User login
Patients’ perceptions and high hospital use
Background: A small proportion of patients accounts for a large proportion of hospital use and readmissions. As hospitals and hospitalists focus efforts to improve transitions of care, there is a paucity of data that incorporates patients’ perspectives into the design of these programs.
Study design: Qualitative research study.
Setting: Northwestern Memorial Hospital, a single urban academic medical center in Chicago.
Synopsis: Eligible patients had two unplanned 30-day readmissions within the prior 12 months in addition to one or more of the following: at least one readmission in the last 6 months; a referral from a patient’s medical provider; or at least three observation visits.
A research coordinator conducted one-on-one semistructured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using a team-based approach; 26 patients completed the interview process. From the analysis, four major themes emerged: Major medical problems were universal but high hospital use onset varied; participants noted that fluctuations in their course were often related to social, economic, and psychological stressors; onset and progression of episodes seemed uncontrollable and unpredictable; participants preferred to avoid hospitalization and sought care when attempts at self-management failed. The major limitation of this study was the small sample size located at one medical center, creating a data pool that is potentially not generalizable to other medical centers. These findings, however, are an important reminder to focus our interventions with patients’ needs and perceptions in mind.
Bottom line: Frequently hospitalized patients have insights into factors contributing to their high hospital use. Engaging patients in this discussion can enable us to create sustainable patient-centered programs that avoid rehospitalization.
Citation: O’Leary KJ et al. Frequently hospitalized patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to high hospital use. J Hosp Med. 2019 Mar 20;14:e1-6.
Dr. Richardson is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Background: A small proportion of patients accounts for a large proportion of hospital use and readmissions. As hospitals and hospitalists focus efforts to improve transitions of care, there is a paucity of data that incorporates patients’ perspectives into the design of these programs.
Study design: Qualitative research study.
Setting: Northwestern Memorial Hospital, a single urban academic medical center in Chicago.
Synopsis: Eligible patients had two unplanned 30-day readmissions within the prior 12 months in addition to one or more of the following: at least one readmission in the last 6 months; a referral from a patient’s medical provider; or at least three observation visits.
A research coordinator conducted one-on-one semistructured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using a team-based approach; 26 patients completed the interview process. From the analysis, four major themes emerged: Major medical problems were universal but high hospital use onset varied; participants noted that fluctuations in their course were often related to social, economic, and psychological stressors; onset and progression of episodes seemed uncontrollable and unpredictable; participants preferred to avoid hospitalization and sought care when attempts at self-management failed. The major limitation of this study was the small sample size located at one medical center, creating a data pool that is potentially not generalizable to other medical centers. These findings, however, are an important reminder to focus our interventions with patients’ needs and perceptions in mind.
Bottom line: Frequently hospitalized patients have insights into factors contributing to their high hospital use. Engaging patients in this discussion can enable us to create sustainable patient-centered programs that avoid rehospitalization.
Citation: O’Leary KJ et al. Frequently hospitalized patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to high hospital use. J Hosp Med. 2019 Mar 20;14:e1-6.
Dr. Richardson is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Background: A small proportion of patients accounts for a large proportion of hospital use and readmissions. As hospitals and hospitalists focus efforts to improve transitions of care, there is a paucity of data that incorporates patients’ perspectives into the design of these programs.
Study design: Qualitative research study.
Setting: Northwestern Memorial Hospital, a single urban academic medical center in Chicago.
Synopsis: Eligible patients had two unplanned 30-day readmissions within the prior 12 months in addition to one or more of the following: at least one readmission in the last 6 months; a referral from a patient’s medical provider; or at least three observation visits.
A research coordinator conducted one-on-one semistructured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using a team-based approach; 26 patients completed the interview process. From the analysis, four major themes emerged: Major medical problems were universal but high hospital use onset varied; participants noted that fluctuations in their course were often related to social, economic, and psychological stressors; onset and progression of episodes seemed uncontrollable and unpredictable; participants preferred to avoid hospitalization and sought care when attempts at self-management failed. The major limitation of this study was the small sample size located at one medical center, creating a data pool that is potentially not generalizable to other medical centers. These findings, however, are an important reminder to focus our interventions with patients’ needs and perceptions in mind.
Bottom line: Frequently hospitalized patients have insights into factors contributing to their high hospital use. Engaging patients in this discussion can enable us to create sustainable patient-centered programs that avoid rehospitalization.
Citation: O’Leary KJ et al. Frequently hospitalized patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to high hospital use. J Hosp Med. 2019 Mar 20;14:e1-6.
Dr. Richardson is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Reducing low-value preop care for cataract surgery patients
Background: Although multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown that routine preoperative testing prior to cataract surgery has low yield, most Medicare beneficiaries continue to undergo this testing. The American Board of Internal Medicine started the Choosing Wisely campaign to help educate patients and providers about a crisis of unnecessary testing and procedures. This prompted multiple centers to create quality improvement (QI) projects to decrease low-value care.
_
Study design: Observational study of a health system quality improvement initiative.
Setting: Two academic, safety-net hospitals in Los Angeles.
Synopsis: The intervention hospital’s QI nurse underwent an extensive formal QI training program, followed by educating all health care team members involved in preoperative care for cataract patients. New guidelines were created and circulated, with a stated goal of eliminating routine preoperative visits and testing. The control hospital continued their usual preoperative care.
Preoperative visits decreased from 93% to 24% in the intervention group and increased from 89% to 91% in the control group (between-group difference, −71%; 95% confidence interval, –80% to –62%). Chest x-rays, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms also had a similar decrease in the intervention group.
The intervention hospital lost $42,241 the first year because of training costs but 3-year projections estimated $67,241 in savings. The authors estimated $217,322 savings in 3 years from a societal perspective. Interestingly, the decrease in utilization would lead to financial loss in fee-for-service payment ($88,151 loss in 3 years).
No causal relationship can be established since this was an observational study. Several assumptions were made for the cost analysis. Results are less generalizable since the study was at hospitals in a single city and health system. It is unclear which component of the QI initiative was most effective.
Bottom line: A multidisciplinary, multicomponent initiative can be successful in decreasing low-value preoperative testing of patients undergoing cataract surgery. Although this results in cost savings overall and for capitated payment systems, it would actually cause revenue loss in fee-for-service systems. This emphasizes a potential barrier to eradicate low-value care.
Citation: Mafi JN et al. Evaluation of an intervention to reduce low-value preoperative care for patients undergoing cataract surgery at a safety-net health system. JAMA Intern Med. Published online 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8358.
Dr. Menon is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Background: Although multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown that routine preoperative testing prior to cataract surgery has low yield, most Medicare beneficiaries continue to undergo this testing. The American Board of Internal Medicine started the Choosing Wisely campaign to help educate patients and providers about a crisis of unnecessary testing and procedures. This prompted multiple centers to create quality improvement (QI) projects to decrease low-value care.
_
Study design: Observational study of a health system quality improvement initiative.
Setting: Two academic, safety-net hospitals in Los Angeles.
Synopsis: The intervention hospital’s QI nurse underwent an extensive formal QI training program, followed by educating all health care team members involved in preoperative care for cataract patients. New guidelines were created and circulated, with a stated goal of eliminating routine preoperative visits and testing. The control hospital continued their usual preoperative care.
Preoperative visits decreased from 93% to 24% in the intervention group and increased from 89% to 91% in the control group (between-group difference, −71%; 95% confidence interval, –80% to –62%). Chest x-rays, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms also had a similar decrease in the intervention group.
The intervention hospital lost $42,241 the first year because of training costs but 3-year projections estimated $67,241 in savings. The authors estimated $217,322 savings in 3 years from a societal perspective. Interestingly, the decrease in utilization would lead to financial loss in fee-for-service payment ($88,151 loss in 3 years).
No causal relationship can be established since this was an observational study. Several assumptions were made for the cost analysis. Results are less generalizable since the study was at hospitals in a single city and health system. It is unclear which component of the QI initiative was most effective.
Bottom line: A multidisciplinary, multicomponent initiative can be successful in decreasing low-value preoperative testing of patients undergoing cataract surgery. Although this results in cost savings overall and for capitated payment systems, it would actually cause revenue loss in fee-for-service systems. This emphasizes a potential barrier to eradicate low-value care.
Citation: Mafi JN et al. Evaluation of an intervention to reduce low-value preoperative care for patients undergoing cataract surgery at a safety-net health system. JAMA Intern Med. Published online 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8358.
Dr. Menon is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Background: Although multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown that routine preoperative testing prior to cataract surgery has low yield, most Medicare beneficiaries continue to undergo this testing. The American Board of Internal Medicine started the Choosing Wisely campaign to help educate patients and providers about a crisis of unnecessary testing and procedures. This prompted multiple centers to create quality improvement (QI) projects to decrease low-value care.
_
Study design: Observational study of a health system quality improvement initiative.
Setting: Two academic, safety-net hospitals in Los Angeles.
Synopsis: The intervention hospital’s QI nurse underwent an extensive formal QI training program, followed by educating all health care team members involved in preoperative care for cataract patients. New guidelines were created and circulated, with a stated goal of eliminating routine preoperative visits and testing. The control hospital continued their usual preoperative care.
Preoperative visits decreased from 93% to 24% in the intervention group and increased from 89% to 91% in the control group (between-group difference, −71%; 95% confidence interval, –80% to –62%). Chest x-rays, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms also had a similar decrease in the intervention group.
The intervention hospital lost $42,241 the first year because of training costs but 3-year projections estimated $67,241 in savings. The authors estimated $217,322 savings in 3 years from a societal perspective. Interestingly, the decrease in utilization would lead to financial loss in fee-for-service payment ($88,151 loss in 3 years).
No causal relationship can be established since this was an observational study. Several assumptions were made for the cost analysis. Results are less generalizable since the study was at hospitals in a single city and health system. It is unclear which component of the QI initiative was most effective.
Bottom line: A multidisciplinary, multicomponent initiative can be successful in decreasing low-value preoperative testing of patients undergoing cataract surgery. Although this results in cost savings overall and for capitated payment systems, it would actually cause revenue loss in fee-for-service systems. This emphasizes a potential barrier to eradicate low-value care.
Citation: Mafi JN et al. Evaluation of an intervention to reduce low-value preoperative care for patients undergoing cataract surgery at a safety-net health system. JAMA Intern Med. Published online 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8358.
Dr. Menon is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Evaluating complications of midline catheters
Background: Midline catheters have gained popularity in inpatient medical settings as a convenient alternative to PICC lines. This is primarily because of the ability to avoid central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) since these catheters terminate in the peripheral veins and cannot be reported as such. Additionally, they are potentially able to dwell longer than are traditional peripheral intravenous catheters. However, insufficient data exist to accurately describe the rate of complications in these catheters, as prior studies are based on single-center experiences.
Study design: Multicenter prospective cohort study.
Setting: Hospital medicine ward or medical ICU.
Synopsis: With use of a large database of adult patients from a quality initiative supported by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network, this study identified 1,161 patients who had midline catheters placed and showed a 10.3% complication rate, of which 66.7% were minor (dislodgment, leaking, infiltration, or superficial thrombophlebitis) rather than major complications (occlusion, symptomatic upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis, or bloodstream infection). However, a similar rate of removal of the catheters was reported for major and minor complications (53.8% vs. 52.5%; P = .90). Across sites, there was substantial variation in utilization rates (0.97%-12.92%; P less than .001), dwell time and indication for use, and complication rates (3.4%-16.7%; P = .07).
The article does not provide guidance on when and how midline catheters should be used in order to minimize risk; nor does it include a comparison with traditional peripheral intravenous catheters or with PICC lines. Further studies are needed to guide indications and practices for catheter placement in order to minimize risk. Providers should continue to carefully consider the risks and benefits of midline catheter placement in individual cases.
Bottom line: Midline catheter placement more commonly leads to minor rather than major complications, though patterns of use and outcomes vary substantially across sites.
Citation: Chopra V et al. Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008554.
Dr. Marcantonio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Background: Midline catheters have gained popularity in inpatient medical settings as a convenient alternative to PICC lines. This is primarily because of the ability to avoid central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) since these catheters terminate in the peripheral veins and cannot be reported as such. Additionally, they are potentially able to dwell longer than are traditional peripheral intravenous catheters. However, insufficient data exist to accurately describe the rate of complications in these catheters, as prior studies are based on single-center experiences.
Study design: Multicenter prospective cohort study.
Setting: Hospital medicine ward or medical ICU.
Synopsis: With use of a large database of adult patients from a quality initiative supported by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network, this study identified 1,161 patients who had midline catheters placed and showed a 10.3% complication rate, of which 66.7% were minor (dislodgment, leaking, infiltration, or superficial thrombophlebitis) rather than major complications (occlusion, symptomatic upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis, or bloodstream infection). However, a similar rate of removal of the catheters was reported for major and minor complications (53.8% vs. 52.5%; P = .90). Across sites, there was substantial variation in utilization rates (0.97%-12.92%; P less than .001), dwell time and indication for use, and complication rates (3.4%-16.7%; P = .07).
The article does not provide guidance on when and how midline catheters should be used in order to minimize risk; nor does it include a comparison with traditional peripheral intravenous catheters or with PICC lines. Further studies are needed to guide indications and practices for catheter placement in order to minimize risk. Providers should continue to carefully consider the risks and benefits of midline catheter placement in individual cases.
Bottom line: Midline catheter placement more commonly leads to minor rather than major complications, though patterns of use and outcomes vary substantially across sites.
Citation: Chopra V et al. Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008554.
Dr. Marcantonio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Background: Midline catheters have gained popularity in inpatient medical settings as a convenient alternative to PICC lines. This is primarily because of the ability to avoid central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) since these catheters terminate in the peripheral veins and cannot be reported as such. Additionally, they are potentially able to dwell longer than are traditional peripheral intravenous catheters. However, insufficient data exist to accurately describe the rate of complications in these catheters, as prior studies are based on single-center experiences.
Study design: Multicenter prospective cohort study.
Setting: Hospital medicine ward or medical ICU.
Synopsis: With use of a large database of adult patients from a quality initiative supported by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network, this study identified 1,161 patients who had midline catheters placed and showed a 10.3% complication rate, of which 66.7% were minor (dislodgment, leaking, infiltration, or superficial thrombophlebitis) rather than major complications (occlusion, symptomatic upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis, or bloodstream infection). However, a similar rate of removal of the catheters was reported for major and minor complications (53.8% vs. 52.5%; P = .90). Across sites, there was substantial variation in utilization rates (0.97%-12.92%; P less than .001), dwell time and indication for use, and complication rates (3.4%-16.7%; P = .07).
The article does not provide guidance on when and how midline catheters should be used in order to minimize risk; nor does it include a comparison with traditional peripheral intravenous catheters or with PICC lines. Further studies are needed to guide indications and practices for catheter placement in order to minimize risk. Providers should continue to carefully consider the risks and benefits of midline catheter placement in individual cases.
Bottom line: Midline catheter placement more commonly leads to minor rather than major complications, though patterns of use and outcomes vary substantially across sites.
Citation: Chopra V et al. Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008554.
Dr. Marcantonio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Short medication regimen noninferior to long regimen for rifampin-resistant TB
Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.
Study design: Randomized phase 3 noninferior trial.
Setting: Multisite, international; countries were selected based on background disease burden of TB, multidrug-resistant TB, and TB-HIV coinfection (Ethiopia, Mongolia, South Africa, Vietnam).
Synopsis: 424 patients were randomized to the short and long medication regimen groups with 369 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 310 included in the final per protocol efficacy analysis. The short regimen included IV moxifloxacin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide administered over a 40-week period, supplemented by kanamycin, isoniazid, and prothionamide in the first 16 weeks, compared with 8 months of intense treatment and total 20 months of treatment in the long regimen. At 132 weeks after randomization, cultures were negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in more than 78 % patients in both long- and short-regimen group. Unfavorable bacteriologic outcome (10.6%), cardiac conduction defects (9.9%), and hepatobiliary problems (8.9%) were more common in the short-regimen group whereas patients in long-regimen group were lost to follow-up more frequently (2.4%) and had more metabolic disorders (7.1%). More deaths were reported in the short-regimen group, especially in those with HIV coinfections (17.5%). Although the results of this trial are encouraging, further studies will be needed to find a short, simple regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis with improved safety outcomes.
Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.
Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.
Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.
Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.
Study design: Randomized phase 3 noninferior trial.
Setting: Multisite, international; countries were selected based on background disease burden of TB, multidrug-resistant TB, and TB-HIV coinfection (Ethiopia, Mongolia, South Africa, Vietnam).
Synopsis: 424 patients were randomized to the short and long medication regimen groups with 369 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 310 included in the final per protocol efficacy analysis. The short regimen included IV moxifloxacin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide administered over a 40-week period, supplemented by kanamycin, isoniazid, and prothionamide in the first 16 weeks, compared with 8 months of intense treatment and total 20 months of treatment in the long regimen. At 132 weeks after randomization, cultures were negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in more than 78 % patients in both long- and short-regimen group. Unfavorable bacteriologic outcome (10.6%), cardiac conduction defects (9.9%), and hepatobiliary problems (8.9%) were more common in the short-regimen group whereas patients in long-regimen group were lost to follow-up more frequently (2.4%) and had more metabolic disorders (7.1%). More deaths were reported in the short-regimen group, especially in those with HIV coinfections (17.5%). Although the results of this trial are encouraging, further studies will be needed to find a short, simple regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis with improved safety outcomes.
Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.
Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.
Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.
Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.
Study design: Randomized phase 3 noninferior trial.
Setting: Multisite, international; countries were selected based on background disease burden of TB, multidrug-resistant TB, and TB-HIV coinfection (Ethiopia, Mongolia, South Africa, Vietnam).
Synopsis: 424 patients were randomized to the short and long medication regimen groups with 369 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 310 included in the final per protocol efficacy analysis. The short regimen included IV moxifloxacin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide administered over a 40-week period, supplemented by kanamycin, isoniazid, and prothionamide in the first 16 weeks, compared with 8 months of intense treatment and total 20 months of treatment in the long regimen. At 132 weeks after randomization, cultures were negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in more than 78 % patients in both long- and short-regimen group. Unfavorable bacteriologic outcome (10.6%), cardiac conduction defects (9.9%), and hepatobiliary problems (8.9%) were more common in the short-regimen group whereas patients in long-regimen group were lost to follow-up more frequently (2.4%) and had more metabolic disorders (7.1%). More deaths were reported in the short-regimen group, especially in those with HIV coinfections (17.5%). Although the results of this trial are encouraging, further studies will be needed to find a short, simple regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis with improved safety outcomes.
Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.
Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.
Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.
COVID-19 crushers: An appreciation of hospitalists
The hospitalist team at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics in Bellevue, Wash., has been a major partner of our Clinical Documentation Integrity Department in achieving its goal of accurately capturing the quality care patients receive on their records.
For many years, we have been witnesses of our hospitalists’ hard work, and the unique challenges of this pandemic further showed their tenacity and resilience. I thought that the best way to tell this story is through the poster accompanying this article.
To the viewer, this demonstrates the fierce battle raging between our hospitalists and the invisible foe, COVID-19. To my hospitalist colleagues, this is a constant reminder, albeit visually, that you are appreciated, admired and valued – not only by the CDI Department but by the whole organization as well.
Beyond my local colleagues, I would like to also thank the hospitalists working around the globe for their dedication and resolve in fighting this pandemic.
Mr. Valentin is a nurse and Certified Clinical Documentation Integrity Specialist at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics, Bellevue, Wash. His clinical specialties within nursing practice are in the OR, acute inpatient psychiatry, and the AIDS Unit.
The hospitalist team at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics in Bellevue, Wash., has been a major partner of our Clinical Documentation Integrity Department in achieving its goal of accurately capturing the quality care patients receive on their records.
For many years, we have been witnesses of our hospitalists’ hard work, and the unique challenges of this pandemic further showed their tenacity and resilience. I thought that the best way to tell this story is through the poster accompanying this article.
To the viewer, this demonstrates the fierce battle raging between our hospitalists and the invisible foe, COVID-19. To my hospitalist colleagues, this is a constant reminder, albeit visually, that you are appreciated, admired and valued – not only by the CDI Department but by the whole organization as well.
Beyond my local colleagues, I would like to also thank the hospitalists working around the globe for their dedication and resolve in fighting this pandemic.
Mr. Valentin is a nurse and Certified Clinical Documentation Integrity Specialist at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics, Bellevue, Wash. His clinical specialties within nursing practice are in the OR, acute inpatient psychiatry, and the AIDS Unit.
The hospitalist team at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics in Bellevue, Wash., has been a major partner of our Clinical Documentation Integrity Department in achieving its goal of accurately capturing the quality care patients receive on their records.
For many years, we have been witnesses of our hospitalists’ hard work, and the unique challenges of this pandemic further showed their tenacity and resilience. I thought that the best way to tell this story is through the poster accompanying this article.
To the viewer, this demonstrates the fierce battle raging between our hospitalists and the invisible foe, COVID-19. To my hospitalist colleagues, this is a constant reminder, albeit visually, that you are appreciated, admired and valued – not only by the CDI Department but by the whole organization as well.
Beyond my local colleagues, I would like to also thank the hospitalists working around the globe for their dedication and resolve in fighting this pandemic.
Mr. Valentin is a nurse and Certified Clinical Documentation Integrity Specialist at Overlake Medical Center and Clinics, Bellevue, Wash. His clinical specialties within nursing practice are in the OR, acute inpatient psychiatry, and the AIDS Unit.
Early or delayed cardioversion in recent-onset atrial fibrillation
Background: Often atrial fibrillation terminates spontaneously and occasionally recurs; therefore, the advantage of immediate electric or pharmacologic cardioversion over watchful waiting and subsequent delayed cardioversion is not clear.
Study design: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial.
Setting: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands (3 academic, 8 nonacademic teaching, and 4 nonteaching).
Synopsis: Randomizing 437 patients with early-onset (less than 36 hours) symptomatic AFib presenting to 15 hospitals, the authors showed that, at 4 weeks’ follow-up, a similar number of patients remained in sinus rhythm whether they were assigned to an immediate cardioversion strategy or to a delayed one where rate control was attempted first and cardioversion was done if patients remained in fibrillation after 48 hours. Specifically the presence of sinus rhythm occurred in 94% in the early cardioversion group and in 91% of the delayed one (95% confidence interval, –8.2 to 2.2; P = .005 for noninferiority). Both groups received anticoagulation per current standards.
This was a noninferiority, open-label study that was not powered enough to study harm between the two strategies. It showed a 30% incidence of recurrence of AFib regardless of study assignment. Hospitalists should not feel pressured to initiate early cardioversion for new-onset AFib. Rate control, anticoagulation (if applicable), prompt follow-up, and early discharge (even from the ED) seem to be a safe and practical approach.
Bottom line: In patients presenting with symptomatic recent-onset AFib, delayed cardioversion in a wait-and-see approach was noninferior to early cardioversion in achieving sinus rhythm at 4 weeks’ follow-up.
Citation: Pluymaekers NA et al. Early or delayed cardioversion in recent-onset atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med.
Dr. Abdo is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Background: Often atrial fibrillation terminates spontaneously and occasionally recurs; therefore, the advantage of immediate electric or pharmacologic cardioversion over watchful waiting and subsequent delayed cardioversion is not clear.
Study design: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial.
Setting: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands (3 academic, 8 nonacademic teaching, and 4 nonteaching).
Synopsis: Randomizing 437 patients with early-onset (less than 36 hours) symptomatic AFib presenting to 15 hospitals, the authors showed that, at 4 weeks’ follow-up, a similar number of patients remained in sinus rhythm whether they were assigned to an immediate cardioversion strategy or to a delayed one where rate control was attempted first and cardioversion was done if patients remained in fibrillation after 48 hours. Specifically the presence of sinus rhythm occurred in 94% in the early cardioversion group and in 91% of the delayed one (95% confidence interval, –8.2 to 2.2; P = .005 for noninferiority). Both groups received anticoagulation per current standards.
This was a noninferiority, open-label study that was not powered enough to study harm between the two strategies. It showed a 30% incidence of recurrence of AFib regardless of study assignment. Hospitalists should not feel pressured to initiate early cardioversion for new-onset AFib. Rate control, anticoagulation (if applicable), prompt follow-up, and early discharge (even from the ED) seem to be a safe and practical approach.
Bottom line: In patients presenting with symptomatic recent-onset AFib, delayed cardioversion in a wait-and-see approach was noninferior to early cardioversion in achieving sinus rhythm at 4 weeks’ follow-up.
Citation: Pluymaekers NA et al. Early or delayed cardioversion in recent-onset atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med.
Dr. Abdo is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Background: Often atrial fibrillation terminates spontaneously and occasionally recurs; therefore, the advantage of immediate electric or pharmacologic cardioversion over watchful waiting and subsequent delayed cardioversion is not clear.
Study design: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial.
Setting: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands (3 academic, 8 nonacademic teaching, and 4 nonteaching).
Synopsis: Randomizing 437 patients with early-onset (less than 36 hours) symptomatic AFib presenting to 15 hospitals, the authors showed that, at 4 weeks’ follow-up, a similar number of patients remained in sinus rhythm whether they were assigned to an immediate cardioversion strategy or to a delayed one where rate control was attempted first and cardioversion was done if patients remained in fibrillation after 48 hours. Specifically the presence of sinus rhythm occurred in 94% in the early cardioversion group and in 91% of the delayed one (95% confidence interval, –8.2 to 2.2; P = .005 for noninferiority). Both groups received anticoagulation per current standards.
This was a noninferiority, open-label study that was not powered enough to study harm between the two strategies. It showed a 30% incidence of recurrence of AFib regardless of study assignment. Hospitalists should not feel pressured to initiate early cardioversion for new-onset AFib. Rate control, anticoagulation (if applicable), prompt follow-up, and early discharge (even from the ED) seem to be a safe and practical approach.
Bottom line: In patients presenting with symptomatic recent-onset AFib, delayed cardioversion in a wait-and-see approach was noninferior to early cardioversion in achieving sinus rhythm at 4 weeks’ follow-up.
Citation: Pluymaekers NA et al. Early or delayed cardioversion in recent-onset atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med.
Dr. Abdo is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.
Sarcopenic obesity: The wasting within
Case
The patient is a 65-year-old white female who recently was discovered to have a 2-cm spiculated lung mass in the right upper lobe. She is undergoing an evaluation at present but her main complaint today is that of profound weakness and fatigue. Her appetite and energy level are noticeably less; her family ascribes this to anxiety and depression. Her other medical problems include diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, and obesity. The patient believes that she’s lost about 20-25 pounds recently, though her family is skeptical, adding that “she’s been heavy all her life.” Her body mass index is 40. What additional interventions would you add to her workup?
Background
Sarcopenic obesity occurs as a natural consequence of aging. As a general rule, as many as half the women and a quarter of the men over age 80 years are affected. A total of about 18 million people are involved.
One thought as to etiology is that as one ages, proteolysis outdoes protein synthesis. Fat then replaces the body’s muscle, permeates the viscera, and becomes the prominent body form. Chronic lipodeposition leads to chronic inflammation which, in turn, augments protein catabolism. The elderly become less energetic and less active, and the muscle mass decreases further. A vicious cycle develops. Concurrently with obesity, patients suffer with the onset of dyslipidemia, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis (due to vitamin D deficiency), insulin resistance, and an overall increase in frailty.
Sarcopenic obesity also plays a prognostic role in the management of cancer patients where the presence of sarcopenia correlates with earlier death and decreased capacity for therapy. Patients seen as obese are less likely to receive the intensive care (particularly nutritional support) that patients seen as a higher risk receive. The cancer cachexia is less pronounced. The obesity seen externally masks the wasting within.
Diagnosis and treatment
Sarcopenic obesity suffers from an inexact definition. According to the World Health Organization, obesity is defined, officially, as a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m2. Muscle mass is an important part of this entity, too, but the inclusion of muscle function in this definition brings, seemingly, a point of conjecture. Is muscle function necessary? By what scale do you measure it? This imprecision makes comparative research in the field somewhat more difficult.
As clinical acumen remains the major diagnostic approach to this disease, confirmatory testing for sarcopenic obesity comprises MRIs/CTs and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Presently DXA is used to assess bone density in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. It also reveals the decreased lean appendicular (extremity) muscle mass which, along with the increased BMI, forms the basic diagnosis of sarcopenic obesity. DXA scans are favored over CTs for the assessment of appendicular lean muscle mass. DXA scans provide a relatively inexpensive method of estimating fat, muscle, and additionally, bone density. CTs are less favored because of their radiation exposure as well as their high cost. Assessing muscle strength, using handgrip dynomometry, is available though not widely advocated.
Of the myriad modalities tried in sarcopenic obesity, many have shortcomings. No particular diet format can be advocated. Hypocaloric diets, with or without protein supplementation, offer little advantage to a good physical exercise program. The administration of vitamin D, with calcium, can be of benefit to those sarcopenically obese patients suffering with osteoporosis. Other medications, as exemplified by testosterone, vitamin K, myostatin inhibitors, or mesenchymal stem cells, are either anecdotal or dubious in nature. More research is definitely needed.
The key component for the treatment of sarcopenic obesity is exercise, both aerobic and resistant. Physical exercise recruits muscle satellite cells into the muscle fibers strengthening their composition. Growth factors are also released that stimulate the production of muscle satellite cells. Muscle mass becomes augmented and fortified. Aerobic exercise counteracts the negative metabolic effects of lipids. Resistance training is felt to improve strength when in combination with aerobic exercise, compared with aerobic exercise alone. Research has shown that high-speed resistance training, over a 12-week period, had shown a greater improvement in muscle power and capacity when compared to low-speed training. It was also recommended that patients exercise only until fatigued, not until “failure,” as a stopping point. Programs must be customized to fit the individual.
Sarcopenic obesity is a form of deconditioning that occurs naturally with age but is compounded by cancer. Research into this disease is confounded by a lack of accepted definitions. Radiographic workup and lifestyle changes are the mainstay of medical management. The foremost diagnostic tool remains, as always, clinical suspicion.
Dr. Killeen is a physician in Tampa, Fla. He practices internal medicine, hematology, and oncology, and has worked in hospice and hospital medicine.
Recommended reading
Gruber ES et al. Sarcopenia and Sarcopenic Obesity are independent adverse prognostic factors in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2019;14(5): e02115915.10.1371/journal.pone.0215915 [PMID 31059520].
Lombardo M et al. Sarcopenic Obesity: Etiology and lifestyle therapy. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019; 23: 7152-62.
Petroni M et al. Prevention and treatment of Sarcopenic Obesity in women. Nutrients. 2019; Jun 8.10.3390/nu1161302 [PMID 31181771].
Barcos VE, Arribas L. Sarcopenic Obesity: Hidden muscle wasting and its impact for survival and complications of cancer therapy. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(suppl. 2):ii1-ii9.
Zhang X et al. Association of Sarcopenic Obesity with the risk of all-cause mortality among adults over a broad range of different settings: An update meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2018;19:183-97.
Key points
- • In sarcopenic obesity a patient’s muscle loss in mass can be clouded, overshadowed by the obese body habitus. The major diagnostic tool initially is clinical suspicion.
- • The diagnostic tests for sarcopenic obesity are DXA and CT scans.
- • The best treatment for sarcopenic obesity is a good exercise plan.
Quiz
1. What is the best treatment for sarcopenic obesity?
A. Testosterone
B. Vitamin K
C. Myostatin inhibitors
D. None of the above
Answer: D
There is no particular pharmaceutical treatment, to date, for sarcopenic obesity. Only an exercise program has proved to be of benefit. Those for whom fatigue might be problematic could benefit perhaps by doing “energy banking” or taking programmed naps/rest periods prior to exercise.
2. DXA scans are favored over CT scans because of which of the following?
A. Less cost
B. Capacity to diagnose osteoporosis
C. Less radiation exposure
D. All of the above
Answer: D
DXA scans offer all of the above advantages over CT scans. Also, patients with sarcopenic obesity found to be osteoporotic could be started on vitamin D and calcium supplementation.
3. Which of the following hamper the diagnosis and treatment of sarcopenic obesity?
A. The issue of muscle function
B. Difficulties in comparative research studies
C. Remembering that muscle wasting can occur without external evidence of cachexia
D. All of the above
Answer: D
Obtaining a precise definition of sarcopenic obesity and dealing with the issue of muscle strength and capacity make comparative studies difficult. The sarcopenic obese patient needs as much attention as the cachectic one as their wasting is from within.
4. In sarcopenic obesity and cancer the presence of sarcopenia is likely to lead to which of the following?
A. Earlier death
B. Decreased capacity for therapy
C. Less treatment focus compared to nonsarcopenic patients
D. All of the above
Answer: D
The presence of sarcopenia correlates to all of the above particularly as the obese patient is thought to require less intensive attention than others.
Case
The patient is a 65-year-old white female who recently was discovered to have a 2-cm spiculated lung mass in the right upper lobe. She is undergoing an evaluation at present but her main complaint today is that of profound weakness and fatigue. Her appetite and energy level are noticeably less; her family ascribes this to anxiety and depression. Her other medical problems include diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, and obesity. The patient believes that she’s lost about 20-25 pounds recently, though her family is skeptical, adding that “she’s been heavy all her life.” Her body mass index is 40. What additional interventions would you add to her workup?
Background
Sarcopenic obesity occurs as a natural consequence of aging. As a general rule, as many as half the women and a quarter of the men over age 80 years are affected. A total of about 18 million people are involved.
One thought as to etiology is that as one ages, proteolysis outdoes protein synthesis. Fat then replaces the body’s muscle, permeates the viscera, and becomes the prominent body form. Chronic lipodeposition leads to chronic inflammation which, in turn, augments protein catabolism. The elderly become less energetic and less active, and the muscle mass decreases further. A vicious cycle develops. Concurrently with obesity, patients suffer with the onset of dyslipidemia, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis (due to vitamin D deficiency), insulin resistance, and an overall increase in frailty.
Sarcopenic obesity also plays a prognostic role in the management of cancer patients where the presence of sarcopenia correlates with earlier death and decreased capacity for therapy. Patients seen as obese are less likely to receive the intensive care (particularly nutritional support) that patients seen as a higher risk receive. The cancer cachexia is less pronounced. The obesity seen externally masks the wasting within.
Diagnosis and treatment
Sarcopenic obesity suffers from an inexact definition. According to the World Health Organization, obesity is defined, officially, as a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m2. Muscle mass is an important part of this entity, too, but the inclusion of muscle function in this definition brings, seemingly, a point of conjecture. Is muscle function necessary? By what scale do you measure it? This imprecision makes comparative research in the field somewhat more difficult.
As clinical acumen remains the major diagnostic approach to this disease, confirmatory testing for sarcopenic obesity comprises MRIs/CTs and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Presently DXA is used to assess bone density in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. It also reveals the decreased lean appendicular (extremity) muscle mass which, along with the increased BMI, forms the basic diagnosis of sarcopenic obesity. DXA scans are favored over CTs for the assessment of appendicular lean muscle mass. DXA scans provide a relatively inexpensive method of estimating fat, muscle, and additionally, bone density. CTs are less favored because of their radiation exposure as well as their high cost. Assessing muscle strength, using handgrip dynomometry, is available though not widely advocated.
Of the myriad modalities tried in sarcopenic obesity, many have shortcomings. No particular diet format can be advocated. Hypocaloric diets, with or without protein supplementation, offer little advantage to a good physical exercise program. The administration of vitamin D, with calcium, can be of benefit to those sarcopenically obese patients suffering with osteoporosis. Other medications, as exemplified by testosterone, vitamin K, myostatin inhibitors, or mesenchymal stem cells, are either anecdotal or dubious in nature. More research is definitely needed.
The key component for the treatment of sarcopenic obesity is exercise, both aerobic and resistant. Physical exercise recruits muscle satellite cells into the muscle fibers strengthening their composition. Growth factors are also released that stimulate the production of muscle satellite cells. Muscle mass becomes augmented and fortified. Aerobic exercise counteracts the negative metabolic effects of lipids. Resistance training is felt to improve strength when in combination with aerobic exercise, compared with aerobic exercise alone. Research has shown that high-speed resistance training, over a 12-week period, had shown a greater improvement in muscle power and capacity when compared to low-speed training. It was also recommended that patients exercise only until fatigued, not until “failure,” as a stopping point. Programs must be customized to fit the individual.
Sarcopenic obesity is a form of deconditioning that occurs naturally with age but is compounded by cancer. Research into this disease is confounded by a lack of accepted definitions. Radiographic workup and lifestyle changes are the mainstay of medical management. The foremost diagnostic tool remains, as always, clinical suspicion.
Dr. Killeen is a physician in Tampa, Fla. He practices internal medicine, hematology, and oncology, and has worked in hospice and hospital medicine.
Recommended reading
Gruber ES et al. Sarcopenia and Sarcopenic Obesity are independent adverse prognostic factors in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2019;14(5): e02115915.10.1371/journal.pone.0215915 [PMID 31059520].
Lombardo M et al. Sarcopenic Obesity: Etiology and lifestyle therapy. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019; 23: 7152-62.
Petroni M et al. Prevention and treatment of Sarcopenic Obesity in women. Nutrients. 2019; Jun 8.10.3390/nu1161302 [PMID 31181771].
Barcos VE, Arribas L. Sarcopenic Obesity: Hidden muscle wasting and its impact for survival and complications of cancer therapy. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(suppl. 2):ii1-ii9.
Zhang X et al. Association of Sarcopenic Obesity with the risk of all-cause mortality among adults over a broad range of different settings: An update meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2018;19:183-97.
Key points
- • In sarcopenic obesity a patient’s muscle loss in mass can be clouded, overshadowed by the obese body habitus. The major diagnostic tool initially is clinical suspicion.
- • The diagnostic tests for sarcopenic obesity are DXA and CT scans.
- • The best treatment for sarcopenic obesity is a good exercise plan.
Quiz
1. What is the best treatment for sarcopenic obesity?
A. Testosterone
B. Vitamin K
C. Myostatin inhibitors
D. None of the above
Answer: D
There is no particular pharmaceutical treatment, to date, for sarcopenic obesity. Only an exercise program has proved to be of benefit. Those for whom fatigue might be problematic could benefit perhaps by doing “energy banking” or taking programmed naps/rest periods prior to exercise.
2. DXA scans are favored over CT scans because of which of the following?
A. Less cost
B. Capacity to diagnose osteoporosis
C. Less radiation exposure
D. All of the above
Answer: D
DXA scans offer all of the above advantages over CT scans. Also, patients with sarcopenic obesity found to be osteoporotic could be started on vitamin D and calcium supplementation.
3. Which of the following hamper the diagnosis and treatment of sarcopenic obesity?
A. The issue of muscle function
B. Difficulties in comparative research studies
C. Remembering that muscle wasting can occur without external evidence of cachexia
D. All of the above
Answer: D
Obtaining a precise definition of sarcopenic obesity and dealing with the issue of muscle strength and capacity make comparative studies difficult. The sarcopenic obese patient needs as much attention as the cachectic one as their wasting is from within.
4. In sarcopenic obesity and cancer the presence of sarcopenia is likely to lead to which of the following?
A. Earlier death
B. Decreased capacity for therapy
C. Less treatment focus compared to nonsarcopenic patients
D. All of the above
Answer: D
The presence of sarcopenia correlates to all of the above particularly as the obese patient is thought to require less intensive attention than others.
Case
The patient is a 65-year-old white female who recently was discovered to have a 2-cm spiculated lung mass in the right upper lobe. She is undergoing an evaluation at present but her main complaint today is that of profound weakness and fatigue. Her appetite and energy level are noticeably less; her family ascribes this to anxiety and depression. Her other medical problems include diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, and obesity. The patient believes that she’s lost about 20-25 pounds recently, though her family is skeptical, adding that “she’s been heavy all her life.” Her body mass index is 40. What additional interventions would you add to her workup?
Background
Sarcopenic obesity occurs as a natural consequence of aging. As a general rule, as many as half the women and a quarter of the men over age 80 years are affected. A total of about 18 million people are involved.
One thought as to etiology is that as one ages, proteolysis outdoes protein synthesis. Fat then replaces the body’s muscle, permeates the viscera, and becomes the prominent body form. Chronic lipodeposition leads to chronic inflammation which, in turn, augments protein catabolism. The elderly become less energetic and less active, and the muscle mass decreases further. A vicious cycle develops. Concurrently with obesity, patients suffer with the onset of dyslipidemia, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis (due to vitamin D deficiency), insulin resistance, and an overall increase in frailty.
Sarcopenic obesity also plays a prognostic role in the management of cancer patients where the presence of sarcopenia correlates with earlier death and decreased capacity for therapy. Patients seen as obese are less likely to receive the intensive care (particularly nutritional support) that patients seen as a higher risk receive. The cancer cachexia is less pronounced. The obesity seen externally masks the wasting within.
Diagnosis and treatment
Sarcopenic obesity suffers from an inexact definition. According to the World Health Organization, obesity is defined, officially, as a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m2. Muscle mass is an important part of this entity, too, but the inclusion of muscle function in this definition brings, seemingly, a point of conjecture. Is muscle function necessary? By what scale do you measure it? This imprecision makes comparative research in the field somewhat more difficult.
As clinical acumen remains the major diagnostic approach to this disease, confirmatory testing for sarcopenic obesity comprises MRIs/CTs and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Presently DXA is used to assess bone density in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. It also reveals the decreased lean appendicular (extremity) muscle mass which, along with the increased BMI, forms the basic diagnosis of sarcopenic obesity. DXA scans are favored over CTs for the assessment of appendicular lean muscle mass. DXA scans provide a relatively inexpensive method of estimating fat, muscle, and additionally, bone density. CTs are less favored because of their radiation exposure as well as their high cost. Assessing muscle strength, using handgrip dynomometry, is available though not widely advocated.
Of the myriad modalities tried in sarcopenic obesity, many have shortcomings. No particular diet format can be advocated. Hypocaloric diets, with or without protein supplementation, offer little advantage to a good physical exercise program. The administration of vitamin D, with calcium, can be of benefit to those sarcopenically obese patients suffering with osteoporosis. Other medications, as exemplified by testosterone, vitamin K, myostatin inhibitors, or mesenchymal stem cells, are either anecdotal or dubious in nature. More research is definitely needed.
The key component for the treatment of sarcopenic obesity is exercise, both aerobic and resistant. Physical exercise recruits muscle satellite cells into the muscle fibers strengthening their composition. Growth factors are also released that stimulate the production of muscle satellite cells. Muscle mass becomes augmented and fortified. Aerobic exercise counteracts the negative metabolic effects of lipids. Resistance training is felt to improve strength when in combination with aerobic exercise, compared with aerobic exercise alone. Research has shown that high-speed resistance training, over a 12-week period, had shown a greater improvement in muscle power and capacity when compared to low-speed training. It was also recommended that patients exercise only until fatigued, not until “failure,” as a stopping point. Programs must be customized to fit the individual.
Sarcopenic obesity is a form of deconditioning that occurs naturally with age but is compounded by cancer. Research into this disease is confounded by a lack of accepted definitions. Radiographic workup and lifestyle changes are the mainstay of medical management. The foremost diagnostic tool remains, as always, clinical suspicion.
Dr. Killeen is a physician in Tampa, Fla. He practices internal medicine, hematology, and oncology, and has worked in hospice and hospital medicine.
Recommended reading
Gruber ES et al. Sarcopenia and Sarcopenic Obesity are independent adverse prognostic factors in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2019;14(5): e02115915.10.1371/journal.pone.0215915 [PMID 31059520].
Lombardo M et al. Sarcopenic Obesity: Etiology and lifestyle therapy. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019; 23: 7152-62.
Petroni M et al. Prevention and treatment of Sarcopenic Obesity in women. Nutrients. 2019; Jun 8.10.3390/nu1161302 [PMID 31181771].
Barcos VE, Arribas L. Sarcopenic Obesity: Hidden muscle wasting and its impact for survival and complications of cancer therapy. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(suppl. 2):ii1-ii9.
Zhang X et al. Association of Sarcopenic Obesity with the risk of all-cause mortality among adults over a broad range of different settings: An update meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2018;19:183-97.
Key points
- • In sarcopenic obesity a patient’s muscle loss in mass can be clouded, overshadowed by the obese body habitus. The major diagnostic tool initially is clinical suspicion.
- • The diagnostic tests for sarcopenic obesity are DXA and CT scans.
- • The best treatment for sarcopenic obesity is a good exercise plan.
Quiz
1. What is the best treatment for sarcopenic obesity?
A. Testosterone
B. Vitamin K
C. Myostatin inhibitors
D. None of the above
Answer: D
There is no particular pharmaceutical treatment, to date, for sarcopenic obesity. Only an exercise program has proved to be of benefit. Those for whom fatigue might be problematic could benefit perhaps by doing “energy banking” or taking programmed naps/rest periods prior to exercise.
2. DXA scans are favored over CT scans because of which of the following?
A. Less cost
B. Capacity to diagnose osteoporosis
C. Less radiation exposure
D. All of the above
Answer: D
DXA scans offer all of the above advantages over CT scans. Also, patients with sarcopenic obesity found to be osteoporotic could be started on vitamin D and calcium supplementation.
3. Which of the following hamper the diagnosis and treatment of sarcopenic obesity?
A. The issue of muscle function
B. Difficulties in comparative research studies
C. Remembering that muscle wasting can occur without external evidence of cachexia
D. All of the above
Answer: D
Obtaining a precise definition of sarcopenic obesity and dealing with the issue of muscle strength and capacity make comparative studies difficult. The sarcopenic obese patient needs as much attention as the cachectic one as their wasting is from within.
4. In sarcopenic obesity and cancer the presence of sarcopenia is likely to lead to which of the following?
A. Earlier death
B. Decreased capacity for therapy
C. Less treatment focus compared to nonsarcopenic patients
D. All of the above
Answer: D
The presence of sarcopenia correlates to all of the above particularly as the obese patient is thought to require less intensive attention than others.
The ‘Three Rs’ of email effectiveness
Resist, Reorganize, and Respond
PING – you look down at your phone and the words “URGENT – Meeting Today” stare back at you. The elevator door opens, and you step inside – 1 minute, the seemingly perfect amount of time for a quick inbox check.
As a hospitalist, chances are you have experienced this scenario, likely more than once. Email has become a double-edged sword, both a valuable communication tool and a source of stress and frustration.1 A 2012 McKinsey analysis found that the average professional spends 28% of the day reading and answering emails.2 Smartphone technology with email alerts and push notifications constantly diverts hospitalists’ attention away from important and nonurgent responsibilities such as manuscript writing, family time, and personal well-being.3
How can we break this cycle of compulsive connectivity? To keep email from controlling your life, we suggest the “Three Rs” (Resist, Reorganize, and Respond) of email effectiveness.
RESIST
The first key to take control of your inbox is to resist the urge to impulsively check and respond to emails. Consider these three solutions to bolster your ability to resist.
- Disable email push notifications. This will reduce the urge to continuously refresh your inbox on the wards.4 Excessively checking email can waste as much as 21 minutes per day.2
- Set an email budget.5 Schedule one to two appointments each day to handle email.6 Consider blocking 30 minutes after rounds and 30 minutes at the end of each day to address emails.
- Correspond at a computer. Limit email correspondence to your laptop or desktop. Access to a full keyboard and larger screen will maximize the efficiency of each email appointment.
REORGANIZE
After implementing these strategies to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox with the following two-pronged approach.
- Focus your inbox: There are many options for reducing the volume of emails that flood your inbox. Try collaborative tools like Google Docs, Dropbox, Doodle polls, and Slack to shift communication away from email onto platforms optimized to your project’s specific needs. Additionally, email management tools like SaneBox and OtherInbox triage less important messages directly to folders, leaving only must-read-now messages in your inbox.2 Lastly, activate spam filters and unsubscribe from mailing lists to eliminate email clutter.
- Commit to concise filing and finding: Archiving emails into a complex array of folders wastes as much as 14 minutes each day. Instead, limit your filing system to two folders: “Action” for email requiring further action and “Reading” for messages to reference at a later date.2 Activating “Communication View” on Microsoft Outlook allows rapid review of messages that share the same subject heading.
RESPOND
Finally, once your inbox is reorganized, use the Four Ds for Decision Making model to optimize the way you respond to email.6 When you sit down for an email appointment, use the Four Ds, detailed below to avoid reading the same message repeatedly without taking action.
- Delete: Quickly delete any emails that do not directly require your attention or follow-up. Many emails can be immediately deleted without further thought.
- Do: If a task or response to an email will take less than 2 minutes, do it immediately. It will take at least the same amount to retrieve and reread an email as it will to handle it in real time.7 Often, this can be accomplished with a quick phone call or email reply.
- Defer: If an email response will take more than 2 minutes, use a system to take action at a later time. Move actionable items from your inbox to a to-do list or calendar appointment and file appropriate emails into the Action or Reading folders, detailed above. This method allows completion of important tasks in a timely manner outside of your fixed email budget. Delaying an email reply can also be advantageous by letting a problem mature, given that some of these issues will resolve without your specific intervention.
- Delegate: This can be difficult for many hospitalists who are accustomed to finishing each task themselves. If someone else can do the task as good as or better than you can, it is wise to delegate whenever possible.
Over the next few weeks, challenge yourself to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox, and methodically respond to emails. This practice will help structure your day, maximize your efficiency, manage colleagues’ expectations, and create new time windows throughout your on-service weeks.
Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Esquivel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.
References
1. MacKinnon R. How you manage your emails may be bad for your health. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104081249.htm. Published Jan 4, 2016.
2. Plummer M. How to spend way less time on email every day. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-spend-way-less-time-on-email-every-day. 2019 Jan 22.
3. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Free Press, 2004.
4. Ericson C. 5 Ways to Take Control of Your Email Inbox. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/03/17/5-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email-inbox/#3711f5946342. 2014 Mar 17.
5. Limit the time you spend on email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/limit-the-time-you-spend-on-email. 2014 Feb 6.
6. McGhee S. Empty your inbox: 4 ways to take control of your email. Internet and Telephone Blog. https://www.itllc.net/it-support-ma/empty-your-inbox-4-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email/.
7. Allen D. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.
Resist, Reorganize, and Respond
Resist, Reorganize, and Respond
PING – you look down at your phone and the words “URGENT – Meeting Today” stare back at you. The elevator door opens, and you step inside – 1 minute, the seemingly perfect amount of time for a quick inbox check.
As a hospitalist, chances are you have experienced this scenario, likely more than once. Email has become a double-edged sword, both a valuable communication tool and a source of stress and frustration.1 A 2012 McKinsey analysis found that the average professional spends 28% of the day reading and answering emails.2 Smartphone technology with email alerts and push notifications constantly diverts hospitalists’ attention away from important and nonurgent responsibilities such as manuscript writing, family time, and personal well-being.3
How can we break this cycle of compulsive connectivity? To keep email from controlling your life, we suggest the “Three Rs” (Resist, Reorganize, and Respond) of email effectiveness.
RESIST
The first key to take control of your inbox is to resist the urge to impulsively check and respond to emails. Consider these three solutions to bolster your ability to resist.
- Disable email push notifications. This will reduce the urge to continuously refresh your inbox on the wards.4 Excessively checking email can waste as much as 21 minutes per day.2
- Set an email budget.5 Schedule one to two appointments each day to handle email.6 Consider blocking 30 minutes after rounds and 30 minutes at the end of each day to address emails.
- Correspond at a computer. Limit email correspondence to your laptop or desktop. Access to a full keyboard and larger screen will maximize the efficiency of each email appointment.
REORGANIZE
After implementing these strategies to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox with the following two-pronged approach.
- Focus your inbox: There are many options for reducing the volume of emails that flood your inbox. Try collaborative tools like Google Docs, Dropbox, Doodle polls, and Slack to shift communication away from email onto platforms optimized to your project’s specific needs. Additionally, email management tools like SaneBox and OtherInbox triage less important messages directly to folders, leaving only must-read-now messages in your inbox.2 Lastly, activate spam filters and unsubscribe from mailing lists to eliminate email clutter.
- Commit to concise filing and finding: Archiving emails into a complex array of folders wastes as much as 14 minutes each day. Instead, limit your filing system to two folders: “Action” for email requiring further action and “Reading” for messages to reference at a later date.2 Activating “Communication View” on Microsoft Outlook allows rapid review of messages that share the same subject heading.
RESPOND
Finally, once your inbox is reorganized, use the Four Ds for Decision Making model to optimize the way you respond to email.6 When you sit down for an email appointment, use the Four Ds, detailed below to avoid reading the same message repeatedly without taking action.
- Delete: Quickly delete any emails that do not directly require your attention or follow-up. Many emails can be immediately deleted without further thought.
- Do: If a task or response to an email will take less than 2 minutes, do it immediately. It will take at least the same amount to retrieve and reread an email as it will to handle it in real time.7 Often, this can be accomplished with a quick phone call or email reply.
- Defer: If an email response will take more than 2 minutes, use a system to take action at a later time. Move actionable items from your inbox to a to-do list or calendar appointment and file appropriate emails into the Action or Reading folders, detailed above. This method allows completion of important tasks in a timely manner outside of your fixed email budget. Delaying an email reply can also be advantageous by letting a problem mature, given that some of these issues will resolve without your specific intervention.
- Delegate: This can be difficult for many hospitalists who are accustomed to finishing each task themselves. If someone else can do the task as good as or better than you can, it is wise to delegate whenever possible.
Over the next few weeks, challenge yourself to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox, and methodically respond to emails. This practice will help structure your day, maximize your efficiency, manage colleagues’ expectations, and create new time windows throughout your on-service weeks.
Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Esquivel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.
References
1. MacKinnon R. How you manage your emails may be bad for your health. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104081249.htm. Published Jan 4, 2016.
2. Plummer M. How to spend way less time on email every day. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-spend-way-less-time-on-email-every-day. 2019 Jan 22.
3. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Free Press, 2004.
4. Ericson C. 5 Ways to Take Control of Your Email Inbox. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/03/17/5-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email-inbox/#3711f5946342. 2014 Mar 17.
5. Limit the time you spend on email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/limit-the-time-you-spend-on-email. 2014 Feb 6.
6. McGhee S. Empty your inbox: 4 ways to take control of your email. Internet and Telephone Blog. https://www.itllc.net/it-support-ma/empty-your-inbox-4-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email/.
7. Allen D. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.
PING – you look down at your phone and the words “URGENT – Meeting Today” stare back at you. The elevator door opens, and you step inside – 1 minute, the seemingly perfect amount of time for a quick inbox check.
As a hospitalist, chances are you have experienced this scenario, likely more than once. Email has become a double-edged sword, both a valuable communication tool and a source of stress and frustration.1 A 2012 McKinsey analysis found that the average professional spends 28% of the day reading and answering emails.2 Smartphone technology with email alerts and push notifications constantly diverts hospitalists’ attention away from important and nonurgent responsibilities such as manuscript writing, family time, and personal well-being.3
How can we break this cycle of compulsive connectivity? To keep email from controlling your life, we suggest the “Three Rs” (Resist, Reorganize, and Respond) of email effectiveness.
RESIST
The first key to take control of your inbox is to resist the urge to impulsively check and respond to emails. Consider these three solutions to bolster your ability to resist.
- Disable email push notifications. This will reduce the urge to continuously refresh your inbox on the wards.4 Excessively checking email can waste as much as 21 minutes per day.2
- Set an email budget.5 Schedule one to two appointments each day to handle email.6 Consider blocking 30 minutes after rounds and 30 minutes at the end of each day to address emails.
- Correspond at a computer. Limit email correspondence to your laptop or desktop. Access to a full keyboard and larger screen will maximize the efficiency of each email appointment.
REORGANIZE
After implementing these strategies to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox with the following two-pronged approach.
- Focus your inbox: There are many options for reducing the volume of emails that flood your inbox. Try collaborative tools like Google Docs, Dropbox, Doodle polls, and Slack to shift communication away from email onto platforms optimized to your project’s specific needs. Additionally, email management tools like SaneBox and OtherInbox triage less important messages directly to folders, leaving only must-read-now messages in your inbox.2 Lastly, activate spam filters and unsubscribe from mailing lists to eliminate email clutter.
- Commit to concise filing and finding: Archiving emails into a complex array of folders wastes as much as 14 minutes each day. Instead, limit your filing system to two folders: “Action” for email requiring further action and “Reading” for messages to reference at a later date.2 Activating “Communication View” on Microsoft Outlook allows rapid review of messages that share the same subject heading.
RESPOND
Finally, once your inbox is reorganized, use the Four Ds for Decision Making model to optimize the way you respond to email.6 When you sit down for an email appointment, use the Four Ds, detailed below to avoid reading the same message repeatedly without taking action.
- Delete: Quickly delete any emails that do not directly require your attention or follow-up. Many emails can be immediately deleted without further thought.
- Do: If a task or response to an email will take less than 2 minutes, do it immediately. It will take at least the same amount to retrieve and reread an email as it will to handle it in real time.7 Often, this can be accomplished with a quick phone call or email reply.
- Defer: If an email response will take more than 2 minutes, use a system to take action at a later time. Move actionable items from your inbox to a to-do list or calendar appointment and file appropriate emails into the Action or Reading folders, detailed above. This method allows completion of important tasks in a timely manner outside of your fixed email budget. Delaying an email reply can also be advantageous by letting a problem mature, given that some of these issues will resolve without your specific intervention.
- Delegate: This can be difficult for many hospitalists who are accustomed to finishing each task themselves. If someone else can do the task as good as or better than you can, it is wise to delegate whenever possible.
Over the next few weeks, challenge yourself to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox, and methodically respond to emails. This practice will help structure your day, maximize your efficiency, manage colleagues’ expectations, and create new time windows throughout your on-service weeks.
Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Esquivel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.
References
1. MacKinnon R. How you manage your emails may be bad for your health. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104081249.htm. Published Jan 4, 2016.
2. Plummer M. How to spend way less time on email every day. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-spend-way-less-time-on-email-every-day. 2019 Jan 22.
3. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Free Press, 2004.
4. Ericson C. 5 Ways to Take Control of Your Email Inbox. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/03/17/5-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email-inbox/#3711f5946342. 2014 Mar 17.
5. Limit the time you spend on email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/limit-the-time-you-spend-on-email. 2014 Feb 6.
6. McGhee S. Empty your inbox: 4 ways to take control of your email. Internet and Telephone Blog. https://www.itllc.net/it-support-ma/empty-your-inbox-4-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email/.
7. Allen D. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.
The SHM 2019 Chapter Excellence Awards
The Society of Hospital Medicine is proud to recognize its chapters for their hard work and dedication in 2019 through Chapter Excellence Awards. Each year, chapters strive to demonstrate growth, sustenance, and innovation within their chapter activities, which are then applauded for their successes throughout the subsequent year. In 2019, a new Bronze category was established, for a total of four Status Awards that chapters can earn.
Please join SHM in congratulating the following chapters on their year of success in 2019!
Outstanding Chapter of the Year
The Outstanding Chapter of the Year Award goes to one chapter who exemplifies high performance, going above and beyond the basic chapter requirements. The recipient of the Outstanding Chapter of the Year Award for 2019 is the Wiregrass Chapter of SHM. The chapter has a strong and engaged leadership which includes representation at all levels of the hospital medicine team, including physician hospitalists, advanced care provider hospitalists, practice administrators, nurses, residents, and medical students.
In the last year, the Wiregrass leadership team has organized programs and events to cater to and engage all the chapter’s members. This includes a variety of innovative ideas that catered toward medical education, health care provider well-being, engagement, mentorship, and community involvement.
The SHM Wiregrass Chapter’s biggest accomplishment in 2019 was the creation of an exchange program for physician and advanced practice provider hospitalists between the SHM New Mexico Chapter and the SHM Wiregrass Chapter. This idea first arose at HM19, where the chapter leaders had met during a networking event and debated the role of clinician wellbeing, quality of medical education, and faculty development to individual hospital medicine group (HMG) practice styles.
Clinician well-being is the prerequisite to the triple aim of improving the health of populations, enhancing the patient experience, and reducing the cost of care. Each HMG faces similar challenges but approaches to solving them vary. Professional challenges can affect the well-being of the individual clinicians. Having interinstitutional exchange programs provides a platform to exchange ideas and establish mentors. Also, the quality of medical education is directly linked to the quality of faculty development. Improving the quality of medical education requires a multifaceted approach by highly developed faculty. The complex factors affecting medical education and faculty development are further complicated by geographic location, patient characteristics, and professional growth opportunities. Overcoming these obstacles requires an innovative and collaborative approach. Although faculty exchanges are common in academic medicine, they are not commonly attempted with HMGs.
Hospitalists are responsible for a significant part of inpatient training for residents, medical students, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs), but their faculty training can vary based on location. Being a young specialty, only 2 decades old, hospital medicine is still evolving and incorporating NP/PA and physician hospitalists in varied practice models. Each HMG addresses common obstacles differently based on their culture and practice styles. The chapter leaders determined an exchange program would afford the opportunity for visiting faculty members to experience these differences. This emphasized the role and importance of exchanging ideas and contemplated a solution to benefit more practicing hospitalists.
The chapter leaders researched the characteristics of individual academic HMGs and structured a tailored faculty exchange involving physicians and NPs/PAs. During the exchange program planning, the visiting faculty itinerary was tailored to a well-planned agenda for 1 week, with separate tracks for physicians and NPs/PAs giving increased access to their individual peer practice styles. Additionally, the visiting faculty had meetings and discussions with HMG and hospital leadership, to specifically address each visiting faculty institution’s challenges. The overall goal of this exchange program was to promote cross-institutional collaboration, increase engagement, improve medical education through faculty development, and improve the quality of care. The focus of the exchange program was to share ideas and innovation and learn the approaches to unique challenges at each institution. Out of this also came collaboration and mentoring opportunities.
The evaluation process of the exchange involved interviews, a survey, and the establishment of shared QI projects in mutual areas of challenge. The survey provided feedback, lessons learned from the exchange, and areas to be improved. Collaborative QI projects currently underway as a result of the exchange include paging etiquette, quality of sleep for hospitalized patients, and onboarding of NPs/PAs in HMGs.
This innovation addressed faculty development and medical education via clinician well-being. The physician and NP/PA Faculty Exchange was an essential and meaningful innovation that resulted in increased SHM member engagement, cross-institutional collaboration, networking, and mentorship.
Additional projects that the SHM Wiregrass Chapter successfully implemented in 2019 include a “Women in Medicine” event that recognized women physician and advanced practice provider hospitalist leaders, a poster competition that expanded its research, clinical vignettes, and quality categories to include a fourth category of innovation, featuring 75 posters. Additionally, the chapter held a policy meeting with six Alabama state legislators, creating new channels of collaboration between the legislators and the chapter. Lastly, the chapter held a successful community event and launched a mentor program targeting medical students and residents.
Rising Star Chapter
The Rising Star Chapter Award goes to one chapter who has been active for 2 years or less, who in the past 12 months have made improvements to their leadership, stability and growth, and membership. The recipient of the Rising Star Chapter Award for 2019 is the Blue Ridge Chapter of SHM, which has made significant strides to develop since its launch in the fall of 2018. The chapter represents counties in northwest Tennessee, southwest Virginia, and western North Carolina.
The chapter held three meetings in 2019 which were well attended by hospitalists, residents/fellows, administrators, advanced practice providers, and nurses. On average, attendees from five to six different hospitalist groups are represented. The chapter hosted both Dr. Chris Frost, immediate past president of the SHM board of directors, and Dr. Ron Greeno, a past president of the SHM board of directors.
The SHM Blue Ridge Chapter has collaborated with both the ACP Tennessee Chapter and the Healthcare MBA program at Haslam College of Business at the University of Tennessee.
The chapter leadership regularly attends local medical residency programs at noon conferences to attract and recruit young physicians into chapter activities. Overall, the chapter has seen a growth in membership in 2019. The Blue Ridge Chapter is an active, enthusiastic chapter that is rapidly growing and thriving.
Outstanding Membership Recruitment and Retention
The Outstanding Membership Recruitment and Retention Award is a new exemplary award for 2019 that goes to one chapter who has gone above and beyond to implement initiatives to recruit and retain SHM members in their chapter. The recipient of the Outstanding Membership Recruitment and Retention Award for 2019 is the Western Massachusetts Chapter of SHM, which has done outstanding work to recruit and retain the membership. In 2019, the SHM membership in the chapter grew by 24%. The chapter utilized Chapter Development Funds to launch new initiatives to conduct outreach to nonmember hospitalists in the community and invite them to meetings to obtain the SHM experience. Additionally, the chapter encouraged residents to join and get involved by hosting a poster competition.
The Western Massachusetts Chapter focused on being innovative, inclusive, and creative to retain their existing meetings. For example, the chapter hosted a new “Jeopardy Session” event that featured a nontraditional jeopardy game that attracted a large attendance including local residents. Additionally, the chapter insured that all clinical and nonclinical members of the hospital medicine team were included and encouraged to participate in all chapter meetings. Lastly, the chapter launched a local awards program to recognize senior hospitalist and early career hospitalist who contributed to chapter development.
Most Engaged Chapter Leader
The Most Engaged Chapter Leader Award is a new exemplary award for 2019 that goes to one chapter leader or district chair who is either nominated or self-nominated and has demonstrated how they or their nominee has gone above and beyond in the past year to grow and sustain their chapter and/or district and continues to carry out the SHM mission. The recipient of the Most Engaged Chapter Leader Award for 2019 goes to Thérèse Franco, MD, SFHM, president of the Pacific Northwest Chapter.
Dr. Franco has served as the chapter’s president for 2 years and has served on the SHM Chapter Support Committee for 3 years. She has previously participated as a mentor in the glycemic control mentored implementation program, and as chair and cochair of the RIV contest. She continues to review abstracts, volunteer as a judge and offer local education on glycemic control through the Washington State Hospital Association, promoting SHM’s work there. One of Dr. Franco’s core strengths has been effective collaboration with past leaders (such as Rachel Thompson, MD, and Kimberly Bell, MD), future leaders, and other organizations (such as the Washington State Medical Association and the King County Medical Association). Dr. Franco has recruited an outstanding leadership team and new advisory committee for the Pacific Northwest Chapter, resulting a fantastic year of growth, innovation, and development.
The Society of Hospital Medicine is proud to recognize its chapters for their hard work and dedication in 2019 through Chapter Excellence Awards. Each year, chapters strive to demonstrate growth, sustenance, and innovation within their chapter activities, which are then applauded for their successes throughout the subsequent year. In 2019, a new Bronze category was established, for a total of four Status Awards that chapters can earn.
Please join SHM in congratulating the following chapters on their year of success in 2019!
Outstanding Chapter of the Year
The Outstanding Chapter of the Year Award goes to one chapter who exemplifies high performance, going above and beyond the basic chapter requirements. The recipient of the Outstanding Chapter of the Year Award for 2019 is the Wiregrass Chapter of SHM. The chapter has a strong and engaged leadership which includes representation at all levels of the hospital medicine team, including physician hospitalists, advanced care provider hospitalists, practice administrators, nurses, residents, and medical students.
In the last year, the Wiregrass leadership team has organized programs and events to cater to and engage all the chapter’s members. This includes a variety of innovative ideas that catered toward medical education, health care provider well-being, engagement, mentorship, and community involvement.
The SHM Wiregrass Chapter’s biggest accomplishment in 2019 was the creation of an exchange program for physician and advanced practice provider hospitalists between the SHM New Mexico Chapter and the SHM Wiregrass Chapter. This idea first arose at HM19, where the chapter leaders had met during a networking event and debated the role of clinician wellbeing, quality of medical education, and faculty development to individual hospital medicine group (HMG) practice styles.
Clinician well-being is the prerequisite to the triple aim of improving the health of populations, enhancing the patient experience, and reducing the cost of care. Each HMG faces similar challenges but approaches to solving them vary. Professional challenges can affect the well-being of the individual clinicians. Having interinstitutional exchange programs provides a platform to exchange ideas and establish mentors. Also, the quality of medical education is directly linked to the quality of faculty development. Improving the quality of medical education requires a multifaceted approach by highly developed faculty. The complex factors affecting medical education and faculty development are further complicated by geographic location, patient characteristics, and professional growth opportunities. Overcoming these obstacles requires an innovative and collaborative approach. Although faculty exchanges are common in academic medicine, they are not commonly attempted with HMGs.
Hospitalists are responsible for a significant part of inpatient training for residents, medical students, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs), but their faculty training can vary based on location. Being a young specialty, only 2 decades old, hospital medicine is still evolving and incorporating NP/PA and physician hospitalists in varied practice models. Each HMG addresses common obstacles differently based on their culture and practice styles. The chapter leaders determined an exchange program would afford the opportunity for visiting faculty members to experience these differences. This emphasized the role and importance of exchanging ideas and contemplated a solution to benefit more practicing hospitalists.
The chapter leaders researched the characteristics of individual academic HMGs and structured a tailored faculty exchange involving physicians and NPs/PAs. During the exchange program planning, the visiting faculty itinerary was tailored to a well-planned agenda for 1 week, with separate tracks for physicians and NPs/PAs giving increased access to their individual peer practice styles. Additionally, the visiting faculty had meetings and discussions with HMG and hospital leadership, to specifically address each visiting faculty institution’s challenges. The overall goal of this exchange program was to promote cross-institutional collaboration, increase engagement, improve medical education through faculty development, and improve the quality of care. The focus of the exchange program was to share ideas and innovation and learn the approaches to unique challenges at each institution. Out of this also came collaboration and mentoring opportunities.
The evaluation process of the exchange involved interviews, a survey, and the establishment of shared QI projects in mutual areas of challenge. The survey provided feedback, lessons learned from the exchange, and areas to be improved. Collaborative QI projects currently underway as a result of the exchange include paging etiquette, quality of sleep for hospitalized patients, and onboarding of NPs/PAs in HMGs.
This innovation addressed faculty development and medical education via clinician well-being. The physician and NP/PA Faculty Exchange was an essential and meaningful innovation that resulted in increased SHM member engagement, cross-institutional collaboration, networking, and mentorship.
Additional projects that the SHM Wiregrass Chapter successfully implemented in 2019 include a “Women in Medicine” event that recognized women physician and advanced practice provider hospitalist leaders, a poster competition that expanded its research, clinical vignettes, and quality categories to include a fourth category of innovation, featuring 75 posters. Additionally, the chapter held a policy meeting with six Alabama state legislators, creating new channels of collaboration between the legislators and the chapter. Lastly, the chapter held a successful community event and launched a mentor program targeting medical students and residents.
Rising Star Chapter
The Rising Star Chapter Award goes to one chapter who has been active for 2 years or less, who in the past 12 months have made improvements to their leadership, stability and growth, and membership. The recipient of the Rising Star Chapter Award for 2019 is the Blue Ridge Chapter of SHM, which has made significant strides to develop since its launch in the fall of 2018. The chapter represents counties in northwest Tennessee, southwest Virginia, and western North Carolina.
The chapter held three meetings in 2019 which were well attended by hospitalists, residents/fellows, administrators, advanced practice providers, and nurses. On average, attendees from five to six different hospitalist groups are represented. The chapter hosted both Dr. Chris Frost, immediate past president of the SHM board of directors, and Dr. Ron Greeno, a past president of the SHM board of directors.
The SHM Blue Ridge Chapter has collaborated with both the ACP Tennessee Chapter and the Healthcare MBA program at Haslam College of Business at the University of Tennessee.
The chapter leadership regularly attends local medical residency programs at noon conferences to attract and recruit young physicians into chapter activities. Overall, the chapter has seen a growth in membership in 2019. The Blue Ridge Chapter is an active, enthusiastic chapter that is rapidly growing and thriving.
Outstanding Membership Recruitment and Retention
The Outstanding Membership Recruitment and Retention Award is a new exemplary award for 2019 that goes to one chapter who has gone above and beyond to implement initiatives to recruit and retain SHM members in their chapter. The recipient of the Outstanding Membership Recruitment and Retention Award for 2019 is the Western Massachusetts Chapter of SHM, which has done outstanding work to recruit and retain the membership. In 2019, the SHM membership in the chapter grew by 24%. The chapter utilized Chapter Development Funds to launch new initiatives to conduct outreach to nonmember hospitalists in the community and invite them to meetings to obtain the SHM experience. Additionally, the chapter encouraged residents to join and get involved by hosting a poster competition.
The Western Massachusetts Chapter focused on being innovative, inclusive, and creative to retain their existing meetings. For example, the chapter hosted a new “Jeopardy Session” event that featured a nontraditional jeopardy game that attracted a large attendance including local residents. Additionally, the chapter insured that all clinical and nonclinical members of the hospital medicine team were included and encouraged to participate in all chapter meetings. Lastly, the chapter launched a local awards program to recognize senior hospitalist and early career hospitalist who contributed to chapter development.
Most Engaged Chapter Leader
The Most Engaged Chapter Leader Award is a new exemplary award for 2019 that goes to one chapter leader or district chair who is either nominated or self-nominated and has demonstrated how they or their nominee has gone above and beyond in the past year to grow and sustain their chapter and/or district and continues to carry out the SHM mission. The recipient of the Most Engaged Chapter Leader Award for 2019 goes to Thérèse Franco, MD, SFHM, president of the Pacific Northwest Chapter.
Dr. Franco has served as the chapter’s president for 2 years and has served on the SHM Chapter Support Committee for 3 years. She has previously participated as a mentor in the glycemic control mentored implementation program, and as chair and cochair of the RIV contest. She continues to review abstracts, volunteer as a judge and offer local education on glycemic control through the Washington State Hospital Association, promoting SHM’s work there. One of Dr. Franco’s core strengths has been effective collaboration with past leaders (such as Rachel Thompson, MD, and Kimberly Bell, MD), future leaders, and other organizations (such as the Washington State Medical Association and the King County Medical Association). Dr. Franco has recruited an outstanding leadership team and new advisory committee for the Pacific Northwest Chapter, resulting a fantastic year of growth, innovation, and development.
The Society of Hospital Medicine is proud to recognize its chapters for their hard work and dedication in 2019 through Chapter Excellence Awards. Each year, chapters strive to demonstrate growth, sustenance, and innovation within their chapter activities, which are then applauded for their successes throughout the subsequent year. In 2019, a new Bronze category was established, for a total of four Status Awards that chapters can earn.
Please join SHM in congratulating the following chapters on their year of success in 2019!
Outstanding Chapter of the Year
The Outstanding Chapter of the Year Award goes to one chapter who exemplifies high performance, going above and beyond the basic chapter requirements. The recipient of the Outstanding Chapter of the Year Award for 2019 is the Wiregrass Chapter of SHM. The chapter has a strong and engaged leadership which includes representation at all levels of the hospital medicine team, including physician hospitalists, advanced care provider hospitalists, practice administrators, nurses, residents, and medical students.
In the last year, the Wiregrass leadership team has organized programs and events to cater to and engage all the chapter’s members. This includes a variety of innovative ideas that catered toward medical education, health care provider well-being, engagement, mentorship, and community involvement.
The SHM Wiregrass Chapter’s biggest accomplishment in 2019 was the creation of an exchange program for physician and advanced practice provider hospitalists between the SHM New Mexico Chapter and the SHM Wiregrass Chapter. This idea first arose at HM19, where the chapter leaders had met during a networking event and debated the role of clinician wellbeing, quality of medical education, and faculty development to individual hospital medicine group (HMG) practice styles.
Clinician well-being is the prerequisite to the triple aim of improving the health of populations, enhancing the patient experience, and reducing the cost of care. Each HMG faces similar challenges but approaches to solving them vary. Professional challenges can affect the well-being of the individual clinicians. Having interinstitutional exchange programs provides a platform to exchange ideas and establish mentors. Also, the quality of medical education is directly linked to the quality of faculty development. Improving the quality of medical education requires a multifaceted approach by highly developed faculty. The complex factors affecting medical education and faculty development are further complicated by geographic location, patient characteristics, and professional growth opportunities. Overcoming these obstacles requires an innovative and collaborative approach. Although faculty exchanges are common in academic medicine, they are not commonly attempted with HMGs.
Hospitalists are responsible for a significant part of inpatient training for residents, medical students, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs), but their faculty training can vary based on location. Being a young specialty, only 2 decades old, hospital medicine is still evolving and incorporating NP/PA and physician hospitalists in varied practice models. Each HMG addresses common obstacles differently based on their culture and practice styles. The chapter leaders determined an exchange program would afford the opportunity for visiting faculty members to experience these differences. This emphasized the role and importance of exchanging ideas and contemplated a solution to benefit more practicing hospitalists.
The chapter leaders researched the characteristics of individual academic HMGs and structured a tailored faculty exchange involving physicians and NPs/PAs. During the exchange program planning, the visiting faculty itinerary was tailored to a well-planned agenda for 1 week, with separate tracks for physicians and NPs/PAs giving increased access to their individual peer practice styles. Additionally, the visiting faculty had meetings and discussions with HMG and hospital leadership, to specifically address each visiting faculty institution’s challenges. The overall goal of this exchange program was to promote cross-institutional collaboration, increase engagement, improve medical education through faculty development, and improve the quality of care. The focus of the exchange program was to share ideas and innovation and learn the approaches to unique challenges at each institution. Out of this also came collaboration and mentoring opportunities.
The evaluation process of the exchange involved interviews, a survey, and the establishment of shared QI projects in mutual areas of challenge. The survey provided feedback, lessons learned from the exchange, and areas to be improved. Collaborative QI projects currently underway as a result of the exchange include paging etiquette, quality of sleep for hospitalized patients, and onboarding of NPs/PAs in HMGs.
This innovation addressed faculty development and medical education via clinician well-being. The physician and NP/PA Faculty Exchange was an essential and meaningful innovation that resulted in increased SHM member engagement, cross-institutional collaboration, networking, and mentorship.
Additional projects that the SHM Wiregrass Chapter successfully implemented in 2019 include a “Women in Medicine” event that recognized women physician and advanced practice provider hospitalist leaders, a poster competition that expanded its research, clinical vignettes, and quality categories to include a fourth category of innovation, featuring 75 posters. Additionally, the chapter held a policy meeting with six Alabama state legislators, creating new channels of collaboration between the legislators and the chapter. Lastly, the chapter held a successful community event and launched a mentor program targeting medical students and residents.
Rising Star Chapter
The Rising Star Chapter Award goes to one chapter who has been active for 2 years or less, who in the past 12 months have made improvements to their leadership, stability and growth, and membership. The recipient of the Rising Star Chapter Award for 2019 is the Blue Ridge Chapter of SHM, which has made significant strides to develop since its launch in the fall of 2018. The chapter represents counties in northwest Tennessee, southwest Virginia, and western North Carolina.
The chapter held three meetings in 2019 which were well attended by hospitalists, residents/fellows, administrators, advanced practice providers, and nurses. On average, attendees from five to six different hospitalist groups are represented. The chapter hosted both Dr. Chris Frost, immediate past president of the SHM board of directors, and Dr. Ron Greeno, a past president of the SHM board of directors.
The SHM Blue Ridge Chapter has collaborated with both the ACP Tennessee Chapter and the Healthcare MBA program at Haslam College of Business at the University of Tennessee.
The chapter leadership regularly attends local medical residency programs at noon conferences to attract and recruit young physicians into chapter activities. Overall, the chapter has seen a growth in membership in 2019. The Blue Ridge Chapter is an active, enthusiastic chapter that is rapidly growing and thriving.
Outstanding Membership Recruitment and Retention
The Outstanding Membership Recruitment and Retention Award is a new exemplary award for 2019 that goes to one chapter who has gone above and beyond to implement initiatives to recruit and retain SHM members in their chapter. The recipient of the Outstanding Membership Recruitment and Retention Award for 2019 is the Western Massachusetts Chapter of SHM, which has done outstanding work to recruit and retain the membership. In 2019, the SHM membership in the chapter grew by 24%. The chapter utilized Chapter Development Funds to launch new initiatives to conduct outreach to nonmember hospitalists in the community and invite them to meetings to obtain the SHM experience. Additionally, the chapter encouraged residents to join and get involved by hosting a poster competition.
The Western Massachusetts Chapter focused on being innovative, inclusive, and creative to retain their existing meetings. For example, the chapter hosted a new “Jeopardy Session” event that featured a nontraditional jeopardy game that attracted a large attendance including local residents. Additionally, the chapter insured that all clinical and nonclinical members of the hospital medicine team were included and encouraged to participate in all chapter meetings. Lastly, the chapter launched a local awards program to recognize senior hospitalist and early career hospitalist who contributed to chapter development.
Most Engaged Chapter Leader
The Most Engaged Chapter Leader Award is a new exemplary award for 2019 that goes to one chapter leader or district chair who is either nominated or self-nominated and has demonstrated how they or their nominee has gone above and beyond in the past year to grow and sustain their chapter and/or district and continues to carry out the SHM mission. The recipient of the Most Engaged Chapter Leader Award for 2019 goes to Thérèse Franco, MD, SFHM, president of the Pacific Northwest Chapter.
Dr. Franco has served as the chapter’s president for 2 years and has served on the SHM Chapter Support Committee for 3 years. She has previously participated as a mentor in the glycemic control mentored implementation program, and as chair and cochair of the RIV contest. She continues to review abstracts, volunteer as a judge and offer local education on glycemic control through the Washington State Hospital Association, promoting SHM’s work there. One of Dr. Franco’s core strengths has been effective collaboration with past leaders (such as Rachel Thompson, MD, and Kimberly Bell, MD), future leaders, and other organizations (such as the Washington State Medical Association and the King County Medical Association). Dr. Franco has recruited an outstanding leadership team and new advisory committee for the Pacific Northwest Chapter, resulting a fantastic year of growth, innovation, and development.
Maskomania: Masks and COVID-19
A comprehensive review
On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory that the general public wear cloth face masks when outside, particularly those residing in areas with significant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission.1 Recent research reveals several factors related to the nature of the virus as well as the epidemiologic spread of the illness that may have led to this decision.
However, controversy still prevails whether this recommendation will alleviate or aggravate disease progression. With many hospitals across America lacking sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and scrambling for supplies, universal masking may create more chaos, especially with certain states imposing monetary fines on individuals spotted outdoors without a mask. With new information being discovered each day about COVID-19, it is more imperative than ever to update existing strategies and formulate more effective methods to flatten the curve.
Airborne vs. droplet transmission
According to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization, there have been studies with mixed evidence and opinions regarding the presence of COVID-19 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples.2 In medRxiv, Santarpia et al., from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, detected viral RNA in samples taken from beneath a patient’s bed and from a window ledge, both areas in which neither the patient nor health care personnel had any direct contact. They also found that 66.7% of air samples taken from a hospital hallway carried virus-containing particles.3 It is worth noting that certain aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) may increase the likelihood of airborne dissemination. Whether airborne transmission is a major mode of COVID-19 spread in the community and routine clinical settings (with no aerosol-generating procedures) is still a debatable question without a definitive answer.
We should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, varicella zoster virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis). The attack rates in various settings (household, health care, and the public) as well as the expected number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population (R0) are more consistent with those of a droplet spread pathogen.
For measles, the R0 is 12-18, and the secondary household attack rates are ≥ 90%. In case of the varicella zoster virus, the R0 is ~10, and the secondary household attack rate is 85%. The R0 for pulmonary tuberculosis is up to 10 (per year) and the secondary household attack rate has been reported to be >50%. With COVID-19, the R0 appears to be around 2.5-3 and secondary household attack rates are ~ 10% from data available so far, similar to that of influenza viruses. This discrepancy suggests that droplet transmission may be more likely. The dichotomy of airborne versus droplet mode of spread may be better described as a continuum, as pointed out in a recent article in the JAMA. Infectious droplets form turbulent gas clouds allowing the virus particles to travel further and remain in the air longer.4 The necessary precautions for an airborne illness should be chosen over droplet precautions, especially when there is concern for an AGP.
Universal masking: Risks and benefits
The idea of universal masking has been debated extensively since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to public health authorities, significant exposure is defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19” in the range of a few minutes up to 30 minutes.5 The researchers wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal, and it may seem unnecessary to wear a mask at all times in public.
As reported in Science, randomized clinical studies performed on other viruses in the past have shown no added protection conferred by wearing a mask, though small sample sizes and noncompliance are limiting factors to their validity.6 On the contrary, mask wearing has been enforced in many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore with promising results.5 Leung et al. stated in The Lancet that the lack of proof that masks are effective should not rule them as ineffective. Also, universal masking would reduce the stigma around symptomatic individuals covering their faces. It has become a cultural phenomenon in many southeast Asian countries and has been cited as one of the reasons for relatively successful containment in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. The most important benefit of universal masking is protection attained by preventing spread from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and presymptomatic carriers.7
In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated viral loads during various stages of COVID-19, researchers found that asymptomatic patients had similar viral loads to symptomatic patients, thereby suggesting high potential for transmission.8 Furthermore, numerous cases are being reported concerning the spread of illness from asymptomatic carriers.9-12 In an outbreak at a skilled nursing facility in Washington outlined in MMWR, 13 of 23 residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and of those, 3 never developed any symptoms.12
Many hospitals are now embracing the policy of universal masking. A mask is a critical component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with a gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations in most hospitals. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits. One scenario is the lower likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients. The other less plausible benefit of universal masking among health care workers is that it may provide some protection in the possibility of caring for an unrecognized COVID-19 patient. However, universal masking should be coupled with other favorable practices like temperature checks and symptom screening on a daily basis to avail the maximum benefit from masking. Despite varied opinions on the outcomes of universal masking, this measure helps improve health care workers’ safety, psychological well-being, trust in their hospital, and decreases anxiety of acquiring the illness.
Efficacy of various types of masks
With the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus, are cloth masks as recommended by the CDC truly helpful in preventing infection? A study in the Journal of Medical Virology demonstrates 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% efficacy for N95, surgical, and homemade masks, respectively, in blocking the avian influenza virus (comparable to coronavirus in size and physical characteristics). The homemade mask was created using one layer of polyester cloth and a four-layered kitchen filter paper.13
N95 masks (equivalent to FFP/P2 in European countries) are made of electrostatically charged polypropylene microfibers designed to filter particles measuring 100-300nm in diameter with 95% efficacy. A single SARS-CoV-2 molecule measures 125 nm approximately. N99 (FFP3) and N100 (P3) masks are also available, though not as widely used, with 99% and 99.7% efficacy respectively for the same size range. Though cloth masks are the clear-cut last resort for medical professionals, a few studies state no clinically proven difference in protection between surgical masks and N95 respirators.14,15 Even aerosolized droplets (< 5 mcm) were found to be blocked by surgical masks in a Nature Medicine study in which 4/10 subjects tested positive for coronavirus in exhaled breath samples without masks and 0/10 subjects with masks.16
On the contrary, an Annals of Internal Medicine study of four COVID-19 positive subjects that “neither surgical masks nor cloth masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs of infected patients.” In fact, more contamination was found on the outer surface of the masks when compared to the inner surface, probably owing to the masks’ aerodynamic properties.17 Because of limitations present in the above-mentioned studies, further research is necessary to conclusively determine which types of masks are efficacious in preventing infection by the virus. In a scarcity of surgical masks and respirators for health care personnel, suboptimal masks can be of some use provided there is adherent use, minimal donning and doffing, and it is to be accompanied by adequate hand washing practices.14
In case of severe infections with high viral loads or patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) also are advisable as they confer greater protection than N95 respirators, according to a study in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Despite being more comfortable for long-term use and accommodative of facial hair, their use is limited because of high cost and difficult maintenance.18 3-D printing also is being used to combat the current shortage of masks worldwide. However, a study from the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery reported that virologic testing for leakage between the two reusable components and contamination of the components themselves after one or multiple disinfection cycles is essential before application in real-life situations.19
Ongoing issues
WHO estimates a monthly requirement of nearly 90 million masks exclusively for health care workers to protect themselves against COVID-19.20 In spite of increasing the production rate by 40%, if the general public hoards masks and respirators, the results could be disastrous. Personal protective equipment is currently at 100 times the usual demand and 20 times the usual cost, with stocks backlogged by 4-6 months. The appropriate order of priority in distribution to health care professionals first, followed by those caring for infected patients is critical.20 In a survey conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, results revealed that 48% of the U.S. health care facilities that responded were either out or nearly out of respirators as of March 25. 21
The gravest risk behind the universal masking policy is the likely depletion of medical resources.22 A possible solution to this issue could be to modify the policy to stagger the requirement based on the severity of community transmission in that area of residence. In the article appropriately titled “Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic” published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers described how the Chinese population was classified into moderate, low, and very-low risk of infection categories and advised to wear a surgical or disposable mask, disposable mask, and no mask respectively.23 This curbs widespread panic and eagerness by the general public to stock up on essential medical equipment when it may not even be necessary.
Reuse, extended use, and sterilization
Several studies have been conducted to identify the viability of the COVID-19 on various surfaces.24-25 The CDC and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines state that an N95 respirator can be used up to 8 hours with intermittent or continuous use, though this number is not fixed and heavily depends upon the extent of exposure, risk of contamination, and frequency of donning and doffing26,27. Though traditionally meant for single-time usage, after 8 hours, the mask can be decontaminated and reused. The CDC defines extended use as the “practice of wearing the same N95 respirator for repeated close-contact encounters with several patients, without removing the respirator between patient encounters.” Reuse is defined as “using the same N95 respirator for multiple encounters with patients but removing it (‘doffing’) after each encounter. The respirator is stored in between encounters to be put on again (‘donned’) prior to the next encounter with a patient.”
It has been established that extended use is more advisable than reuse given the lower risk of self-inoculation. Furthermore, health care professionals are urged to wear a cleanable face shield or disposable mask over the respirator to minimize contamination and practice diligent hand hygiene before and after handling the respirator. N95 respirators are to be discarded following aerosol-generating procedures or if they come in contact with blood, respiratory secretions, or bodily fluids. They should also be discarded in case of close contact with an infected patient or if they cause breathing difficulties to the wearer.27 This may not always be possible given the unprecedented shortage of PPE, hence decontamination techniques and repurposing are the need of the hour.
In Anesthesia & Analgesia, Naveen Nathan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends recycling four masks in a series, using one per day, keeping the mask in a dry, clean environment, and then repeating use of the first mask on the 5th day, the second on the 6th day, and so forth. This ensures clearance of the virus particles by the next use. Alternatively, respirators can be sterilized between uses by heating to 70º C (158º F) for 30 minutes. Liquid disinfectants such as alcohol and bleach as well as ultraviolet rays in sunlight tend to damage masks.28 Steam sterilization is the most commonly utilized technique in hospitals. Other methods, described by the N95/PPE Working Group, report include gamma irradiation at 20kGy (2MRad) for large-scale sterilization (though the facilities may not be widely available), vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ozone decontamination, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and ethylene oxide.29 Though a discussion on various considerations of decontamination techniques is out of the scope of this article, detailed guidelines have been published by the CDC30 and the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.30
Conclusion
A recent startling discovery reported on in Emerging Infectious Diseases suggests that the basic COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is actually much higher than previously thought. Using expanded data, updated epidemiologic parameters, and the current outbreak dynamics in Wuhan, the team came to the conclusion that the R0 for the novel coronavirus is actually 5.7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9), compared with an initial estimate of 2.2-2.7.31 Concern for transmissibility demands heightened prevention strategies until more data evolves. The latest recommendation by the CDC regarding cloth masking in the public may help slow the progression of the pandemic. However, it is of paramount importance to keep in mind that masks alone are not enough to control the disease and must be coupled with other nonpharmacologic interventions such as social distancing, quarantining/isolation, and diligent hand hygiene.
Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Bharathidasan is a recent medical graduate from India with an interest in public health and community research; she plans to pursue residency training in the United States. Ms. Freshman is currently the regional director of infection prevention for WellSpan Health and has 35 years of experience in nursing. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings.
2. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19 : implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Sci Br. 2020 Mar 29:1-3.
3. Santarpia JL et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020 Mar 26. medRxiv. 2020;2020.03.23.20039446.
4. Bourouiba L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756.
5. Klompas M et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372.
6. Servick K. Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic? Science 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9371.
7. Leung CC et al. Mass masking in the COVID-19 epidemic: People need guidance. Lancet 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1.
8. Zou L et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-9.
9. Pan X et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):410-1.
10. Bai Y et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;323(14):1406-7.
11. Wei WE et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, Jan. 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:411-5.
12. Kimball A et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility – King County, Washington, March 2020. 2020 Apr 3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377-81.
13. Ma Q-X et al. Potential utilities of mask wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 31;10.1002/jmv.25805. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25805.
14. Abd-Elsayed A et al. Utility of substandard face mask options for health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31;10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841.
15. Long Y et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Mar 13;10.1111/jebm.12381. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.
16. Leung NHL et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-80.
17. Bae S et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6;M20-1342. doi: 10.7326/M20-1342.
18. Brosseau LM. Are powered air purifying respirators a solution for protecting healthcare workers from emerging aerosol-transmissible diseases? Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Apr 30;64(4):339-41.
19. Swennen GRJ et al. Custom-made 3D-printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 May;49(5):673-7.
20. Mahase E. Coronavirus: Global stocks of protective gear are depleted, with demand at “100 times” normal level, WHO warns. BMJ. 2020 Feb 10;368:m543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m543.
21. National survey shows dire shortages of PPE, hand sanitizer across the U.S. 2020 Mar 27. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) press briefing.
22. Wu HL et al. Facemask shortage and the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Reflections on public health measures. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 3:100329. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100329.
23. Feng S et al. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-6.
24. Chin AWH et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 May 1;5247(20):2004973. doi. org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30003-3.
25. van Doremalen N et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-7.
26. NIOSH – Workplace Safety and Health Topics: Recommended guidance for extended use and limited reuse of n95 filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare settings.
27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 decontamination and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators. 2020 Apr 15.
28. Nathan N. Waste not, want not: The re-usability of N95 masks. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31.doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004843.
29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control technical report. Cloth masks and mask sterilisation as options in case of shortage of surgical masks and respirators. 2020 Mar.
30. N95/PPE Working Group report. Evaluation of decontamination techniques for the reuse of N95 respirators. 2020 Apr 3;2:1-7.
31. Sanche Set al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. doi. org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.
A comprehensive review
A comprehensive review
On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory that the general public wear cloth face masks when outside, particularly those residing in areas with significant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission.1 Recent research reveals several factors related to the nature of the virus as well as the epidemiologic spread of the illness that may have led to this decision.
However, controversy still prevails whether this recommendation will alleviate or aggravate disease progression. With many hospitals across America lacking sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and scrambling for supplies, universal masking may create more chaos, especially with certain states imposing monetary fines on individuals spotted outdoors without a mask. With new information being discovered each day about COVID-19, it is more imperative than ever to update existing strategies and formulate more effective methods to flatten the curve.
Airborne vs. droplet transmission
According to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization, there have been studies with mixed evidence and opinions regarding the presence of COVID-19 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples.2 In medRxiv, Santarpia et al., from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, detected viral RNA in samples taken from beneath a patient’s bed and from a window ledge, both areas in which neither the patient nor health care personnel had any direct contact. They also found that 66.7% of air samples taken from a hospital hallway carried virus-containing particles.3 It is worth noting that certain aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) may increase the likelihood of airborne dissemination. Whether airborne transmission is a major mode of COVID-19 spread in the community and routine clinical settings (with no aerosol-generating procedures) is still a debatable question without a definitive answer.
We should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, varicella zoster virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis). The attack rates in various settings (household, health care, and the public) as well as the expected number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population (R0) are more consistent with those of a droplet spread pathogen.
For measles, the R0 is 12-18, and the secondary household attack rates are ≥ 90%. In case of the varicella zoster virus, the R0 is ~10, and the secondary household attack rate is 85%. The R0 for pulmonary tuberculosis is up to 10 (per year) and the secondary household attack rate has been reported to be >50%. With COVID-19, the R0 appears to be around 2.5-3 and secondary household attack rates are ~ 10% from data available so far, similar to that of influenza viruses. This discrepancy suggests that droplet transmission may be more likely. The dichotomy of airborne versus droplet mode of spread may be better described as a continuum, as pointed out in a recent article in the JAMA. Infectious droplets form turbulent gas clouds allowing the virus particles to travel further and remain in the air longer.4 The necessary precautions for an airborne illness should be chosen over droplet precautions, especially when there is concern for an AGP.
Universal masking: Risks and benefits
The idea of universal masking has been debated extensively since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to public health authorities, significant exposure is defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19” in the range of a few minutes up to 30 minutes.5 The researchers wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal, and it may seem unnecessary to wear a mask at all times in public.
As reported in Science, randomized clinical studies performed on other viruses in the past have shown no added protection conferred by wearing a mask, though small sample sizes and noncompliance are limiting factors to their validity.6 On the contrary, mask wearing has been enforced in many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore with promising results.5 Leung et al. stated in The Lancet that the lack of proof that masks are effective should not rule them as ineffective. Also, universal masking would reduce the stigma around symptomatic individuals covering their faces. It has become a cultural phenomenon in many southeast Asian countries and has been cited as one of the reasons for relatively successful containment in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. The most important benefit of universal masking is protection attained by preventing spread from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and presymptomatic carriers.7
In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated viral loads during various stages of COVID-19, researchers found that asymptomatic patients had similar viral loads to symptomatic patients, thereby suggesting high potential for transmission.8 Furthermore, numerous cases are being reported concerning the spread of illness from asymptomatic carriers.9-12 In an outbreak at a skilled nursing facility in Washington outlined in MMWR, 13 of 23 residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and of those, 3 never developed any symptoms.12
Many hospitals are now embracing the policy of universal masking. A mask is a critical component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with a gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations in most hospitals. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits. One scenario is the lower likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients. The other less plausible benefit of universal masking among health care workers is that it may provide some protection in the possibility of caring for an unrecognized COVID-19 patient. However, universal masking should be coupled with other favorable practices like temperature checks and symptom screening on a daily basis to avail the maximum benefit from masking. Despite varied opinions on the outcomes of universal masking, this measure helps improve health care workers’ safety, psychological well-being, trust in their hospital, and decreases anxiety of acquiring the illness.
Efficacy of various types of masks
With the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus, are cloth masks as recommended by the CDC truly helpful in preventing infection? A study in the Journal of Medical Virology demonstrates 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% efficacy for N95, surgical, and homemade masks, respectively, in blocking the avian influenza virus (comparable to coronavirus in size and physical characteristics). The homemade mask was created using one layer of polyester cloth and a four-layered kitchen filter paper.13
N95 masks (equivalent to FFP/P2 in European countries) are made of electrostatically charged polypropylene microfibers designed to filter particles measuring 100-300nm in diameter with 95% efficacy. A single SARS-CoV-2 molecule measures 125 nm approximately. N99 (FFP3) and N100 (P3) masks are also available, though not as widely used, with 99% and 99.7% efficacy respectively for the same size range. Though cloth masks are the clear-cut last resort for medical professionals, a few studies state no clinically proven difference in protection between surgical masks and N95 respirators.14,15 Even aerosolized droplets (< 5 mcm) were found to be blocked by surgical masks in a Nature Medicine study in which 4/10 subjects tested positive for coronavirus in exhaled breath samples without masks and 0/10 subjects with masks.16
On the contrary, an Annals of Internal Medicine study of four COVID-19 positive subjects that “neither surgical masks nor cloth masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs of infected patients.” In fact, more contamination was found on the outer surface of the masks when compared to the inner surface, probably owing to the masks’ aerodynamic properties.17 Because of limitations present in the above-mentioned studies, further research is necessary to conclusively determine which types of masks are efficacious in preventing infection by the virus. In a scarcity of surgical masks and respirators for health care personnel, suboptimal masks can be of some use provided there is adherent use, minimal donning and doffing, and it is to be accompanied by adequate hand washing practices.14
In case of severe infections with high viral loads or patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) also are advisable as they confer greater protection than N95 respirators, according to a study in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Despite being more comfortable for long-term use and accommodative of facial hair, their use is limited because of high cost and difficult maintenance.18 3-D printing also is being used to combat the current shortage of masks worldwide. However, a study from the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery reported that virologic testing for leakage between the two reusable components and contamination of the components themselves after one or multiple disinfection cycles is essential before application in real-life situations.19
Ongoing issues
WHO estimates a monthly requirement of nearly 90 million masks exclusively for health care workers to protect themselves against COVID-19.20 In spite of increasing the production rate by 40%, if the general public hoards masks and respirators, the results could be disastrous. Personal protective equipment is currently at 100 times the usual demand and 20 times the usual cost, with stocks backlogged by 4-6 months. The appropriate order of priority in distribution to health care professionals first, followed by those caring for infected patients is critical.20 In a survey conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, results revealed that 48% of the U.S. health care facilities that responded were either out or nearly out of respirators as of March 25. 21
The gravest risk behind the universal masking policy is the likely depletion of medical resources.22 A possible solution to this issue could be to modify the policy to stagger the requirement based on the severity of community transmission in that area of residence. In the article appropriately titled “Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic” published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers described how the Chinese population was classified into moderate, low, and very-low risk of infection categories and advised to wear a surgical or disposable mask, disposable mask, and no mask respectively.23 This curbs widespread panic and eagerness by the general public to stock up on essential medical equipment when it may not even be necessary.
Reuse, extended use, and sterilization
Several studies have been conducted to identify the viability of the COVID-19 on various surfaces.24-25 The CDC and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines state that an N95 respirator can be used up to 8 hours with intermittent or continuous use, though this number is not fixed and heavily depends upon the extent of exposure, risk of contamination, and frequency of donning and doffing26,27. Though traditionally meant for single-time usage, after 8 hours, the mask can be decontaminated and reused. The CDC defines extended use as the “practice of wearing the same N95 respirator for repeated close-contact encounters with several patients, without removing the respirator between patient encounters.” Reuse is defined as “using the same N95 respirator for multiple encounters with patients but removing it (‘doffing’) after each encounter. The respirator is stored in between encounters to be put on again (‘donned’) prior to the next encounter with a patient.”
It has been established that extended use is more advisable than reuse given the lower risk of self-inoculation. Furthermore, health care professionals are urged to wear a cleanable face shield or disposable mask over the respirator to minimize contamination and practice diligent hand hygiene before and after handling the respirator. N95 respirators are to be discarded following aerosol-generating procedures or if they come in contact with blood, respiratory secretions, or bodily fluids. They should also be discarded in case of close contact with an infected patient or if they cause breathing difficulties to the wearer.27 This may not always be possible given the unprecedented shortage of PPE, hence decontamination techniques and repurposing are the need of the hour.
In Anesthesia & Analgesia, Naveen Nathan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends recycling four masks in a series, using one per day, keeping the mask in a dry, clean environment, and then repeating use of the first mask on the 5th day, the second on the 6th day, and so forth. This ensures clearance of the virus particles by the next use. Alternatively, respirators can be sterilized between uses by heating to 70º C (158º F) for 30 minutes. Liquid disinfectants such as alcohol and bleach as well as ultraviolet rays in sunlight tend to damage masks.28 Steam sterilization is the most commonly utilized technique in hospitals. Other methods, described by the N95/PPE Working Group, report include gamma irradiation at 20kGy (2MRad) for large-scale sterilization (though the facilities may not be widely available), vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ozone decontamination, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and ethylene oxide.29 Though a discussion on various considerations of decontamination techniques is out of the scope of this article, detailed guidelines have been published by the CDC30 and the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.30
Conclusion
A recent startling discovery reported on in Emerging Infectious Diseases suggests that the basic COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is actually much higher than previously thought. Using expanded data, updated epidemiologic parameters, and the current outbreak dynamics in Wuhan, the team came to the conclusion that the R0 for the novel coronavirus is actually 5.7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9), compared with an initial estimate of 2.2-2.7.31 Concern for transmissibility demands heightened prevention strategies until more data evolves. The latest recommendation by the CDC regarding cloth masking in the public may help slow the progression of the pandemic. However, it is of paramount importance to keep in mind that masks alone are not enough to control the disease and must be coupled with other nonpharmacologic interventions such as social distancing, quarantining/isolation, and diligent hand hygiene.
Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Bharathidasan is a recent medical graduate from India with an interest in public health and community research; she plans to pursue residency training in the United States. Ms. Freshman is currently the regional director of infection prevention for WellSpan Health and has 35 years of experience in nursing. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings.
2. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19 : implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Sci Br. 2020 Mar 29:1-3.
3. Santarpia JL et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020 Mar 26. medRxiv. 2020;2020.03.23.20039446.
4. Bourouiba L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756.
5. Klompas M et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372.
6. Servick K. Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic? Science 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9371.
7. Leung CC et al. Mass masking in the COVID-19 epidemic: People need guidance. Lancet 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1.
8. Zou L et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-9.
9. Pan X et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):410-1.
10. Bai Y et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;323(14):1406-7.
11. Wei WE et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, Jan. 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:411-5.
12. Kimball A et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility – King County, Washington, March 2020. 2020 Apr 3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377-81.
13. Ma Q-X et al. Potential utilities of mask wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 31;10.1002/jmv.25805. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25805.
14. Abd-Elsayed A et al. Utility of substandard face mask options for health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31;10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841.
15. Long Y et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Mar 13;10.1111/jebm.12381. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.
16. Leung NHL et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-80.
17. Bae S et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6;M20-1342. doi: 10.7326/M20-1342.
18. Brosseau LM. Are powered air purifying respirators a solution for protecting healthcare workers from emerging aerosol-transmissible diseases? Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Apr 30;64(4):339-41.
19. Swennen GRJ et al. Custom-made 3D-printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 May;49(5):673-7.
20. Mahase E. Coronavirus: Global stocks of protective gear are depleted, with demand at “100 times” normal level, WHO warns. BMJ. 2020 Feb 10;368:m543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m543.
21. National survey shows dire shortages of PPE, hand sanitizer across the U.S. 2020 Mar 27. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) press briefing.
22. Wu HL et al. Facemask shortage and the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Reflections on public health measures. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 3:100329. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100329.
23. Feng S et al. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-6.
24. Chin AWH et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 May 1;5247(20):2004973. doi. org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30003-3.
25. van Doremalen N et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-7.
26. NIOSH – Workplace Safety and Health Topics: Recommended guidance for extended use and limited reuse of n95 filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare settings.
27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 decontamination and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators. 2020 Apr 15.
28. Nathan N. Waste not, want not: The re-usability of N95 masks. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31.doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004843.
29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control technical report. Cloth masks and mask sterilisation as options in case of shortage of surgical masks and respirators. 2020 Mar.
30. N95/PPE Working Group report. Evaluation of decontamination techniques for the reuse of N95 respirators. 2020 Apr 3;2:1-7.
31. Sanche Set al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. doi. org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.
On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an advisory that the general public wear cloth face masks when outside, particularly those residing in areas with significant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) community transmission.1 Recent research reveals several factors related to the nature of the virus as well as the epidemiologic spread of the illness that may have led to this decision.
However, controversy still prevails whether this recommendation will alleviate or aggravate disease progression. With many hospitals across America lacking sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and scrambling for supplies, universal masking may create more chaos, especially with certain states imposing monetary fines on individuals spotted outdoors without a mask. With new information being discovered each day about COVID-19, it is more imperative than ever to update existing strategies and formulate more effective methods to flatten the curve.
Airborne vs. droplet transmission
According to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization, there have been studies with mixed evidence and opinions regarding the presence of COVID-19 ribonucleic acid (RNA) in air samples.2 In medRxiv, Santarpia et al., from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, detected viral RNA in samples taken from beneath a patient’s bed and from a window ledge, both areas in which neither the patient nor health care personnel had any direct contact. They also found that 66.7% of air samples taken from a hospital hallway carried virus-containing particles.3 It is worth noting that certain aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) may increase the likelihood of airborne dissemination. Whether airborne transmission is a major mode of COVID-19 spread in the community and routine clinical settings (with no aerosol-generating procedures) is still a debatable question without a definitive answer.
We should consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 thus far in the pandemic to determine if transmission patterns are more consistent with that of other common respiratory viral pathogens or more consistent with that of the agents we classically consider to be transmitted by the airborne route (measles, varicella zoster virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis). The attack rates in various settings (household, health care, and the public) as well as the expected number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population (R0) are more consistent with those of a droplet spread pathogen.
For measles, the R0 is 12-18, and the secondary household attack rates are ≥ 90%. In case of the varicella zoster virus, the R0 is ~10, and the secondary household attack rate is 85%. The R0 for pulmonary tuberculosis is up to 10 (per year) and the secondary household attack rate has been reported to be >50%. With COVID-19, the R0 appears to be around 2.5-3 and secondary household attack rates are ~ 10% from data available so far, similar to that of influenza viruses. This discrepancy suggests that droplet transmission may be more likely. The dichotomy of airborne versus droplet mode of spread may be better described as a continuum, as pointed out in a recent article in the JAMA. Infectious droplets form turbulent gas clouds allowing the virus particles to travel further and remain in the air longer.4 The necessary precautions for an airborne illness should be chosen over droplet precautions, especially when there is concern for an AGP.
Universal masking: Risks and benefits
The idea of universal masking has been debated extensively since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to public health authorities, significant exposure is defined as “face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19” in the range of a few minutes up to 30 minutes.5 The researchers wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal, and it may seem unnecessary to wear a mask at all times in public.
As reported in Science, randomized clinical studies performed on other viruses in the past have shown no added protection conferred by wearing a mask, though small sample sizes and noncompliance are limiting factors to their validity.6 On the contrary, mask wearing has been enforced in many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore with promising results.5 Leung et al. stated in The Lancet that the lack of proof that masks are effective should not rule them as ineffective. Also, universal masking would reduce the stigma around symptomatic individuals covering their faces. It has become a cultural phenomenon in many southeast Asian countries and has been cited as one of the reasons for relatively successful containment in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. The most important benefit of universal masking is protection attained by preventing spread from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, and presymptomatic carriers.7
In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated viral loads during various stages of COVID-19, researchers found that asymptomatic patients had similar viral loads to symptomatic patients, thereby suggesting high potential for transmission.8 Furthermore, numerous cases are being reported concerning the spread of illness from asymptomatic carriers.9-12 In an outbreak at a skilled nursing facility in Washington outlined in MMWR, 13 of 23 residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and of those, 3 never developed any symptoms.12
Many hospitals are now embracing the policy of universal masking. A mask is a critical component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with a gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations in most hospitals. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits. One scenario is the lower likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with COVID-19 to other providers and patients. The other less plausible benefit of universal masking among health care workers is that it may provide some protection in the possibility of caring for an unrecognized COVID-19 patient. However, universal masking should be coupled with other favorable practices like temperature checks and symptom screening on a daily basis to avail the maximum benefit from masking. Despite varied opinions on the outcomes of universal masking, this measure helps improve health care workers’ safety, psychological well-being, trust in their hospital, and decreases anxiety of acquiring the illness.
Efficacy of various types of masks
With the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus, are cloth masks as recommended by the CDC truly helpful in preventing infection? A study in the Journal of Medical Virology demonstrates 99.98%, 97.14%, and 95.15% efficacy for N95, surgical, and homemade masks, respectively, in blocking the avian influenza virus (comparable to coronavirus in size and physical characteristics). The homemade mask was created using one layer of polyester cloth and a four-layered kitchen filter paper.13
N95 masks (equivalent to FFP/P2 in European countries) are made of electrostatically charged polypropylene microfibers designed to filter particles measuring 100-300nm in diameter with 95% efficacy. A single SARS-CoV-2 molecule measures 125 nm approximately. N99 (FFP3) and N100 (P3) masks are also available, though not as widely used, with 99% and 99.7% efficacy respectively for the same size range. Though cloth masks are the clear-cut last resort for medical professionals, a few studies state no clinically proven difference in protection between surgical masks and N95 respirators.14,15 Even aerosolized droplets (< 5 mcm) were found to be blocked by surgical masks in a Nature Medicine study in which 4/10 subjects tested positive for coronavirus in exhaled breath samples without masks and 0/10 subjects with masks.16
On the contrary, an Annals of Internal Medicine study of four COVID-19 positive subjects that “neither surgical masks nor cloth masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs of infected patients.” In fact, more contamination was found on the outer surface of the masks when compared to the inner surface, probably owing to the masks’ aerodynamic properties.17 Because of limitations present in the above-mentioned studies, further research is necessary to conclusively determine which types of masks are efficacious in preventing infection by the virus. In a scarcity of surgical masks and respirators for health care personnel, suboptimal masks can be of some use provided there is adherent use, minimal donning and doffing, and it is to be accompanied by adequate hand washing practices.14
In case of severe infections with high viral loads or patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) also are advisable as they confer greater protection than N95 respirators, according to a study in the Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Despite being more comfortable for long-term use and accommodative of facial hair, their use is limited because of high cost and difficult maintenance.18 3-D printing also is being used to combat the current shortage of masks worldwide. However, a study from the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery reported that virologic testing for leakage between the two reusable components and contamination of the components themselves after one or multiple disinfection cycles is essential before application in real-life situations.19
Ongoing issues
WHO estimates a monthly requirement of nearly 90 million masks exclusively for health care workers to protect themselves against COVID-19.20 In spite of increasing the production rate by 40%, if the general public hoards masks and respirators, the results could be disastrous. Personal protective equipment is currently at 100 times the usual demand and 20 times the usual cost, with stocks backlogged by 4-6 months. The appropriate order of priority in distribution to health care professionals first, followed by those caring for infected patients is critical.20 In a survey conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, results revealed that 48% of the U.S. health care facilities that responded were either out or nearly out of respirators as of March 25. 21
The gravest risk behind the universal masking policy is the likely depletion of medical resources.22 A possible solution to this issue could be to modify the policy to stagger the requirement based on the severity of community transmission in that area of residence. In the article appropriately titled “Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic” published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers described how the Chinese population was classified into moderate, low, and very-low risk of infection categories and advised to wear a surgical or disposable mask, disposable mask, and no mask respectively.23 This curbs widespread panic and eagerness by the general public to stock up on essential medical equipment when it may not even be necessary.
Reuse, extended use, and sterilization
Several studies have been conducted to identify the viability of the COVID-19 on various surfaces.24-25 The CDC and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines state that an N95 respirator can be used up to 8 hours with intermittent or continuous use, though this number is not fixed and heavily depends upon the extent of exposure, risk of contamination, and frequency of donning and doffing26,27. Though traditionally meant for single-time usage, after 8 hours, the mask can be decontaminated and reused. The CDC defines extended use as the “practice of wearing the same N95 respirator for repeated close-contact encounters with several patients, without removing the respirator between patient encounters.” Reuse is defined as “using the same N95 respirator for multiple encounters with patients but removing it (‘doffing’) after each encounter. The respirator is stored in between encounters to be put on again (‘donned’) prior to the next encounter with a patient.”
It has been established that extended use is more advisable than reuse given the lower risk of self-inoculation. Furthermore, health care professionals are urged to wear a cleanable face shield or disposable mask over the respirator to minimize contamination and practice diligent hand hygiene before and after handling the respirator. N95 respirators are to be discarded following aerosol-generating procedures or if they come in contact with blood, respiratory secretions, or bodily fluids. They should also be discarded in case of close contact with an infected patient or if they cause breathing difficulties to the wearer.27 This may not always be possible given the unprecedented shortage of PPE, hence decontamination techniques and repurposing are the need of the hour.
In Anesthesia & Analgesia, Naveen Nathan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends recycling four masks in a series, using one per day, keeping the mask in a dry, clean environment, and then repeating use of the first mask on the 5th day, the second on the 6th day, and so forth. This ensures clearance of the virus particles by the next use. Alternatively, respirators can be sterilized between uses by heating to 70º C (158º F) for 30 minutes. Liquid disinfectants such as alcohol and bleach as well as ultraviolet rays in sunlight tend to damage masks.28 Steam sterilization is the most commonly utilized technique in hospitals. Other methods, described by the N95/PPE Working Group, report include gamma irradiation at 20kGy (2MRad) for large-scale sterilization (though the facilities may not be widely available), vaporized hydrogen peroxide, ozone decontamination, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, and ethylene oxide.29 Though a discussion on various considerations of decontamination techniques is out of the scope of this article, detailed guidelines have been published by the CDC30 and the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition.30
Conclusion
A recent startling discovery reported on in Emerging Infectious Diseases suggests that the basic COVID-19 reproductive number (R0) is actually much higher than previously thought. Using expanded data, updated epidemiologic parameters, and the current outbreak dynamics in Wuhan, the team came to the conclusion that the R0 for the novel coronavirus is actually 5.7 (95% CI 3.8-8.9), compared with an initial estimate of 2.2-2.7.31 Concern for transmissibility demands heightened prevention strategies until more data evolves. The latest recommendation by the CDC regarding cloth masking in the public may help slow the progression of the pandemic. However, it is of paramount importance to keep in mind that masks alone are not enough to control the disease and must be coupled with other nonpharmacologic interventions such as social distancing, quarantining/isolation, and diligent hand hygiene.
Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Bharathidasan is a recent medical graduate from India with an interest in public health and community research; she plans to pursue residency training in the United States. Ms. Freshman is currently the regional director of infection prevention for WellSpan Health and has 35 years of experience in nursing. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendation regarding the use of cloth face coverings.
2. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19 : implications for IPC precaution recommendations. Sci Br. 2020 Mar 29:1-3.
3. Santarpia JL et al. Transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2 in viral shedding observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 2020 Mar 26. medRxiv. 2020;2020.03.23.20039446.
4. Bourouiba L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4756.
5. Klompas M et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372.
6. Servick K. Would everyone wearing face masks help us slow the pandemic? Science 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1126/science.abb9371.
7. Leung CC et al. Mass masking in the COVID-19 epidemic: People need guidance. Lancet 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):945. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30520-1.
8. Zou L et al. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-9.
9. Pan X et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):410-1.
10. Bai Y et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;323(14):1406-7.
11. Wei WE et al. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – Singapore, Jan. 23–March 16, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:411-5.
12. Kimball A et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility – King County, Washington, March 2020. 2020 Apr 3. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377-81.
13. Ma Q-X et al. Potential utilities of mask wearing and instant hand hygiene for fighting SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 31;10.1002/jmv.25805. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25805.
14. Abd-Elsayed A et al. Utility of substandard face mask options for health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31;10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004841.
15. Long Y et al. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2020 Mar 13;10.1111/jebm.12381. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381.
16. Leung NHL et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks. Nat Med. 2020 May;26(5):676-80.
17. Bae S et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6;M20-1342. doi: 10.7326/M20-1342.
18. Brosseau LM. Are powered air purifying respirators a solution for protecting healthcare workers from emerging aerosol-transmissible diseases? Ann Work Expo Health. 2020 Apr 30;64(4):339-41.
19. Swennen GRJ et al. Custom-made 3D-printed face masks in case of pandemic crisis situations with a lack of commercially available FFP2/3 masks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 May;49(5):673-7.
20. Mahase E. Coronavirus: Global stocks of protective gear are depleted, with demand at “100 times” normal level, WHO warns. BMJ. 2020 Feb 10;368:m543. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m543.
21. National survey shows dire shortages of PPE, hand sanitizer across the U.S. 2020 Mar 27. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) press briefing.
22. Wu HL et al. Facemask shortage and the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Reflections on public health measures. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Apr 3:100329. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100329.
23. Feng S et al. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434-6.
24. Chin AWH et al. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 May 1;5247(20):2004973. doi. org/10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30003-3.
25. van Doremalen N et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-7.
26. NIOSH – Workplace Safety and Health Topics: Recommended guidance for extended use and limited reuse of n95 filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare settings.
27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 decontamination and reuse of filtering facepiece respirators. 2020 Apr 15.
28. Nathan N. Waste not, want not: The re-usability of N95 masks. Anesth Analg. 2020 Mar 31.doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004843.
29. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control technical report. Cloth masks and mask sterilisation as options in case of shortage of surgical masks and respirators. 2020 Mar.
30. N95/PPE Working Group report. Evaluation of decontamination techniques for the reuse of N95 respirators. 2020 Apr 3;2:1-7.
31. Sanche Set al. High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul. doi. org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.