utilitarian framework.

The Table compares and contrasts these 2 paradigms and how they manifest in the clinical trenches, in a protracted health care crisis with limited resources.

The COVID-19 crisis has produced an unprecedented and extended exposure of clinicians to triage situations in the face of limited resources such as ventilators, personnel, personal protective equipment, etc.⁶ Numerous possible approaches to deploying limited supplies are being considered. On what basis should such decisions be made? How can fairness be optimally manifest? Some possibilities include:

• first come, first served
• youngest first
• lottery
• short-term survivability
• long-term prognosis for quality of life
• value of a patient to the lives of others (eg, parents, health care workers, vaccine researchers).

One particularly interesting exploration of these questions was done in Maryland and reported in the “Maryland Framework for the Allocation of Scarce Life-sustaining Medical Resources in a Catastrophic Public Health Emergency.”⁷ This was the product of a multi-year consultation, ending in 2017, with several constituencies, including clinicians, politicians, hospital administrators, and members of the public brainstorming about approaches to allocating a hypothetical scarcity of ventilators. Interestingly, there was one broad consensus among these groups: a ventilator should not be withdrawn from a patient already using it to give to a “better” candidate who comes along later.

Some institutions have developed a method of making triage decisions that takes such decisions out of the hands of individual clinicians and instead assigns them to specialized “triage teams” made up of ethicists and clinicians experienced in critical care, to develop more distance from the emotions at the bedside. To minimize bias, such teams are often insulated from getting personal information about the patient, and receive only acute clinical information.⁸

Continue to: The pros and cons of these approaches...

The pros and cons of these approaches and the underlying ethical reasoning is beyond the scope of this overview. Policy documents from different states, regions, nations, and institutions have various approaches to making these choices. Presently, there is no coherent national or international agreement on triage ethics.⁹ It is important, however, that there be transparency in whatever approach an institution adopts for triage decisions.

Equity ethics

Though the equitable distribution of health care delivery has long been a concern, this problem has become magnified by the COVID-19 crisis. Race, sex, age, socioeconomic class, and type of illness have all been perennial sources of division between those who have better or worse access to health care and its outcomes. All of these distinctions have created differentials in rates of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁰

The shifting of acute health care facilities to mostly COVID-19–related treatment, and postponing less critical and more “elective” care, creates a divide based on illness type. Many facilities have stopped taking admissions for other kinds of cases. This is particularly relevant to psychiatric units, many of which have had to decrease their bed capacities to make all rooms private, and limit their usual treatments offered to inpatients.¹¹ Many long-term units, such as at state hospitals, are closing to new admissions. Many day hospitals and intensive outpatient programs remain closed, not even shifting to telehealth. In areas most affected by COVID-19, some institutions have closed psychiatric wards and reallocated psychiatrists to cover some of the medical units. So the availability of the more intensive, institutionally-based levels of care is significantly reduced, particularly for psychiatric patients.¹² These patients already are a disadvantaged population in the distribution of health care resources, and the care of individuals with serious mental illness is more likely to be seen as “nonessential” in this time of suddenly scarcer institutional resources.

One of the cherished ethical values in health care is autonomy, and in a deontological triage environment, honoring patient autonomy is carefully and tenderly administered. However, in a utilitarian-driven triage environment, considerations of the common good can trump autonomy, even in subtle ways that create inequities. Clinicians have been advised to have more frank conversations with patients, particularly those with chronic illnesses, stepping up initiatives to make advanced directives during this crisis, explicitly reminding patients that there may not be enough ventilators for all who need one.¹³ Some have argued that such physician-initiated conversations can be inherently coercive, making these decisions not as autonomous as it may appear, similar to physicians suggesting medical euthanasia as an option.¹⁴ Interestingly, some jurisdictions that offer euthanasia have been suspending such services during the COVID-19 crisis.¹⁵ Some hospitals have even wrestled with the possibility that all COVID-19 admissions should be considered “do not resuscitate,” especially because cardiopulmonary resuscitation significantly elevates the risks of viral exposure for the treatment team.^16,17 A more explicit example of how current standards protecting patient autonomy may be challenged is patients who are admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric unit. These are patients whose presumptively impaired autonomy is already being overridden by the involuntary nature of the admission. If a psychiatric unit requires admissions to be COVID-19–negative, and if patients refuse COVID-19 testing, should the testing be forced upon them to protect the entire milieu?

Many ethicists are highlighting the embedded equity bias known as “ableism” inherent in triage decisions—implicitly disfavoring resources for patients with COVID-19 who are already physically or intellectually disabled, chronically ill, aged, homeless, psychosocially low functioning, etc.¹⁸ Without explicit protections for individuals who are chronically disabled, triage decisions unguided by policy safeguards may reflexively favor the more “abled.” This bias towards the more abled is often inherent in how difficult it is to access health care. It can also be manifested in bedside triage decisions made in the moment by individual clinicians. Many disability rights advocates have been sounding this alarm during the COVID-19 crisis.¹⁹

Continue to: A special circumstance of equity...

A special circumstance of equity is arising during this ongoing pandemic—the possibility of treating health care workers as a privileged class. Unlike typical disasters, where health care workers come in afterwards, and therefore are in relatively less danger, pandemics create particularly high risks of danger for such individuals, with repeated exposure to the virus. They are both responders and potential victims. Should they have higher priority for ventilators, vaccines, funding, etc?⁶ This is a more robust degree of compensatory justice than merely giving appreciation. Giving health care workers such advantages may seem intuitively appealing, but perhaps professionalism and the self-obligation of duty mitigates such claims.²⁰

A unique opportunity

The magnitude and pervasiveness of this pandemic crisis is unique in our lifetimes, as both professionals and as citizens. In the crucible of this extraordinary time, these and other medical ethics dilemmas burn hotter than ever before. Different societies and institutions may come up with different answers, based on their cultures and values. It is important, however, that the venerable ethos of medical ethics, which has evolved through the millennia, codified in oaths, codes, and scholarship, can be a compass at the bedside and in the meetings of legislatures, leaders, and policymakers. Perhaps we can emerge from this time with more clarity about how to balance the preciousness of individual rights with the needs of the common good.

Bottom Line

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought increased attention to triage ethics and equity ethics. There is no coherent national or international agreement on how to best deploy limited supplies such as ventilators and personal protective equipment. Although the equitable distribution of health care delivery has long been a concern, this problem has become magnified by COVID-19. Clinicians may be asked to view health care through the less familiar lens of the common good, as opposed to focusing strictly on an individual patient.

Related Resources

• Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Coronavirus ethics and policy insights and resources. https://bioethics.jhu.edu/research-and-outreach/covid-19-bioethics-expert-insights/.
• Daugherty-Biddison L, Gwon H, Regenberg A, et al. Maryland framework for the allocation of scarce lifesustaining medical resources in a catastrophic public health emergency. www.law.umaryland.edu/media/SOL/pdfs/Programs/Health-Law/MHECN/ASR%20Framework_Final.pdf.

It is clear that the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic is one of the most extraordinary epochs of our professional and personal lives. Besides the challenges to the techniques and technologies of care for this illness, we are seeing challenges to the fundamentals of health care, both to the systems whereby it is delivered, and to the ethical principles that guide that delivery. There is unprecedented relevance of certain ethical issues in the practice of medicine, many of which have previously been discussed in classrooms and textbooks, but now are at play in daily practice, particularly at the frontlines of the war against COVID-19.¹ In this article, I highlight several ethical dilemmas that are salient to these unique times. Some of the most compelling issues can be sorted into 2 clearly overlapping domains: triage ethics and equity ethics.

Triage ethics

In the areas most greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, scarcity of treatment resources, such as ventilators, is a legitimate concern. French surgeon Dominique Jean Larry was the first to establish medical sorting protocols in the context of the battles of the Napoleonic wars, for which he used the French word triage, meaning “sorting.”² He articulated 3 prognostic categories: 1) those who would die even with treatment, 2) those who would live without treatment, and 3) those who would die unless treated. Triage decisions arise in the context of insufficient resources, particularly space, staff, and supplies. Although usually identified with disasters, these decisions can arise in other contexts where personnel or technological resources are inadequate. Indeed, one of the first modern incarnations of triage ethics in American civilian life was in the early days of hemodialysis, when so-called “God committees” made complex decisions about which patients would be able to use this new, rare technology.³

Two fundamental moral constructs undergird medical ethics: deontological and utilitarian. The former, in which most clinicians traffic in ordinary practice, is driven by principles or moral rules such as the sanctity of life, the rule of fairness, and the principle of autonomy.⁴ They apply primarily in the context of treating an individual patient. The utilitarian way of reasoning is not as familiar to clinicians. It is focused on the broader context, the common good, the health of the group. It asks to calculate “the greatest good for the greatest number” as a means of navigating ethical dilemmas.⁵ The utilitarian perspective is far more familiar to policymakers, health care administrators, and public health professionals. It tends to be anathema to clinicians. However, disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic ask some clinicians, particularly inpatient physicians, to shift from their usual deontological perspective to a utilitarian one, because triage ethics fundamentally draw on utilitarian reasoning. This can be quite anguishing to clinicians who typically work with individual patients in settings of more adequate, if not abundant, resources. What may feel wrong in a deontological mode can be seen as ethically right in a utilitarian framework.

The Table compares and contrasts these 2 paradigms and how they manifest in the clinical trenches, in a protracted health care crisis with limited resources.

The COVID-19 crisis has produced an unprecedented and extended exposure of clinicians to triage situations in the face of limited resources such as ventilators, personnel, personal protective equipment, etc.⁶ Numerous possible approaches to deploying limited supplies are being considered. On what basis should such decisions be made? How can fairness be optimally manifest? Some possibilities include:

• first come, first served
• youngest first
• lottery
• short-term survivability
• long-term prognosis for quality of life
• value of a patient to the lives of others (eg, parents, health care workers, vaccine researchers).

One particularly interesting exploration of these questions was done in Maryland and reported in the “Maryland Framework for the Allocation of Scarce Life-sustaining Medical Resources in a Catastrophic Public Health Emergency.”⁷ This was the product of a multi-year consultation, ending in 2017, with several constituencies, including clinicians, politicians, hospital administrators, and members of the public brainstorming about approaches to allocating a hypothetical scarcity of ventilators. Interestingly, there was one broad consensus among these groups: a ventilator should not be withdrawn from a patient already using it to give to a “better” candidate who comes along later.

Some institutions have developed a method of making triage decisions that takes such decisions out of the hands of individual clinicians and instead assigns them to specialized “triage teams” made up of ethicists and clinicians experienced in critical care, to develop more distance from the emotions at the bedside. To minimize bias, such teams are often insulated from getting personal information about the patient, and receive only acute clinical information.⁸

Continue to: The pros and cons of these approaches...

The pros and cons of these approaches and the underlying ethical reasoning is beyond the scope of this overview. Policy documents from different states, regions, nations, and institutions have various approaches to making these choices. Presently, there is no coherent national or international agreement on triage ethics.⁹ It is important, however, that there be transparency in whatever approach an institution adopts for triage decisions.

Equity ethics

Though the equitable distribution of health care delivery has long been a concern, this problem has become magnified by the COVID-19 crisis. Race, sex, age, socioeconomic class, and type of illness have all been perennial sources of division between those who have better or worse access to health care and its outcomes. All of these distinctions have created differentials in rates of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁰

The shifting of acute health care facilities to mostly COVID-19–related treatment, and postponing less critical and more “elective” care, creates a divide based on illness type. Many facilities have stopped taking admissions for other kinds of cases. This is particularly relevant to psychiatric units, many of which have had to decrease their bed capacities to make all rooms private, and limit their usual treatments offered to inpatients.¹¹ Many long-term units, such as at state hospitals, are closing to new admissions. Many day hospitals and intensive outpatient programs remain closed, not even shifting to telehealth. In areas most affected by COVID-19, some institutions have closed psychiatric wards and reallocated psychiatrists to cover some of the medical units. So the availability of the more intensive, institutionally-based levels of care is significantly reduced, particularly for psychiatric patients.¹² These patients already are a disadvantaged population in the distribution of health care resources, and the care of individuals with serious mental illness is more likely to be seen as “nonessential” in this time of suddenly scarcer institutional resources.

One of the cherished ethical values in health care is autonomy, and in a deontological triage environment, honoring patient autonomy is carefully and tenderly administered. However, in a utilitarian-driven triage environment, considerations of the common good can trump autonomy, even in subtle ways that create inequities. Clinicians have been advised to have more frank conversations with patients, particularly those with chronic illnesses, stepping up initiatives to make advanced directives during this crisis, explicitly reminding patients that there may not be enough ventilators for all who need one.¹³ Some have argued that such physician-initiated conversations can be inherently coercive, making these decisions not as autonomous as it may appear, similar to physicians suggesting medical euthanasia as an option.¹⁴ Interestingly, some jurisdictions that offer euthanasia have been suspending such services during the COVID-19 crisis.¹⁵ Some hospitals have even wrestled with the possibility that all COVID-19 admissions should be considered “do not resuscitate,” especially because cardiopulmonary resuscitation significantly elevates the risks of viral exposure for the treatment team.^16,17 A more explicit example of how current standards protecting patient autonomy may be challenged is patients who are admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric unit. These are patients whose presumptively impaired autonomy is already being overridden by the involuntary nature of the admission. If a psychiatric unit requires admissions to be COVID-19–negative, and if patients refuse COVID-19 testing, should the testing be forced upon them to protect the entire milieu?

Many ethicists are highlighting the embedded equity bias known as “ableism” inherent in triage decisions—implicitly disfavoring resources for patients with COVID-19 who are already physically or intellectually disabled, chronically ill, aged, homeless, psychosocially low functioning, etc.¹⁸ Without explicit protections for individuals who are chronically disabled, triage decisions unguided by policy safeguards may reflexively favor the more “abled.” This bias towards the more abled is often inherent in how difficult it is to access health care. It can also be manifested in bedside triage decisions made in the moment by individual clinicians. Many disability rights advocates have been sounding this alarm during the COVID-19 crisis.¹⁹

Continue to: A special circumstance of equity...

A special circumstance of equity is arising during this ongoing pandemic—the possibility of treating health care workers as a privileged class. Unlike typical disasters, where health care workers come in afterwards, and therefore are in relatively less danger, pandemics create particularly high risks of danger for such individuals, with repeated exposure to the virus. They are both responders and potential victims. Should they have higher priority for ventilators, vaccines, funding, etc?⁶ This is a more robust degree of compensatory justice than merely giving appreciation. Giving health care workers such advantages may seem intuitively appealing, but perhaps professionalism and the self-obligation of duty mitigates such claims.²⁰

A unique opportunity

The magnitude and pervasiveness of this pandemic crisis is unique in our lifetimes, as both professionals and as citizens. In the crucible of this extraordinary time, these and other medical ethics dilemmas burn hotter than ever before. Different societies and institutions may come up with different answers, based on their cultures and values. It is important, however, that the venerable ethos of medical ethics, which has evolved through the millennia, codified in oaths, codes, and scholarship, can be a compass at the bedside and in the meetings of legislatures, leaders, and policymakers. Perhaps we can emerge from this time with more clarity about how to balance the preciousness of individual rights with the needs of the common good.

Bottom Line

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought increased attention to triage ethics and equity ethics. There is no coherent national or international agreement on how to best deploy limited supplies such as ventilators and personal protective equipment. Although the equitable distribution of health care delivery has long been a concern, this problem has become magnified by COVID-19. Clinicians may be asked to view health care through the less familiar lens of the common good, as opposed to focusing strictly on an individual patient.

Related Resources

• Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Coronavirus ethics and policy insights and resources. https://bioethics.jhu.edu/research-and-outreach/covid-19-bioethics-expert-insights/.
• Daugherty-Biddison L, Gwon H, Regenberg A, et al. Maryland framework for the allocation of scarce lifesustaining medical resources in a catastrophic public health emergency. www.law.umaryland.edu/media/SOL/pdfs/Programs/Health-Law/MHECN/ASR%20Framework_Final.pdf.

Emergency department visits for mental and substance use disorders (MUSDs) cost $14.6 billion in 2017, representing 19% of the total for all ED visits that year, according to the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research.

In terms of the total number of visits for MUSDs, 23.1 million, the proportion was slightly lower: 16% of all ED visits for the year, Zeynal Karaca, PhD, a senior economist with AHRQ, and Brian J. Moore, PhD, a senior research leader at IBM Watson Health, said in a recent statistical brief.

Put those figures together and the average visit for an MUSD diagnosis cost $630 and that is 19% higher than the average of $530 for all 145 million ED visits, they reported based on data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample.

The most costly MUSD diagnosis in 2017 was anxiety and fear-related disorders, with a total of $5.6 billion for ED visits, followed by depressive disorders at $4.7 billion and alcohol-related disorders at $2.7 billion. Some ED visits may involve more than one MUSD diagnosis, so the sum of all the individual diagnoses does not agree with the total for the entire MUSD category, the researchers noted.

On a per-visit basis, mental and substance use disorders in remission, at $690, was the most expensive of the 20 most costly MUSD diagnoses in 2017. [It was not included in the graph because it was 13th.] Other disorders with high per-visit costs were alcohol-related ($670), cannabis-related ($660), and depressive and stimulant-related (both with $650), Dr. Karaca and Dr. Moore said.

Patients with MUSDs who were routinely discharged after an ED visit in 2017 represented a much lower share of the total MUSD cost (68.0%), compared with the overall group of ED visitors (81.4%), but MUSD visits resulting in an inpatient admission made up a larger proportion of costs (19.0%), compared with all visits (9.5%), they said.

Costs between MUSD visits and all ED visits also differed by patient age. Visits by patients aged 0-9 years represented only 0.7% of MUSD-related ED costs but 5.6% of the overall cost, but the respective figures for those aged 45-64 were 36.2% for MUSD costs and 28.5% for the total ED cost, they reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Karaca Z and Moore BJ. HCUP Statistical Brief #257. May 12, 2020.

Emergency department visits for mental and substance use disorders (MUSDs) cost $14.6 billion in 2017, representing 19% of the total for all ED visits that year, according to the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research.

In terms of the total number of visits for MUSDs, 23.1 million, the proportion was slightly lower: 16% of all ED visits for the year, Zeynal Karaca, PhD, a senior economist with AHRQ, and Brian J. Moore, PhD, a senior research leader at IBM Watson Health, said in a recent statistical brief.

Put those figures together and the average visit for an MUSD diagnosis cost $630 and that is 19% higher than the average of $530 for all 145 million ED visits, they reported based on data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample.

The most costly MUSD diagnosis in 2017 was anxiety and fear-related disorders, with a total of $5.6 billion for ED visits, followed by depressive disorders at $4.7 billion and alcohol-related disorders at $2.7 billion. Some ED visits may involve more than one MUSD diagnosis, so the sum of all the individual diagnoses does not agree with the total for the entire MUSD category, the researchers noted.

On a per-visit basis, mental and substance use disorders in remission, at $690, was the most expensive of the 20 most costly MUSD diagnoses in 2017. [It was not included in the graph because it was 13th.] Other disorders with high per-visit costs were alcohol-related ($670), cannabis-related ($660), and depressive and stimulant-related (both with $650), Dr. Karaca and Dr. Moore said.

Patients with MUSDs who were routinely discharged after an ED visit in 2017 represented a much lower share of the total MUSD cost (68.0%), compared with the overall group of ED visitors (81.4%), but MUSD visits resulting in an inpatient admission made up a larger proportion of costs (19.0%), compared with all visits (9.5%), they said.

Costs between MUSD visits and all ED visits also differed by patient age. Visits by patients aged 0-9 years represented only 0.7% of MUSD-related ED costs but 5.6% of the overall cost, but the respective figures for those aged 45-64 were 36.2% for MUSD costs and 28.5% for the total ED cost, they reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Karaca Z and Moore BJ. HCUP Statistical Brief #257. May 12, 2020.

Emergency department visits for mental and substance use disorders (MUSDs) cost $14.6 billion in 2017, representing 19% of the total for all ED visits that year, according to the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research.

In terms of the total number of visits for MUSDs, 23.1 million, the proportion was slightly lower: 16% of all ED visits for the year, Zeynal Karaca, PhD, a senior economist with AHRQ, and Brian J. Moore, PhD, a senior research leader at IBM Watson Health, said in a recent statistical brief.

Put those figures together and the average visit for an MUSD diagnosis cost $630 and that is 19% higher than the average of $530 for all 145 million ED visits, they reported based on data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample.

The most costly MUSD diagnosis in 2017 was anxiety and fear-related disorders, with a total of $5.6 billion for ED visits, followed by depressive disorders at $4.7 billion and alcohol-related disorders at $2.7 billion. Some ED visits may involve more than one MUSD diagnosis, so the sum of all the individual diagnoses does not agree with the total for the entire MUSD category, the researchers noted.

On a per-visit basis, mental and substance use disorders in remission, at $690, was the most expensive of the 20 most costly MUSD diagnoses in 2017. [It was not included in the graph because it was 13th.] Other disorders with high per-visit costs were alcohol-related ($670), cannabis-related ($660), and depressive and stimulant-related (both with $650), Dr. Karaca and Dr. Moore said.

Patients with MUSDs who were routinely discharged after an ED visit in 2017 represented a much lower share of the total MUSD cost (68.0%), compared with the overall group of ED visitors (81.4%), but MUSD visits resulting in an inpatient admission made up a larger proportion of costs (19.0%), compared with all visits (9.5%), they said.

Costs between MUSD visits and all ED visits also differed by patient age. Visits by patients aged 0-9 years represented only 0.7% of MUSD-related ED costs but 5.6% of the overall cost, but the respective figures for those aged 45-64 were 36.2% for MUSD costs and 28.5% for the total ED cost, they reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Karaca Z and Moore BJ. HCUP Statistical Brief #257. May 12, 2020.

Nisha Mehta, MD, said her phone has been ringing with calls from tearful and shaken physicians who are distressed and unsettled about their work and home situation and don’t know what to do.

What’s more, many frontline physicians are living apart from family to protect them from infection. “So many physicians have called me crying. ... They can’t even come home and get a hug,” Dr. Mehta said. “What I’m hearing from a lot of people who are in New York and New Jersey is not just that they go to work all day and it’s this exhausting process throughout the entire day, not only physically but also emotionally.”

Physician burnout has held a steady spotlight since long before the COVID-19 crisis began, Dr. Mehta said. “The reason for that is multifold, but in part, it’s hard for physicians to find an appropriate way to be able to process a lot of the emotions related to their work,” she said. “A lot of that brews below the surface, but COVID-19 has really brought many of these issues above that surface.”

Frustrated that governments weren’t doing enough to support health care workers during the pandemic, Dr. Mehta, a radiologist in Charlotte, N.C., decided there needed to be change. On April 4, Dr. Mehta and two physician colleagues submitted to Congress the COVID-19 Pandemic Physician Protection Act, which ensures, among other provisions, mental health coverage for health care workers. An accompanying petition on change.org had received nearly 300,000 signatures as of May 29.
 

Don’t suffer in silence

A career in medicine comes with immense stress in the best of times, she notes, and managing a pandemic in an already strained system has taken those challenges to newer heights. “We need better support structures at baseline for physician mental health,” said Dr. Mehta.

“That’s something we’ve always been lacking because it’s been against the culture of medicine for so long to say, ‘I’m having a hard time.’ ”

If you’re hurting, the first thing to recognize is that you are not alone in facing these challenges. This is true with respect not only to medical care but also to all of the family, financial, and business concerns physicians are currently facing. “Having all of those things hanging over your head is a lot. We’ve got to find ways to help each other out,” Dr. Mehta said.
 

Where to find support

Fortunately, the medical community has created several pathways to help its own. Types of resources for health care workers on the COVID-19 frontlines run the gamut from crisis hotlines to smartphone apps to virtual counseling, often for free or at discounted rates.

The following list represents a cross-section of opportunities for caregivers to receive care for themselves.

Crisis hotlines

• Physician Support Line. This free and confidential hotline was launched on March 30 by Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and moderator of a Facebook forum called the COVID-19 Physicians Group. The PSL is run by more than 600 volunteer psychiatrists who take calls from U.S. physicians 7 days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., with no appointment necessary. The toll-free number is 888-409-0141.
• For the Frontlines. This 24/7 help line provides free crisis counseling for frontline workers. They can text FRONTLINE to 741741 in the United States (support is also available for residents of Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom).

Resources from professional groups

• Action Collaborative on Clinician Well-Being and Resilience. Created by the National Academy of Medicine in 2017, the Action Collaborative comprises more than 60 organizations committed to reversing trends in clinician burnout. In response to the pandemic, the group has compiled a list of strategies and resources to support the health and well-being of clinicians who are providing healthcare during the COVID-19 outbreak.
• American Medical Association. The AMA has created a resource center dedicated to providing care for caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The website includes specific guidance for managing mental health during the pandemic.
• American College of Physicians. The professional society of internal medicine physicians has created a comprehensive guide for physicians specific to COVID-19, with a section dedicated to clinician well-being that includes information about hotlines, counseling services, grief support, and more.
• American Hospital Association. The AHA’s website now includes regularly updated resources for healthcare clinicians and staff, as well as a special section dedicated to protecting and enabling healthcare workers in the midst of the pandemic.

Virtual psychological counseling

Not unlike the way telemedicine has allowed some physicians to keep seeing their patients, many modalities enable participation in therapy through video, chat, phone call, or any combination thereof. Look for a service that is convenient, flexible, and HIPAA compliant.

Traditional in-office mental health therapy has quickly moved to telemedicine. Many if not most insurers that cover counseling visits are paying for telepsychiatry or telecounseling. If you don’t know of an appropriate therapist, check the American Psychiatric Association or its state chapters; the American Psychological Association; or look for a licensed mental health counselor.

Because financial constraints are a potential barrier to therapy, Project Parachute, in cooperation with Eleos Health, has organized a cadre of therapists willing to provide pro bono online therapy for health care workers. The amount of free therapy provided to qualified frontline workers is up to the individual therapists. Discuss these parameters with your therapists up front.

Similar services are offered from companies such as Talkspace and BetterHelp on a subscription basis. These services are typically less expensive than in-person sessions. Ask about discounts for healthcare workers. Talkspace, for example, announced in March, “Effective immediately, healthcare workers across the country can get access to a free month of our...online therapy that includes unlimited text, video, and audio messaging with a licensed therapist.”
 

Online support groups and social media

For more on-demand peer support, look for groups such as the COR Sharing Circle for Healthcare Workers on Facebook. The site’s search engine can point users to plenty of other groups, many of which are closed (meaning posts are visible to members only).

Dr. Mehta hosts her own Facebook group called Physician Community. “I would like to think (and genuinely feel) that we’ve been doing a great job of supporting each other there with daily threads on challenges, treatments, pick-me-ups, vent posts, advocacy, and more,” she said.

For anyone in need, PeerRxMed is a free, peer-to-peer program for physicians and other health care workers that is designed to provide support, connection, encouragement, resources, and skill-building to optimize well-being.

For those craving spiritual comfort during this crisis, a number of churches have begun offering that experience virtually, too. First Unitarian Church of Worcester, Massachusetts, for example, offers weekly services via YouTube. Similar online programming is being offered from all sorts of organizations across denominations.
 

Apps

For DIY or on-the-spot coping support, apps can help physicians get through the day. Apps and websites that offer guided meditations and other relaxation tools include Headspace, Calm, and Insight Timer. Before downloading, look for special discounts and promotions for healthcare workers.

Additionally, COVID Coach is a free, secure app designed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that includes tools to help you cope with stress and stay well, safe, healthy, and connected. It also offers advice on navigating parenting, care giving, and working from home while social distancing, quarantined, or sheltering in place.

For practicing daily gratitude, Delightful Journal is a free app that offers journaling prompts, themes, reminders, and unlimited private space to record one’s thoughts.
 

Adopt a ritual

Although self-care for physicians is more crucial now than ever, it can look different for every individual. Along the same lines as keeping a journal, wellness experts often recommend beginning a “gratitude practice” to help provide solace and perspective.

Tweak and personalize these activities to suit your own needs, but be sure to use them even when you’re feeling well, said Mohana Karlekar, MD, medical director of palliative care and assistant professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

One exercise she recommends is known as Three Good Things. “Every day, at the end of the day, think about three good things that have happened,” she explained. “You can always find the joys. And the joys don’t have to be enormous. There is joy – there is hope – in everything,” Dr. Karlekar said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Nisha Mehta, MD, said her phone has been ringing with calls from tearful and shaken physicians who are distressed and unsettled about their work and home situation and don’t know what to do.

What’s more, many frontline physicians are living apart from family to protect them from infection. “So many physicians have called me crying. ... They can’t even come home and get a hug,” Dr. Mehta said. “What I’m hearing from a lot of people who are in New York and New Jersey is not just that they go to work all day and it’s this exhausting process throughout the entire day, not only physically but also emotionally.”

Physician burnout has held a steady spotlight since long before the COVID-19 crisis began, Dr. Mehta said. “The reason for that is multifold, but in part, it’s hard for physicians to find an appropriate way to be able to process a lot of the emotions related to their work,” she said. “A lot of that brews below the surface, but COVID-19 has really brought many of these issues above that surface.”

Frustrated that governments weren’t doing enough to support health care workers during the pandemic, Dr. Mehta, a radiologist in Charlotte, N.C., decided there needed to be change. On April 4, Dr. Mehta and two physician colleagues submitted to Congress the COVID-19 Pandemic Physician Protection Act, which ensures, among other provisions, mental health coverage for health care workers. An accompanying petition on change.org had received nearly 300,000 signatures as of May 29.
 

Don’t suffer in silence

A career in medicine comes with immense stress in the best of times, she notes, and managing a pandemic in an already strained system has taken those challenges to newer heights. “We need better support structures at baseline for physician mental health,” said Dr. Mehta.

“That’s something we’ve always been lacking because it’s been against the culture of medicine for so long to say, ‘I’m having a hard time.’ ”

If you’re hurting, the first thing to recognize is that you are not alone in facing these challenges. This is true with respect not only to medical care but also to all of the family, financial, and business concerns physicians are currently facing. “Having all of those things hanging over your head is a lot. We’ve got to find ways to help each other out,” Dr. Mehta said.
 

Where to find support

Fortunately, the medical community has created several pathways to help its own. Types of resources for health care workers on the COVID-19 frontlines run the gamut from crisis hotlines to smartphone apps to virtual counseling, often for free or at discounted rates.

The following list represents a cross-section of opportunities for caregivers to receive care for themselves.

Crisis hotlines

• Physician Support Line. This free and confidential hotline was launched on March 30 by Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and moderator of a Facebook forum called the COVID-19 Physicians Group. The PSL is run by more than 600 volunteer psychiatrists who take calls from U.S. physicians 7 days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., with no appointment necessary. The toll-free number is 888-409-0141.
• For the Frontlines. This 24/7 help line provides free crisis counseling for frontline workers. They can text FRONTLINE to 741741 in the United States (support is also available for residents of Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom).

Resources from professional groups

• Action Collaborative on Clinician Well-Being and Resilience. Created by the National Academy of Medicine in 2017, the Action Collaborative comprises more than 60 organizations committed to reversing trends in clinician burnout. In response to the pandemic, the group has compiled a list of strategies and resources to support the health and well-being of clinicians who are providing healthcare during the COVID-19 outbreak.
• American Medical Association. The AMA has created a resource center dedicated to providing care for caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The website includes specific guidance for managing mental health during the pandemic.
• American College of Physicians. The professional society of internal medicine physicians has created a comprehensive guide for physicians specific to COVID-19, with a section dedicated to clinician well-being that includes information about hotlines, counseling services, grief support, and more.
• American Hospital Association. The AHA’s website now includes regularly updated resources for healthcare clinicians and staff, as well as a special section dedicated to protecting and enabling healthcare workers in the midst of the pandemic.

Virtual psychological counseling

Not unlike the way telemedicine has allowed some physicians to keep seeing their patients, many modalities enable participation in therapy through video, chat, phone call, or any combination thereof. Look for a service that is convenient, flexible, and HIPAA compliant.

Traditional in-office mental health therapy has quickly moved to telemedicine. Many if not most insurers that cover counseling visits are paying for telepsychiatry or telecounseling. If you don’t know of an appropriate therapist, check the American Psychiatric Association or its state chapters; the American Psychological Association; or look for a licensed mental health counselor.

Because financial constraints are a potential barrier to therapy, Project Parachute, in cooperation with Eleos Health, has organized a cadre of therapists willing to provide pro bono online therapy for health care workers. The amount of free therapy provided to qualified frontline workers is up to the individual therapists. Discuss these parameters with your therapists up front.

Similar services are offered from companies such as Talkspace and BetterHelp on a subscription basis. These services are typically less expensive than in-person sessions. Ask about discounts for healthcare workers. Talkspace, for example, announced in March, “Effective immediately, healthcare workers across the country can get access to a free month of our...online therapy that includes unlimited text, video, and audio messaging with a licensed therapist.”
 

Online support groups and social media

For more on-demand peer support, look for groups such as the COR Sharing Circle for Healthcare Workers on Facebook. The site’s search engine can point users to plenty of other groups, many of which are closed (meaning posts are visible to members only).

Dr. Mehta hosts her own Facebook group called Physician Community. “I would like to think (and genuinely feel) that we’ve been doing a great job of supporting each other there with daily threads on challenges, treatments, pick-me-ups, vent posts, advocacy, and more,” she said.

For anyone in need, PeerRxMed is a free, peer-to-peer program for physicians and other health care workers that is designed to provide support, connection, encouragement, resources, and skill-building to optimize well-being.

For those craving spiritual comfort during this crisis, a number of churches have begun offering that experience virtually, too. First Unitarian Church of Worcester, Massachusetts, for example, offers weekly services via YouTube. Similar online programming is being offered from all sorts of organizations across denominations.
 

Apps

For DIY or on-the-spot coping support, apps can help physicians get through the day. Apps and websites that offer guided meditations and other relaxation tools include Headspace, Calm, and Insight Timer. Before downloading, look for special discounts and promotions for healthcare workers.

Additionally, COVID Coach is a free, secure app designed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that includes tools to help you cope with stress and stay well, safe, healthy, and connected. It also offers advice on navigating parenting, care giving, and working from home while social distancing, quarantined, or sheltering in place.

For practicing daily gratitude, Delightful Journal is a free app that offers journaling prompts, themes, reminders, and unlimited private space to record one’s thoughts.
 

Adopt a ritual

Although self-care for physicians is more crucial now than ever, it can look different for every individual. Along the same lines as keeping a journal, wellness experts often recommend beginning a “gratitude practice” to help provide solace and perspective.

Tweak and personalize these activities to suit your own needs, but be sure to use them even when you’re feeling well, said Mohana Karlekar, MD, medical director of palliative care and assistant professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

One exercise she recommends is known as Three Good Things. “Every day, at the end of the day, think about three good things that have happened,” she explained. “You can always find the joys. And the joys don’t have to be enormous. There is joy – there is hope – in everything,” Dr. Karlekar said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Nisha Mehta, MD, said her phone has been ringing with calls from tearful and shaken physicians who are distressed and unsettled about their work and home situation and don’t know what to do.

What’s more, many frontline physicians are living apart from family to protect them from infection. “So many physicians have called me crying. ... They can’t even come home and get a hug,” Dr. Mehta said. “What I’m hearing from a lot of people who are in New York and New Jersey is not just that they go to work all day and it’s this exhausting process throughout the entire day, not only physically but also emotionally.”

Physician burnout has held a steady spotlight since long before the COVID-19 crisis began, Dr. Mehta said. “The reason for that is multifold, but in part, it’s hard for physicians to find an appropriate way to be able to process a lot of the emotions related to their work,” she said. “A lot of that brews below the surface, but COVID-19 has really brought many of these issues above that surface.”

Frustrated that governments weren’t doing enough to support health care workers during the pandemic, Dr. Mehta, a radiologist in Charlotte, N.C., decided there needed to be change. On April 4, Dr. Mehta and two physician colleagues submitted to Congress the COVID-19 Pandemic Physician Protection Act, which ensures, among other provisions, mental health coverage for health care workers. An accompanying petition on change.org had received nearly 300,000 signatures as of May 29.
 

Don’t suffer in silence

A career in medicine comes with immense stress in the best of times, she notes, and managing a pandemic in an already strained system has taken those challenges to newer heights. “We need better support structures at baseline for physician mental health,” said Dr. Mehta.

“That’s something we’ve always been lacking because it’s been against the culture of medicine for so long to say, ‘I’m having a hard time.’ ”

If you’re hurting, the first thing to recognize is that you are not alone in facing these challenges. This is true with respect not only to medical care but also to all of the family, financial, and business concerns physicians are currently facing. “Having all of those things hanging over your head is a lot. We’ve got to find ways to help each other out,” Dr. Mehta said.
 

Where to find support

Fortunately, the medical community has created several pathways to help its own. Types of resources for health care workers on the COVID-19 frontlines run the gamut from crisis hotlines to smartphone apps to virtual counseling, often for free or at discounted rates.

The following list represents a cross-section of opportunities for caregivers to receive care for themselves.

Crisis hotlines

• Physician Support Line. This free and confidential hotline was launched on March 30 by Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and moderator of a Facebook forum called the COVID-19 Physicians Group. The PSL is run by more than 600 volunteer psychiatrists who take calls from U.S. physicians 7 days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., with no appointment necessary. The toll-free number is 888-409-0141.
• For the Frontlines. This 24/7 help line provides free crisis counseling for frontline workers. They can text FRONTLINE to 741741 in the United States (support is also available for residents of Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom).

Resources from professional groups

• Action Collaborative on Clinician Well-Being and Resilience. Created by the National Academy of Medicine in 2017, the Action Collaborative comprises more than 60 organizations committed to reversing trends in clinician burnout. In response to the pandemic, the group has compiled a list of strategies and resources to support the health and well-being of clinicians who are providing healthcare during the COVID-19 outbreak.
• American Medical Association. The AMA has created a resource center dedicated to providing care for caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The website includes specific guidance for managing mental health during the pandemic.
• American College of Physicians. The professional society of internal medicine physicians has created a comprehensive guide for physicians specific to COVID-19, with a section dedicated to clinician well-being that includes information about hotlines, counseling services, grief support, and more.
• American Hospital Association. The AHA’s website now includes regularly updated resources for healthcare clinicians and staff, as well as a special section dedicated to protecting and enabling healthcare workers in the midst of the pandemic.

Virtual psychological counseling

Not unlike the way telemedicine has allowed some physicians to keep seeing their patients, many modalities enable participation in therapy through video, chat, phone call, or any combination thereof. Look for a service that is convenient, flexible, and HIPAA compliant.

Traditional in-office mental health therapy has quickly moved to telemedicine. Many if not most insurers that cover counseling visits are paying for telepsychiatry or telecounseling. If you don’t know of an appropriate therapist, check the American Psychiatric Association or its state chapters; the American Psychological Association; or look for a licensed mental health counselor.

Because financial constraints are a potential barrier to therapy, Project Parachute, in cooperation with Eleos Health, has organized a cadre of therapists willing to provide pro bono online therapy for health care workers. The amount of free therapy provided to qualified frontline workers is up to the individual therapists. Discuss these parameters with your therapists up front.

Similar services are offered from companies such as Talkspace and BetterHelp on a subscription basis. These services are typically less expensive than in-person sessions. Ask about discounts for healthcare workers. Talkspace, for example, announced in March, “Effective immediately, healthcare workers across the country can get access to a free month of our...online therapy that includes unlimited text, video, and audio messaging with a licensed therapist.”
 

Online support groups and social media

For more on-demand peer support, look for groups such as the COR Sharing Circle for Healthcare Workers on Facebook. The site’s search engine can point users to plenty of other groups, many of which are closed (meaning posts are visible to members only).

Dr. Mehta hosts her own Facebook group called Physician Community. “I would like to think (and genuinely feel) that we’ve been doing a great job of supporting each other there with daily threads on challenges, treatments, pick-me-ups, vent posts, advocacy, and more,” she said.

For anyone in need, PeerRxMed is a free, peer-to-peer program for physicians and other health care workers that is designed to provide support, connection, encouragement, resources, and skill-building to optimize well-being.

For those craving spiritual comfort during this crisis, a number of churches have begun offering that experience virtually, too. First Unitarian Church of Worcester, Massachusetts, for example, offers weekly services via YouTube. Similar online programming is being offered from all sorts of organizations across denominations.
 

Apps

For DIY or on-the-spot coping support, apps can help physicians get through the day. Apps and websites that offer guided meditations and other relaxation tools include Headspace, Calm, and Insight Timer. Before downloading, look for special discounts and promotions for healthcare workers.

Additionally, COVID Coach is a free, secure app designed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that includes tools to help you cope with stress and stay well, safe, healthy, and connected. It also offers advice on navigating parenting, care giving, and working from home while social distancing, quarantined, or sheltering in place.

For practicing daily gratitude, Delightful Journal is a free app that offers journaling prompts, themes, reminders, and unlimited private space to record one’s thoughts.
 

Adopt a ritual

Although self-care for physicians is more crucial now than ever, it can look different for every individual. Along the same lines as keeping a journal, wellness experts often recommend beginning a “gratitude practice” to help provide solace and perspective.

Tweak and personalize these activities to suit your own needs, but be sure to use them even when you’re feeling well, said Mohana Karlekar, MD, medical director of palliative care and assistant professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

One exercise she recommends is known as Three Good Things. “Every day, at the end of the day, think about three good things that have happened,” she explained. “You can always find the joys. And the joys don’t have to be enormous. There is joy – there is hope – in everything,” Dr. Karlekar said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before Atlanta had an official shelter-in-place order, patients at the private plastic surgery practice of Nicholas Jones, MD, began canceling and rescheduled planned procedures.

After a few weeks, Dr. Jones, aged 40 years, stopped seeing patients entirely, but as a self-employed independent contractor, that means he’d lost most of his income. Dr. Jones still makes some money via a wound care job at a local nursing home, but he’s concerned that job may also be eliminated.

“I’m not hurting yet,” he said. “But I’m preparing for the worst possible scenario.”

In preparation, he and his fiancé have cut back on extraneous expenses like Uber Eats, magazine subscriptions, and streaming music services. Even though he has a 6-month emergency fund, Jones has reached out to utility companies, mortgage lenders, and student loan servicers to find out about any programs they offer to people who’ve suffered financially from the coronavirus crisis.

He’s also considered traveling to one of the COVID-19 epicenters – he has family in New Orleans and Chicago – to work in a hospital there. Jones has trauma experience and is double-boarded in general and plastic surgery.

“I could provide relief to those in need and also float through this troubled time with some financial relief,” he said.

Whereas much of the world’s attention has been on physicians who are on the front line and working around the clock in hospitals to help COVID-19 patients, thousands of other physicians are experiencing the opposite phenomenon – a slowdown or even stoppage of work (and income) altogether.

Many practices are temporarily closing to meet social distancing requirements, and some may end up closed for months, leaving doctors without a source of income. Even among those practices that remain open, the number of patients has declined as people avoid going to the office unless they absolutely have to.

At the same time, doctors in two-income households may have a spouse experiencing a job loss or income decline. Nearly 10 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits in the last 2 weeks of March, the largest number on record.

Still, while there’s uncertainty around how long the coronavirus crisis will last, experts agree that at some point America will return to a “new normal” and business operations will begin to reopen. For physicians experiencing a reduction in income who, like Jones, have an emergency fund with a few months’ worth of expenses, now’s the time to tap into it. (Or if you still have income, now’s the time to focus on growing that emergency fund to give yourself an even bigger safety net.)

If you’re among the more than half of Americans with less than 6 months of expenses saved for a rainy day, here’s how to stay afloat in the near term:
 

Cut back on expenses

Some household spending has naturally tapered off for many families because social distancing restrictions reduce spending on eating out, travel, and other leisure activities. But this is also an opportunity to look for other ways to reduce spending. Look through your credit card bills to see whether there are recurring payments you can cut, such as a payment to a gym that’s temporarily closed or a monthly subscription box that you don’t need.

Some gyms are not allowing membership termination right now, but it pays to ask. If a service you’re not using won’t facilitate the cancellation, call your credit card company to dispute and stop the charges, and report them to the Better Business Bureau.

You should also stop contributing to nonemergency savings accounts such as your retirement fund or your children’s college funds.

“A lot of people are hesitant to stop their automatic savings if they’ve been maxing out their 401(k) contribution or 529 accounts,” says Andrew Musbach, a certified financial planner and cofounder of MD Wealth Management in Chelsea, Mich. “But if you’re thinking long term, the reality is that missing a couple of months won’t make or break a plan. Cutting back on the amount you’re saving in the short term will increase your cash flow and is a good way to make ends meet.”
 

Take advantage of regulatory changes

Although many physicians won’t qualify for direct payments via the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act (the $1,200 payments to individuals start phasing out once income hits $75,000 and disappear entirely for those making more than $99,000), there are other provisions in the stimulus bill that may help physicians. The bill, for example, boosts state unemployment payments by $600 per week for the next 4 months, meaning qualified workers could receive an average of nearly $1,000 per week, depending on their state, and there are new provisions providing unemployment payments to self-employed and contract workers.

The CARES Act also includes a break for federal student loan holders. Under that rule, you can skip your payments through September without incurring additional interest. Physicians in the loan forgiveness program will still get credit for payments skipped during this program.

Separately, the IRS has extended the tax deadline from April 15 to July 15, which means not only do you not have to file your taxes until then, you also don’t have to pay any taxes you owe until mid-July. The deadline for first quarter estimated tax payments has also moved to July 15. (If you’re expecting a refund, however, you should file ASAP, since the IRS will typically issue those within a few weeks of receiving your returns.)
 

Tap your home equity – if you’re planning to stay put

If you have good credit and still have some income, you might consider refinancing your home mortgage or opening a home equity line of credit. Interest rates have fallen recently amid economic turbulence, so if you haven’t refinanced recently you may be able to shave your monthly payment. If you need cash, a cash-out refinance, home equity line of credit, or a reverse mortgage (available if you’re over age 62) are among the lowest-cost ways to borrow.

“With interest rates so low, there can be a lot of benefit to refinancing and leveraging your house, especially if you’re planning to stay there,” says Jamie Hopkins, a director at the Carson Group. “The challenge is if you’re planning to move in the next few years. There’s a real risk that the housing market could go down in the next couple of years, and if you’re planning to sell, there’s a risk that you might not get back what you borrowed.”
 

Communicate early with your bank or landlord

If you don’t have the income to refinance, and you think you’re going to run into trouble making your housing payment, you should let your bank or landlord know as soon as possible. The CARES Act allows homeowners with federally backed mortgages to obtain a 180-day postponement of mortgage payments because of COVID-19 financial hardship, with the potential to extend for another 180 days. It also bans eviction by landlords with federal mortgages for 120 days.

Even if you don’t have a federally backed mortgage, you should still get in touch with your lender. Many mortgage servicers have their own forbearance programs for borrowers who can prove a temporary financial hardship. (Some banks are also waiving fees on early withdrawals on CDs and giving cardholders a reprieve on credit card payments.) Commercial landlords are also working with struggling tenants, so you may also be able to get some relief on your office lease as well.

“All of the lenders are setting up helplines for people affected,” says Amy Guerich, a partner with Stepp & Rothwell, a Kansas City–based financial planning firm. “The best thing you can do is contact them right away if you think that you’re going to have a problem vs. just letting the bills go.”
 

Consider retirement account withdrawals

Standard personal finance advice holds that you should exhaust all other options before pulling money out of your retirement account because of the high penalties for early withdrawals and because money removed from retirement accounts is no longer compounding over time.

Still, the CARES act has provisions making it less financially onerous to pull money from your retirement accounts. Under the new law, you can take a distribution of up to $100,000 from your IRA or 401(k) without having to pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty. You’ll owe ordinary income taxes on the withdrawal, but you have 3 years to pay them or to return the money to your retirement account.

“That’s a great relief provision, especially for higher-income physicians who might have a higher 401(k) balance,” said Jamie Hopkins.
 

Be smart about credit cards

Although using credit cards that you can’t pay off every month is typically an expensive way to access money, getting a new card with a low or zero percent introductory rate is a short-term strategy to consider when you’ve exhausted other options. If you have good credit, you may be able to qualify for a credit card with a 0% introductory interest rate on new transactions. Pay close attention to the fine print, including the cap on the balance you can carry without interest and whether you’ll be required to make minimum payments.

The average 0% credit card offer is for 11 months, but there are some cards that can extend the offer for up to a year-and-a-half. If you choose to use this strategy, you’ll need a plan to pay off the entire balance before the introductory period ends. If there’s a balance remaining once the rate resets, you may end up owing deferred interest on it.

The financial ramifications of the coronavirus can feel overwhelming, but it’s important not to panic. While it remains unclear how long the current crisis will last, making some smart money moves to preserve your cash in the meantime can help you stay afloat.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before Atlanta had an official shelter-in-place order, patients at the private plastic surgery practice of Nicholas Jones, MD, began canceling and rescheduled planned procedures.

After a few weeks, Dr. Jones, aged 40 years, stopped seeing patients entirely, but as a self-employed independent contractor, that means he’d lost most of his income. Dr. Jones still makes some money via a wound care job at a local nursing home, but he’s concerned that job may also be eliminated.

“I’m not hurting yet,” he said. “But I’m preparing for the worst possible scenario.”

In preparation, he and his fiancé have cut back on extraneous expenses like Uber Eats, magazine subscriptions, and streaming music services. Even though he has a 6-month emergency fund, Jones has reached out to utility companies, mortgage lenders, and student loan servicers to find out about any programs they offer to people who’ve suffered financially from the coronavirus crisis.

He’s also considered traveling to one of the COVID-19 epicenters – he has family in New Orleans and Chicago – to work in a hospital there. Jones has trauma experience and is double-boarded in general and plastic surgery.

“I could provide relief to those in need and also float through this troubled time with some financial relief,” he said.

Whereas much of the world’s attention has been on physicians who are on the front line and working around the clock in hospitals to help COVID-19 patients, thousands of other physicians are experiencing the opposite phenomenon – a slowdown or even stoppage of work (and income) altogether.

Many practices are temporarily closing to meet social distancing requirements, and some may end up closed for months, leaving doctors without a source of income. Even among those practices that remain open, the number of patients has declined as people avoid going to the office unless they absolutely have to.

At the same time, doctors in two-income households may have a spouse experiencing a job loss or income decline. Nearly 10 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits in the last 2 weeks of March, the largest number on record.

Still, while there’s uncertainty around how long the coronavirus crisis will last, experts agree that at some point America will return to a “new normal” and business operations will begin to reopen. For physicians experiencing a reduction in income who, like Jones, have an emergency fund with a few months’ worth of expenses, now’s the time to tap into it. (Or if you still have income, now’s the time to focus on growing that emergency fund to give yourself an even bigger safety net.)

If you’re among the more than half of Americans with less than 6 months of expenses saved for a rainy day, here’s how to stay afloat in the near term:
 

Cut back on expenses

Some household spending has naturally tapered off for many families because social distancing restrictions reduce spending on eating out, travel, and other leisure activities. But this is also an opportunity to look for other ways to reduce spending. Look through your credit card bills to see whether there are recurring payments you can cut, such as a payment to a gym that’s temporarily closed or a monthly subscription box that you don’t need.

Some gyms are not allowing membership termination right now, but it pays to ask. If a service you’re not using won’t facilitate the cancellation, call your credit card company to dispute and stop the charges, and report them to the Better Business Bureau.

You should also stop contributing to nonemergency savings accounts such as your retirement fund or your children’s college funds.

“A lot of people are hesitant to stop their automatic savings if they’ve been maxing out their 401(k) contribution or 529 accounts,” says Andrew Musbach, a certified financial planner and cofounder of MD Wealth Management in Chelsea, Mich. “But if you’re thinking long term, the reality is that missing a couple of months won’t make or break a plan. Cutting back on the amount you’re saving in the short term will increase your cash flow and is a good way to make ends meet.”
 

Take advantage of regulatory changes

Although many physicians won’t qualify for direct payments via the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act (the $1,200 payments to individuals start phasing out once income hits $75,000 and disappear entirely for those making more than $99,000), there are other provisions in the stimulus bill that may help physicians. The bill, for example, boosts state unemployment payments by $600 per week for the next 4 months, meaning qualified workers could receive an average of nearly $1,000 per week, depending on their state, and there are new provisions providing unemployment payments to self-employed and contract workers.

The CARES Act also includes a break for federal student loan holders. Under that rule, you can skip your payments through September without incurring additional interest. Physicians in the loan forgiveness program will still get credit for payments skipped during this program.

Separately, the IRS has extended the tax deadline from April 15 to July 15, which means not only do you not have to file your taxes until then, you also don’t have to pay any taxes you owe until mid-July. The deadline for first quarter estimated tax payments has also moved to July 15. (If you’re expecting a refund, however, you should file ASAP, since the IRS will typically issue those within a few weeks of receiving your returns.)
 

Tap your home equity – if you’re planning to stay put

If you have good credit and still have some income, you might consider refinancing your home mortgage or opening a home equity line of credit. Interest rates have fallen recently amid economic turbulence, so if you haven’t refinanced recently you may be able to shave your monthly payment. If you need cash, a cash-out refinance, home equity line of credit, or a reverse mortgage (available if you’re over age 62) are among the lowest-cost ways to borrow.

“With interest rates so low, there can be a lot of benefit to refinancing and leveraging your house, especially if you’re planning to stay there,” says Jamie Hopkins, a director at the Carson Group. “The challenge is if you’re planning to move in the next few years. There’s a real risk that the housing market could go down in the next couple of years, and if you’re planning to sell, there’s a risk that you might not get back what you borrowed.”
 

Communicate early with your bank or landlord

If you don’t have the income to refinance, and you think you’re going to run into trouble making your housing payment, you should let your bank or landlord know as soon as possible. The CARES Act allows homeowners with federally backed mortgages to obtain a 180-day postponement of mortgage payments because of COVID-19 financial hardship, with the potential to extend for another 180 days. It also bans eviction by landlords with federal mortgages for 120 days.

Even if you don’t have a federally backed mortgage, you should still get in touch with your lender. Many mortgage servicers have their own forbearance programs for borrowers who can prove a temporary financial hardship. (Some banks are also waiving fees on early withdrawals on CDs and giving cardholders a reprieve on credit card payments.) Commercial landlords are also working with struggling tenants, so you may also be able to get some relief on your office lease as well.

“All of the lenders are setting up helplines for people affected,” says Amy Guerich, a partner with Stepp & Rothwell, a Kansas City–based financial planning firm. “The best thing you can do is contact them right away if you think that you’re going to have a problem vs. just letting the bills go.”
 

Consider retirement account withdrawals

Standard personal finance advice holds that you should exhaust all other options before pulling money out of your retirement account because of the high penalties for early withdrawals and because money removed from retirement accounts is no longer compounding over time.

Still, the CARES act has provisions making it less financially onerous to pull money from your retirement accounts. Under the new law, you can take a distribution of up to $100,000 from your IRA or 401(k) without having to pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty. You’ll owe ordinary income taxes on the withdrawal, but you have 3 years to pay them or to return the money to your retirement account.

“That’s a great relief provision, especially for higher-income physicians who might have a higher 401(k) balance,” said Jamie Hopkins.
 

Be smart about credit cards

Although using credit cards that you can’t pay off every month is typically an expensive way to access money, getting a new card with a low or zero percent introductory rate is a short-term strategy to consider when you’ve exhausted other options. If you have good credit, you may be able to qualify for a credit card with a 0% introductory interest rate on new transactions. Pay close attention to the fine print, including the cap on the balance you can carry without interest and whether you’ll be required to make minimum payments.

The average 0% credit card offer is for 11 months, but there are some cards that can extend the offer for up to a year-and-a-half. If you choose to use this strategy, you’ll need a plan to pay off the entire balance before the introductory period ends. If there’s a balance remaining once the rate resets, you may end up owing deferred interest on it.

The financial ramifications of the coronavirus can feel overwhelming, but it’s important not to panic. While it remains unclear how long the current crisis will last, making some smart money moves to preserve your cash in the meantime can help you stay afloat.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before Atlanta had an official shelter-in-place order, patients at the private plastic surgery practice of Nicholas Jones, MD, began canceling and rescheduled planned procedures.

After a few weeks, Dr. Jones, aged 40 years, stopped seeing patients entirely, but as a self-employed independent contractor, that means he’d lost most of his income. Dr. Jones still makes some money via a wound care job at a local nursing home, but he’s concerned that job may also be eliminated.

“I’m not hurting yet,” he said. “But I’m preparing for the worst possible scenario.”

In preparation, he and his fiancé have cut back on extraneous expenses like Uber Eats, magazine subscriptions, and streaming music services. Even though he has a 6-month emergency fund, Jones has reached out to utility companies, mortgage lenders, and student loan servicers to find out about any programs they offer to people who’ve suffered financially from the coronavirus crisis.

He’s also considered traveling to one of the COVID-19 epicenters – he has family in New Orleans and Chicago – to work in a hospital there. Jones has trauma experience and is double-boarded in general and plastic surgery.

“I could provide relief to those in need and also float through this troubled time with some financial relief,” he said.

Whereas much of the world’s attention has been on physicians who are on the front line and working around the clock in hospitals to help COVID-19 patients, thousands of other physicians are experiencing the opposite phenomenon – a slowdown or even stoppage of work (and income) altogether.

Many practices are temporarily closing to meet social distancing requirements, and some may end up closed for months, leaving doctors without a source of income. Even among those practices that remain open, the number of patients has declined as people avoid going to the office unless they absolutely have to.

At the same time, doctors in two-income households may have a spouse experiencing a job loss or income decline. Nearly 10 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits in the last 2 weeks of March, the largest number on record.

Still, while there’s uncertainty around how long the coronavirus crisis will last, experts agree that at some point America will return to a “new normal” and business operations will begin to reopen. For physicians experiencing a reduction in income who, like Jones, have an emergency fund with a few months’ worth of expenses, now’s the time to tap into it. (Or if you still have income, now’s the time to focus on growing that emergency fund to give yourself an even bigger safety net.)

If you’re among the more than half of Americans with less than 6 months of expenses saved for a rainy day, here’s how to stay afloat in the near term:
 

Cut back on expenses

Some household spending has naturally tapered off for many families because social distancing restrictions reduce spending on eating out, travel, and other leisure activities. But this is also an opportunity to look for other ways to reduce spending. Look through your credit card bills to see whether there are recurring payments you can cut, such as a payment to a gym that’s temporarily closed or a monthly subscription box that you don’t need.

Some gyms are not allowing membership termination right now, but it pays to ask. If a service you’re not using won’t facilitate the cancellation, call your credit card company to dispute and stop the charges, and report them to the Better Business Bureau.

You should also stop contributing to nonemergency savings accounts such as your retirement fund or your children’s college funds.

“A lot of people are hesitant to stop their automatic savings if they’ve been maxing out their 401(k) contribution or 529 accounts,” says Andrew Musbach, a certified financial planner and cofounder of MD Wealth Management in Chelsea, Mich. “But if you’re thinking long term, the reality is that missing a couple of months won’t make or break a plan. Cutting back on the amount you’re saving in the short term will increase your cash flow and is a good way to make ends meet.”
 

Take advantage of regulatory changes

Although many physicians won’t qualify for direct payments via the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act (the $1,200 payments to individuals start phasing out once income hits $75,000 and disappear entirely for those making more than $99,000), there are other provisions in the stimulus bill that may help physicians. The bill, for example, boosts state unemployment payments by $600 per week for the next 4 months, meaning qualified workers could receive an average of nearly $1,000 per week, depending on their state, and there are new provisions providing unemployment payments to self-employed and contract workers.

The CARES Act also includes a break for federal student loan holders. Under that rule, you can skip your payments through September without incurring additional interest. Physicians in the loan forgiveness program will still get credit for payments skipped during this program.

Separately, the IRS has extended the tax deadline from April 15 to July 15, which means not only do you not have to file your taxes until then, you also don’t have to pay any taxes you owe until mid-July. The deadline for first quarter estimated tax payments has also moved to July 15. (If you’re expecting a refund, however, you should file ASAP, since the IRS will typically issue those within a few weeks of receiving your returns.)
 

Tap your home equity – if you’re planning to stay put

If you have good credit and still have some income, you might consider refinancing your home mortgage or opening a home equity line of credit. Interest rates have fallen recently amid economic turbulence, so if you haven’t refinanced recently you may be able to shave your monthly payment. If you need cash, a cash-out refinance, home equity line of credit, or a reverse mortgage (available if you’re over age 62) are among the lowest-cost ways to borrow.

“With interest rates so low, there can be a lot of benefit to refinancing and leveraging your house, especially if you’re planning to stay there,” says Jamie Hopkins, a director at the Carson Group. “The challenge is if you’re planning to move in the next few years. There’s a real risk that the housing market could go down in the next couple of years, and if you’re planning to sell, there’s a risk that you might not get back what you borrowed.”
 

Communicate early with your bank or landlord

If you don’t have the income to refinance, and you think you’re going to run into trouble making your housing payment, you should let your bank or landlord know as soon as possible. The CARES Act allows homeowners with federally backed mortgages to obtain a 180-day postponement of mortgage payments because of COVID-19 financial hardship, with the potential to extend for another 180 days. It also bans eviction by landlords with federal mortgages for 120 days.

Even if you don’t have a federally backed mortgage, you should still get in touch with your lender. Many mortgage servicers have their own forbearance programs for borrowers who can prove a temporary financial hardship. (Some banks are also waiving fees on early withdrawals on CDs and giving cardholders a reprieve on credit card payments.) Commercial landlords are also working with struggling tenants, so you may also be able to get some relief on your office lease as well.

“All of the lenders are setting up helplines for people affected,” says Amy Guerich, a partner with Stepp & Rothwell, a Kansas City–based financial planning firm. “The best thing you can do is contact them right away if you think that you’re going to have a problem vs. just letting the bills go.”
 

Consider retirement account withdrawals

Standard personal finance advice holds that you should exhaust all other options before pulling money out of your retirement account because of the high penalties for early withdrawals and because money removed from retirement accounts is no longer compounding over time.

Still, the CARES act has provisions making it less financially onerous to pull money from your retirement accounts. Under the new law, you can take a distribution of up to $100,000 from your IRA or 401(k) without having to pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty. You’ll owe ordinary income taxes on the withdrawal, but you have 3 years to pay them or to return the money to your retirement account.

“That’s a great relief provision, especially for higher-income physicians who might have a higher 401(k) balance,” said Jamie Hopkins.
 

Be smart about credit cards

Although using credit cards that you can’t pay off every month is typically an expensive way to access money, getting a new card with a low or zero percent introductory rate is a short-term strategy to consider when you’ve exhausted other options. If you have good credit, you may be able to qualify for a credit card with a 0% introductory interest rate on new transactions. Pay close attention to the fine print, including the cap on the balance you can carry without interest and whether you’ll be required to make minimum payments.

The average 0% credit card offer is for 11 months, but there are some cards that can extend the offer for up to a year-and-a-half. If you choose to use this strategy, you’ll need a plan to pay off the entire balance before the introductory period ends. If there’s a balance remaining once the rate resets, you may end up owing deferred interest on it.

The financial ramifications of the coronavirus can feel overwhelming, but it’s important not to panic. While it remains unclear how long the current crisis will last, making some smart money moves to preserve your cash in the meantime can help you stay afloat.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Tips to keep your finances healthy during COVID-19

If you’re among the more than half of Americans with less than 6 months of expenses saved for a rainy day, here are some tips on how to stay afloat in the near term. Cut back on expenses: Look through your credit card bills to see whether there are recurring payments you can cut, such as a payment to a gym that’s temporarily closed or a monthly subscription box that you don’t need. Tap your home equity: If you have good credit and still have some income, you might consider refinancing your home mortgage or opening a home equity line of credit. Consider retirement account withdrawals: the CARES Act has provisions making it less financially onerous to pull money from your retirement accounts. Under the new law, you can take a distribution of up to $100,000 from your IRA or 401(k) without having to pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty. Read more.

Nursing homes overhaul infection control

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support. “Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following: “Infection preventionists” to lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control, well-qualified and engaged medical directors, a survey/inspection process that focuses on education, and more resources and attention to structural reform. Read more.

WHO backtracks on asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir on June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said. But on June 9 – following a day of criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.” Physicians and public health experts slammed the initial comments, saying that they created confusion. Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is “not correct.” Read more.

E-cigs linked to smoking relapse

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems is associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers, results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated. The findings come from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was similarly associated with a significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82). “For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open. Read more.

Formula feeding leads to early weaning

Breastfed infants who receive formula in the hospital are more than twofold more likely to wean during the first year, compared with infants who are exclusively breastfed, according to research published online in Pediatrics. The finding is based on an analysis of data from over 8,000 infants in the Minnesota Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). “Our study strengthens the evidence that formula supplementation of breastfed infants negatively affects breastfeeding duration,” said Marcia Burton McCoy, MPH, of the Minnesota Department of Health’s WIC, and Pamela Heggie, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Tips to keep your finances healthy during COVID-19

If you’re among the more than half of Americans with less than 6 months of expenses saved for a rainy day, here are some tips on how to stay afloat in the near term. Cut back on expenses: Look through your credit card bills to see whether there are recurring payments you can cut, such as a payment to a gym that’s temporarily closed or a monthly subscription box that you don’t need. Tap your home equity: If you have good credit and still have some income, you might consider refinancing your home mortgage or opening a home equity line of credit. Consider retirement account withdrawals: the CARES Act has provisions making it less financially onerous to pull money from your retirement accounts. Under the new law, you can take a distribution of up to $100,000 from your IRA or 401(k) without having to pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty. Read more.

Nursing homes overhaul infection control

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support. “Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following: “Infection preventionists” to lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control, well-qualified and engaged medical directors, a survey/inspection process that focuses on education, and more resources and attention to structural reform. Read more.

WHO backtracks on asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir on June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said. But on June 9 – following a day of criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.” Physicians and public health experts slammed the initial comments, saying that they created confusion. Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is “not correct.” Read more.

E-cigs linked to smoking relapse

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems is associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers, results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated. The findings come from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was similarly associated with a significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82). “For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open. Read more.

Formula feeding leads to early weaning

Breastfed infants who receive formula in the hospital are more than twofold more likely to wean during the first year, compared with infants who are exclusively breastfed, according to research published online in Pediatrics. The finding is based on an analysis of data from over 8,000 infants in the Minnesota Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). “Our study strengthens the evidence that formula supplementation of breastfed infants negatively affects breastfeeding duration,” said Marcia Burton McCoy, MPH, of the Minnesota Department of Health’s WIC, and Pamela Heggie, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Tips to keep your finances healthy during COVID-19

If you’re among the more than half of Americans with less than 6 months of expenses saved for a rainy day, here are some tips on how to stay afloat in the near term. Cut back on expenses: Look through your credit card bills to see whether there are recurring payments you can cut, such as a payment to a gym that’s temporarily closed or a monthly subscription box that you don’t need. Tap your home equity: If you have good credit and still have some income, you might consider refinancing your home mortgage or opening a home equity line of credit. Consider retirement account withdrawals: the CARES Act has provisions making it less financially onerous to pull money from your retirement accounts. Under the new law, you can take a distribution of up to $100,000 from your IRA or 401(k) without having to pay the 10% early withdrawal penalty. Read more.

Nursing homes overhaul infection control

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support. “Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following: “Infection preventionists” to lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control, well-qualified and engaged medical directors, a survey/inspection process that focuses on education, and more resources and attention to structural reform. Read more.

WHO backtracks on asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir on June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said. But on June 9 – following a day of criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.” Physicians and public health experts slammed the initial comments, saying that they created confusion. Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is “not correct.” Read more.

E-cigs linked to smoking relapse

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems is associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers, results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated. The findings come from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was similarly associated with a significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82). “For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open. Read more.

Formula feeding leads to early weaning

Breastfed infants who receive formula in the hospital are more than twofold more likely to wean during the first year, compared with infants who are exclusively breastfed, according to research published online in Pediatrics. The finding is based on an analysis of data from over 8,000 infants in the Minnesota Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). “Our study strengthens the evidence that formula supplementation of breastfed infants negatively affects breastfeeding duration,” said Marcia Burton McCoy, MPH, of the Minnesota Department of Health’s WIC, and Pamela Heggie, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Food insecurity is not knowing how you will get your next meal. This pandemic has led to a lot of it, especially as a result of massive unemployment. Now imagine being in that situation with a food-allergic child. It would be frightening.

There is always a level of anxiety for parents of food-allergic children, but the Food and Drug Administration–mandated labeling of food allergens has helped to allay some of those concerns. Shopping can feel safer, even if it’s not foolproof.

Now, that fear for the safety of food-allergic children is going to be compounded by the FDA’s latest announcement, made at the behest of the food industry.

Disruptions in the food supply chain caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have created some problems for the food industry. The industry sought – and received – relief from the FDA; they are now allowing some ingredient substitutions without mandating a change in labeling. These changes were made without opportunity for public comment, according to the FDA, because of the exigency of the situation. Furthermore, the changes may stay in effect for an indeterminate period of time after the pandemic is deemed under control.

Labeling of gluten and the major eight allergens (peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soy, wheat, fish, and crustacean shellfish) cannot change under the new guidelines. The FDA also advised “consideration” of major food allergens recognized in other countries (sesame, celery, lupin, buckwheat, molluscan shellfish, and mustard). Of these, lupin is known to cross-react with peanut, and sesame seed allergy is increasingly prevalent. In fact, the FDA has considered adding it to the list of major allergens.

Meanwhile, according to this temporary FDA policy, substitutions should be limited to no more than 2% of the weight of the final product unless it is a variety of the same ingredient. The example provided is substitution of one type of mushroom for another, but even that could be an issue for the rare patient. And what if this is misinterpreted – as will surely happen somewhere – and one seed is substituted for another?

A friend of mine is a pediatrician and mother of a child who is allergic to sesame, peanuts, tree nuts, and garbanzo beans. Naturally, she had grave concerns about these changes. She also wondered what the liability would be for the food manufacturing company in the current situation despite the FDA notice, which seems like a valid point. It is worth noting that, at the very top of this FDA notice, are the words “contains nonbinding recommendations,” so manufacturers may want to think twice about how they approach this. A minority of companies have pledged to relabel foods if necessary. Meanwhile, without any alert in advance, it is now up to patients and their physicians to sort out the attendant risks.

The FDA should have advised or mandated that food manufacturers give notice to online and physical retailers of ingredient changes. A simple sign in front of a display or alert online would be a very reasonable solution and pose no burden to those involved. It should be self-evident that mistakes always happen, especially under duress, and that the loosening of these regulations will have unintended consequences. To the severe problem of food insecurity, we can add one more concern for the parents of allergic children: food-allergen insecurity.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Food insecurity is not knowing how you will get your next meal. This pandemic has led to a lot of it, especially as a result of massive unemployment. Now imagine being in that situation with a food-allergic child. It would be frightening.

There is always a level of anxiety for parents of food-allergic children, but the Food and Drug Administration–mandated labeling of food allergens has helped to allay some of those concerns. Shopping can feel safer, even if it’s not foolproof.

Now, that fear for the safety of food-allergic children is going to be compounded by the FDA’s latest announcement, made at the behest of the food industry.

Disruptions in the food supply chain caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have created some problems for the food industry. The industry sought – and received – relief from the FDA; they are now allowing some ingredient substitutions without mandating a change in labeling. These changes were made without opportunity for public comment, according to the FDA, because of the exigency of the situation. Furthermore, the changes may stay in effect for an indeterminate period of time after the pandemic is deemed under control.

Labeling of gluten and the major eight allergens (peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soy, wheat, fish, and crustacean shellfish) cannot change under the new guidelines. The FDA also advised “consideration” of major food allergens recognized in other countries (sesame, celery, lupin, buckwheat, molluscan shellfish, and mustard). Of these, lupin is known to cross-react with peanut, and sesame seed allergy is increasingly prevalent. In fact, the FDA has considered adding it to the list of major allergens.

Meanwhile, according to this temporary FDA policy, substitutions should be limited to no more than 2% of the weight of the final product unless it is a variety of the same ingredient. The example provided is substitution of one type of mushroom for another, but even that could be an issue for the rare patient. And what if this is misinterpreted – as will surely happen somewhere – and one seed is substituted for another?

A friend of mine is a pediatrician and mother of a child who is allergic to sesame, peanuts, tree nuts, and garbanzo beans. Naturally, she had grave concerns about these changes. She also wondered what the liability would be for the food manufacturing company in the current situation despite the FDA notice, which seems like a valid point. It is worth noting that, at the very top of this FDA notice, are the words “contains nonbinding recommendations,” so manufacturers may want to think twice about how they approach this. A minority of companies have pledged to relabel foods if necessary. Meanwhile, without any alert in advance, it is now up to patients and their physicians to sort out the attendant risks.

The FDA should have advised or mandated that food manufacturers give notice to online and physical retailers of ingredient changes. A simple sign in front of a display or alert online would be a very reasonable solution and pose no burden to those involved. It should be self-evident that mistakes always happen, especially under duress, and that the loosening of these regulations will have unintended consequences. To the severe problem of food insecurity, we can add one more concern for the parents of allergic children: food-allergen insecurity.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Food insecurity is not knowing how you will get your next meal. This pandemic has led to a lot of it, especially as a result of massive unemployment. Now imagine being in that situation with a food-allergic child. It would be frightening.

There is always a level of anxiety for parents of food-allergic children, but the Food and Drug Administration–mandated labeling of food allergens has helped to allay some of those concerns. Shopping can feel safer, even if it’s not foolproof.

Now, that fear for the safety of food-allergic children is going to be compounded by the FDA’s latest announcement, made at the behest of the food industry.

Disruptions in the food supply chain caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have created some problems for the food industry. The industry sought – and received – relief from the FDA; they are now allowing some ingredient substitutions without mandating a change in labeling. These changes were made without opportunity for public comment, according to the FDA, because of the exigency of the situation. Furthermore, the changes may stay in effect for an indeterminate period of time after the pandemic is deemed under control.

Labeling of gluten and the major eight allergens (peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soy, wheat, fish, and crustacean shellfish) cannot change under the new guidelines. The FDA also advised “consideration” of major food allergens recognized in other countries (sesame, celery, lupin, buckwheat, molluscan shellfish, and mustard). Of these, lupin is known to cross-react with peanut, and sesame seed allergy is increasingly prevalent. In fact, the FDA has considered adding it to the list of major allergens.

Meanwhile, according to this temporary FDA policy, substitutions should be limited to no more than 2% of the weight of the final product unless it is a variety of the same ingredient. The example provided is substitution of one type of mushroom for another, but even that could be an issue for the rare patient. And what if this is misinterpreted – as will surely happen somewhere – and one seed is substituted for another?

A friend of mine is a pediatrician and mother of a child who is allergic to sesame, peanuts, tree nuts, and garbanzo beans. Naturally, she had grave concerns about these changes. She also wondered what the liability would be for the food manufacturing company in the current situation despite the FDA notice, which seems like a valid point. It is worth noting that, at the very top of this FDA notice, are the words “contains nonbinding recommendations,” so manufacturers may want to think twice about how they approach this. A minority of companies have pledged to relabel foods if necessary. Meanwhile, without any alert in advance, it is now up to patients and their physicians to sort out the attendant risks.

The FDA should have advised or mandated that food manufacturers give notice to online and physical retailers of ingredient changes. A simple sign in front of a display or alert online would be a very reasonable solution and pose no burden to those involved. It should be self-evident that mistakes always happen, especially under duress, and that the loosening of these regulations will have unintended consequences. To the severe problem of food insecurity, we can add one more concern for the parents of allergic children: food-allergen insecurity.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems is associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers, results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

“For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open (2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813).

Dr. Everard, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues based their comments on results from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). They limited the analysis to 2,273 former cigarette smokers who self-reported reported no tobacco product use at Wave 1, and categorized them as recent former smokers (defined as having last smoked within the past 12 previous months) or as long-term former smokers (defined as having last smoked for longer ago than in the previous 12 months). The main outcome of interest was the self-reported current use of cigarettes at follow-up interviews, which was defined as every day or some days. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) comprised e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and e-hookahs. Other tobacco products included cigars, pipe tobacco, hookahs, snus tobacco, other smokeless tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco.

Of the 2,273 adult former smokers, 52% were women, 60% were older than age 50, and 80% were non-Hispanic white. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of ENDS was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was associated with significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82).

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it did not assess different ENDS devices, different e-liquid nicotine levels, or frequency of ENDS use and their associations with cigarette smoking relapse. It also did not explore the mechanism by which ENDS use may lead to reestablishing or reinforcing nicotine-seeking behavior among former cigarette users. “Determining pharmacologic, behavioral, or some other explanation for these findings may require laboratory-based research,” they wrote.

The PATH Study is supported with federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to Westat. One of the study authors, Wilson M. Compton, MD, reported having long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer. The other authors reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems is associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers, results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

“For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open (2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813).

Dr. Everard, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues based their comments on results from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). They limited the analysis to 2,273 former cigarette smokers who self-reported reported no tobacco product use at Wave 1, and categorized them as recent former smokers (defined as having last smoked within the past 12 previous months) or as long-term former smokers (defined as having last smoked for longer ago than in the previous 12 months). The main outcome of interest was the self-reported current use of cigarettes at follow-up interviews, which was defined as every day or some days. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) comprised e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and e-hookahs. Other tobacco products included cigars, pipe tobacco, hookahs, snus tobacco, other smokeless tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco.

Of the 2,273 adult former smokers, 52% were women, 60% were older than age 50, and 80% were non-Hispanic white. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of ENDS was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was associated with significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82).

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it did not assess different ENDS devices, different e-liquid nicotine levels, or frequency of ENDS use and their associations with cigarette smoking relapse. It also did not explore the mechanism by which ENDS use may lead to reestablishing or reinforcing nicotine-seeking behavior among former cigarette users. “Determining pharmacologic, behavioral, or some other explanation for these findings may require laboratory-based research,” they wrote.

The PATH Study is supported with federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to Westat. One of the study authors, Wilson M. Compton, MD, reported having long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer. The other authors reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems is associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers, results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

“For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open (2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813).

Dr. Everard, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues based their comments on results from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). They limited the analysis to 2,273 former cigarette smokers who self-reported reported no tobacco product use at Wave 1, and categorized them as recent former smokers (defined as having last smoked within the past 12 previous months) or as long-term former smokers (defined as having last smoked for longer ago than in the previous 12 months). The main outcome of interest was the self-reported current use of cigarettes at follow-up interviews, which was defined as every day or some days. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) comprised e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and e-hookahs. Other tobacco products included cigars, pipe tobacco, hookahs, snus tobacco, other smokeless tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco.

Of the 2,273 adult former smokers, 52% were women, 60% were older than age 50, and 80% were non-Hispanic white. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of ENDS was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was associated with significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82).

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it did not assess different ENDS devices, different e-liquid nicotine levels, or frequency of ENDS use and their associations with cigarette smoking relapse. It also did not explore the mechanism by which ENDS use may lead to reestablishing or reinforcing nicotine-seeking behavior among former cigarette users. “Determining pharmacologic, behavioral, or some other explanation for these findings may require laboratory-based research,” they wrote.

The PATH Study is supported with federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to Westat. One of the study authors, Wilson M. Compton, MD, reported having long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer. The other authors reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.

Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.

But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”

The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.

Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.

Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct." 

This article was updated 6/10/20.

A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.

Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.

But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”

The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.

Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.

Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct." 

This article was updated 6/10/20.

A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.

Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.

But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”

The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.

Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.

Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct." 

This article was updated 6/10/20.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”