User login
COVID-19: Managing resource crunch and ethical challenges
COVID-19 has been a watershed event in medical history of epic proportions. With this fast-spreading pandemic stretching resources at health care institutions, practical considerations for management of a disease about which we are still learning has been a huge challenge.
Although many guidelines have been made available by medical societies and experts worldwide, there appear to be very few which throw light on management in a resource-poor setup. The hospitalist, as a front-line provider, is likely expected to lead the planning and management of resources in order to deliver appropriate care.
As per American Hospital Association data, there are 2,704 community hospitals that can deliver ICU care in the United States. There are 534,964 acute care beds with 96,596 ICU beds. Additionally, there are 25,157 step-down beds and 1,183 burn unit beds. Of the 2,704 hospitals, 74% are in metropolitan areas (> 50,000 population), 17% (464) are in micropolitan areas (10,000-49,999 population), and the remaining 9% (244) are in rural areas. Only 7% (36,453) of hospital beds and 5% (4715) of ICU beds are in micropolitan areas. Two percent of acute care hospital beds and 1% of ICU beds are in rural areas. Although the US has the highest per capita number of ICU beds in the world, this may not be sufficient as these are concentrated in highly populated metropolitan areas.
Infrastructure and human power resource augmentation will be important. Infrastructure can be ramped up by:
- Canceling elective procedures
- Using the operating room and perioperative room ventilators and beds
- Servicing and using older functioning hospitals, medical wards, and ventilators.
As ventilators are expected to be in short supply, while far from ideal, other resources may include using ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile, renting from vendors, and using state-owned stockpiles. Use of non-invasive ventilators, such as CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure), BiPAP (bi-level positive airway pressure), and HFNC (high-flow nasal cannula) may be considered in addition to full-featured ventilators. Rapidly manufacturing new ventilators with government direction is also being undertaken.
Although estimates vary based on the model used, about 1 million people are expected to need ventilatory support. However, in addition to infrastructural shortcomings, trained persons to care for these patients are lacking. Approximately 48% of acute care hospitals have no intensivists, and there are only 28,808 intensivists as per 2015 AHA data. In order to increase the amount of skilled manpower needed to staff ICUs, a model from the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Fundamental Disaster Management Program can be adopted. This involves an intensivist overseeing four different teams, with each team caring for 24 patients. Each team is led by a non-ICU physician or an ICU advanced practice provider (APP) who in turn cares for the patient with respiratory therapists, pharmacists, ICU nurses, and other non-ICU health professionals.
It is essential that infrastructure and human power be augmented and optimized, as well as contingency plans, including triage based on ethical and legal considerations, put in place if demand overwhelms capacity.
Lack of PPE and fear among health care staff
There have been widespread reports in the media, and several anecdotal reports, about severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), and as a result, an increase in fear and anxiety among frontline health care workers.
In addition, there also have been reports about hospital administrators disciplining medical and nursing staff for voicing their concerns about PPE shortages to the general public and the media. This likely stems from the narrow “optics” and public relations concerns of health care facilities.
It is evident that the size and magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic was grossly underestimated, and preparations were inadequate. But according to past surveys of health care workers, a good number of them believe that medical and nursing staff have a duty to deliver care to sick people even if it exposes them to personal danger.
Given the special skills and privileges that health care professionals possess, they do have a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of sick patients even if a danger to themselves exists. However, society also has a responsibility to provide for the safety of these health care workers by supplying them with appropriate safety gear. Given the unprecedented nature of this pandemic, it is obvious that federal and state governments, public health officials, and hospital administrators (along with health care professionals) are still learning how to appropriately respond to the challenge.
It would be reasonable and appropriate for everyone concerned to understand and acknowledge that there is a shortage of PPE, and while arranging for this to be replenished, undertake and implement measures that maximize the safety of all health care workers. An open forum, mutually agreed-upon policy and procedures, along with mechanisms to address concerns should be formulated.
In addition, health care workers who test positive for COVID-19 can be a source of infection for other health care workers and non-infected patients. Therefore, health care workers have the responsibility of reporting their symptoms, the right to have themselves tested, and they must follow agreed-upon procedures that would limit their ability to infect other people, including mandated absenteeism from work. Every individual has a right to safety at the workplace and this right cannot be compromised, as otherwise this will lead to a suboptimal response to the pandemic. The government, hospital administrators, and health care workers will need to come together and work cohesively.
Ethical issues surrounding resource allocation
At the time of hospital admission, any suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patient should have his or her wishes recorded with the admitting team regarding the goals of care and code status. During any critical illness, goals evolve depending on discussions, reflections of the patient with family, and clinical response to therapy. A patient who does not want any kind of life support obviously should not be offered an ICU level of care.
On the other hand, in the event of resources becoming overwhelmed by demand as can be expected during this pandemic, careful ethical considerations will need to be applied.
A carefully crafted transparent ethical framework, with a clear understanding of the decision-making process, that involves all stakeholders – including government entities, public health officials, health care workers, ethics specialists, and members of the community – is essential. Ideally, allocation of resources should be made according to a well-written plan, by a triage team that can include a nontreating physician, bioethicists, legal personnel, and religious representatives. It should not be left to the front-line treating physician, who is unlikely to be trained to make these decisions and who has an ethical responsibility to advocate for the patient under his care.
Ethical principles that deserve consideration
The “principle of utility” provides the maximum possible benefit to the maximum number of people. It should not only save the greatest number of lives but also maximize improvements in individuals’ posttreatment length of life.
The “principle of equity” requires that resources are allocated on a nondiscriminatory basis with a fair distribution of benefits and burdens. When conflicts arise between these two principles, a balanced approach likely will help when handled with a transparent decision-making process, with decisions to be applied consistently. Most experts would agree on not only saving more lives but also in preserving more years of life.
The distribution of medical resources should not be based on age or disability. Frailty and functional status are important considerations; however, priority is to be given to sicker patients who have lesser comorbidities and are also likely to survive longer. This could entail that younger, healthier patients will access scarce resources based on the principle of maximizing benefits.
Another consideration is “preservation of functioning of the society.” Those individuals who are important for providing important public services, health care services, and the functioning of other key aspects of society can be considered for prioritization of resources. While this may not satisfy the classic utilitarian principle of doing maximum good to the maximum number of people, it will help to continue augmenting the fight against the pandemic because of the critical role that such individuals play.
For patients with a similar prognosis, the principle of equality comes into play, and distribution should be done by way of random allocation, like a lottery. Distribution based on the principle of “first come, first served” is unlikely to be a fair process, as it would likely discriminate against patients based on their ability to access care.
Care should also be taken not to discriminate among people who have COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 health conditions that require medical care. Distribution should never be done based on an individual’s political influence, celebrity, or financial status, as occurred in the early days of the pandemic regarding access to testing.
Resuscitation or not?
Should a COVID-19 positive patient be offered CPR in case of cardiac arrest? The concern is that CPR is a high-level aerosolizing procedure and PPE is in short supply with the worsening of the pandemic. This will depend more on local policies and resource availability, along with goals of care that have to be determined at the time of admission and subsequent conversations.
The American Hospital Association has issued a general guideline and as more data become available, we can have more informed discussions with patients and families. At this point, all due precautions that prevent the infection of health care personnel are applicable.
Ethical considerations often do not have answers that are a universal fit, and the challenge is always to promote the best interest of the patient with a balance of judiciously utilizing scarce community resources.
Although many states have had discussions and some even have written policies, they have never been implemented. The organization and application of a judicious ethical “crisis level of care” is extremely challenging and likely to test the foundation and fabric of the society.
Dr. Jain is senior associate consultant, hospital & critical care medicine, at Mayo Clinic in Mankato, Minn. He is a board-certified internal medicine, pulmonary, and critical care physician, and has special interests in rural medicine and ethical issues involving critical care medicine. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of keystone infectious diseases/HIV in Chambersburg and is currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro Hospitals, all in Pennsylvania. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.
Sources
1. United States Resource Availability for COVID-19. SCCM Blog.
2. Intensive care medicine: Triage in case of bottlenecks. l
3. Interim Guidance for Healthcare Providers during COVID-19 Outbreak.
4. Emanuel EJ et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020 Mar 23.doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114.
5. Devnani M et al. Planning and response to the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic: Ethics, equity and justice. Indian J Med Ethics. 2011 Oct-Dec;8(4):237-40.
6. Alexander C and Wynia M. Ready and willing? Physicians’ sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003 Sep-Oct;22(5):189-97.
7. Damery S et al. Healthcare workers’ perceptions of the duty to work during an influenza pandemic. J Med Ethics. 2010 Jan;36(1):12-8.
COVID-19 has been a watershed event in medical history of epic proportions. With this fast-spreading pandemic stretching resources at health care institutions, practical considerations for management of a disease about which we are still learning has been a huge challenge.
Although many guidelines have been made available by medical societies and experts worldwide, there appear to be very few which throw light on management in a resource-poor setup. The hospitalist, as a front-line provider, is likely expected to lead the planning and management of resources in order to deliver appropriate care.
As per American Hospital Association data, there are 2,704 community hospitals that can deliver ICU care in the United States. There are 534,964 acute care beds with 96,596 ICU beds. Additionally, there are 25,157 step-down beds and 1,183 burn unit beds. Of the 2,704 hospitals, 74% are in metropolitan areas (> 50,000 population), 17% (464) are in micropolitan areas (10,000-49,999 population), and the remaining 9% (244) are in rural areas. Only 7% (36,453) of hospital beds and 5% (4715) of ICU beds are in micropolitan areas. Two percent of acute care hospital beds and 1% of ICU beds are in rural areas. Although the US has the highest per capita number of ICU beds in the world, this may not be sufficient as these are concentrated in highly populated metropolitan areas.
Infrastructure and human power resource augmentation will be important. Infrastructure can be ramped up by:
- Canceling elective procedures
- Using the operating room and perioperative room ventilators and beds
- Servicing and using older functioning hospitals, medical wards, and ventilators.
As ventilators are expected to be in short supply, while far from ideal, other resources may include using ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile, renting from vendors, and using state-owned stockpiles. Use of non-invasive ventilators, such as CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure), BiPAP (bi-level positive airway pressure), and HFNC (high-flow nasal cannula) may be considered in addition to full-featured ventilators. Rapidly manufacturing new ventilators with government direction is also being undertaken.
Although estimates vary based on the model used, about 1 million people are expected to need ventilatory support. However, in addition to infrastructural shortcomings, trained persons to care for these patients are lacking. Approximately 48% of acute care hospitals have no intensivists, and there are only 28,808 intensivists as per 2015 AHA data. In order to increase the amount of skilled manpower needed to staff ICUs, a model from the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Fundamental Disaster Management Program can be adopted. This involves an intensivist overseeing four different teams, with each team caring for 24 patients. Each team is led by a non-ICU physician or an ICU advanced practice provider (APP) who in turn cares for the patient with respiratory therapists, pharmacists, ICU nurses, and other non-ICU health professionals.
It is essential that infrastructure and human power be augmented and optimized, as well as contingency plans, including triage based on ethical and legal considerations, put in place if demand overwhelms capacity.
Lack of PPE and fear among health care staff
There have been widespread reports in the media, and several anecdotal reports, about severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), and as a result, an increase in fear and anxiety among frontline health care workers.
In addition, there also have been reports about hospital administrators disciplining medical and nursing staff for voicing their concerns about PPE shortages to the general public and the media. This likely stems from the narrow “optics” and public relations concerns of health care facilities.
It is evident that the size and magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic was grossly underestimated, and preparations were inadequate. But according to past surveys of health care workers, a good number of them believe that medical and nursing staff have a duty to deliver care to sick people even if it exposes them to personal danger.
Given the special skills and privileges that health care professionals possess, they do have a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of sick patients even if a danger to themselves exists. However, society also has a responsibility to provide for the safety of these health care workers by supplying them with appropriate safety gear. Given the unprecedented nature of this pandemic, it is obvious that federal and state governments, public health officials, and hospital administrators (along with health care professionals) are still learning how to appropriately respond to the challenge.
It would be reasonable and appropriate for everyone concerned to understand and acknowledge that there is a shortage of PPE, and while arranging for this to be replenished, undertake and implement measures that maximize the safety of all health care workers. An open forum, mutually agreed-upon policy and procedures, along with mechanisms to address concerns should be formulated.
In addition, health care workers who test positive for COVID-19 can be a source of infection for other health care workers and non-infected patients. Therefore, health care workers have the responsibility of reporting their symptoms, the right to have themselves tested, and they must follow agreed-upon procedures that would limit their ability to infect other people, including mandated absenteeism from work. Every individual has a right to safety at the workplace and this right cannot be compromised, as otherwise this will lead to a suboptimal response to the pandemic. The government, hospital administrators, and health care workers will need to come together and work cohesively.
Ethical issues surrounding resource allocation
At the time of hospital admission, any suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patient should have his or her wishes recorded with the admitting team regarding the goals of care and code status. During any critical illness, goals evolve depending on discussions, reflections of the patient with family, and clinical response to therapy. A patient who does not want any kind of life support obviously should not be offered an ICU level of care.
On the other hand, in the event of resources becoming overwhelmed by demand as can be expected during this pandemic, careful ethical considerations will need to be applied.
A carefully crafted transparent ethical framework, with a clear understanding of the decision-making process, that involves all stakeholders – including government entities, public health officials, health care workers, ethics specialists, and members of the community – is essential. Ideally, allocation of resources should be made according to a well-written plan, by a triage team that can include a nontreating physician, bioethicists, legal personnel, and religious representatives. It should not be left to the front-line treating physician, who is unlikely to be trained to make these decisions and who has an ethical responsibility to advocate for the patient under his care.
Ethical principles that deserve consideration
The “principle of utility” provides the maximum possible benefit to the maximum number of people. It should not only save the greatest number of lives but also maximize improvements in individuals’ posttreatment length of life.
The “principle of equity” requires that resources are allocated on a nondiscriminatory basis with a fair distribution of benefits and burdens. When conflicts arise between these two principles, a balanced approach likely will help when handled with a transparent decision-making process, with decisions to be applied consistently. Most experts would agree on not only saving more lives but also in preserving more years of life.
The distribution of medical resources should not be based on age or disability. Frailty and functional status are important considerations; however, priority is to be given to sicker patients who have lesser comorbidities and are also likely to survive longer. This could entail that younger, healthier patients will access scarce resources based on the principle of maximizing benefits.
Another consideration is “preservation of functioning of the society.” Those individuals who are important for providing important public services, health care services, and the functioning of other key aspects of society can be considered for prioritization of resources. While this may not satisfy the classic utilitarian principle of doing maximum good to the maximum number of people, it will help to continue augmenting the fight against the pandemic because of the critical role that such individuals play.
For patients with a similar prognosis, the principle of equality comes into play, and distribution should be done by way of random allocation, like a lottery. Distribution based on the principle of “first come, first served” is unlikely to be a fair process, as it would likely discriminate against patients based on their ability to access care.
Care should also be taken not to discriminate among people who have COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 health conditions that require medical care. Distribution should never be done based on an individual’s political influence, celebrity, or financial status, as occurred in the early days of the pandemic regarding access to testing.
Resuscitation or not?
Should a COVID-19 positive patient be offered CPR in case of cardiac arrest? The concern is that CPR is a high-level aerosolizing procedure and PPE is in short supply with the worsening of the pandemic. This will depend more on local policies and resource availability, along with goals of care that have to be determined at the time of admission and subsequent conversations.
The American Hospital Association has issued a general guideline and as more data become available, we can have more informed discussions with patients and families. At this point, all due precautions that prevent the infection of health care personnel are applicable.
Ethical considerations often do not have answers that are a universal fit, and the challenge is always to promote the best interest of the patient with a balance of judiciously utilizing scarce community resources.
Although many states have had discussions and some even have written policies, they have never been implemented. The organization and application of a judicious ethical “crisis level of care” is extremely challenging and likely to test the foundation and fabric of the society.
Dr. Jain is senior associate consultant, hospital & critical care medicine, at Mayo Clinic in Mankato, Minn. He is a board-certified internal medicine, pulmonary, and critical care physician, and has special interests in rural medicine and ethical issues involving critical care medicine. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of keystone infectious diseases/HIV in Chambersburg and is currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro Hospitals, all in Pennsylvania. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.
Sources
1. United States Resource Availability for COVID-19. SCCM Blog.
2. Intensive care medicine: Triage in case of bottlenecks. l
3. Interim Guidance for Healthcare Providers during COVID-19 Outbreak.
4. Emanuel EJ et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020 Mar 23.doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114.
5. Devnani M et al. Planning and response to the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic: Ethics, equity and justice. Indian J Med Ethics. 2011 Oct-Dec;8(4):237-40.
6. Alexander C and Wynia M. Ready and willing? Physicians’ sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003 Sep-Oct;22(5):189-97.
7. Damery S et al. Healthcare workers’ perceptions of the duty to work during an influenza pandemic. J Med Ethics. 2010 Jan;36(1):12-8.
COVID-19 has been a watershed event in medical history of epic proportions. With this fast-spreading pandemic stretching resources at health care institutions, practical considerations for management of a disease about which we are still learning has been a huge challenge.
Although many guidelines have been made available by medical societies and experts worldwide, there appear to be very few which throw light on management in a resource-poor setup. The hospitalist, as a front-line provider, is likely expected to lead the planning and management of resources in order to deliver appropriate care.
As per American Hospital Association data, there are 2,704 community hospitals that can deliver ICU care in the United States. There are 534,964 acute care beds with 96,596 ICU beds. Additionally, there are 25,157 step-down beds and 1,183 burn unit beds. Of the 2,704 hospitals, 74% are in metropolitan areas (> 50,000 population), 17% (464) are in micropolitan areas (10,000-49,999 population), and the remaining 9% (244) are in rural areas. Only 7% (36,453) of hospital beds and 5% (4715) of ICU beds are in micropolitan areas. Two percent of acute care hospital beds and 1% of ICU beds are in rural areas. Although the US has the highest per capita number of ICU beds in the world, this may not be sufficient as these are concentrated in highly populated metropolitan areas.
Infrastructure and human power resource augmentation will be important. Infrastructure can be ramped up by:
- Canceling elective procedures
- Using the operating room and perioperative room ventilators and beds
- Servicing and using older functioning hospitals, medical wards, and ventilators.
As ventilators are expected to be in short supply, while far from ideal, other resources may include using ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile, renting from vendors, and using state-owned stockpiles. Use of non-invasive ventilators, such as CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure), BiPAP (bi-level positive airway pressure), and HFNC (high-flow nasal cannula) may be considered in addition to full-featured ventilators. Rapidly manufacturing new ventilators with government direction is also being undertaken.
Although estimates vary based on the model used, about 1 million people are expected to need ventilatory support. However, in addition to infrastructural shortcomings, trained persons to care for these patients are lacking. Approximately 48% of acute care hospitals have no intensivists, and there are only 28,808 intensivists as per 2015 AHA data. In order to increase the amount of skilled manpower needed to staff ICUs, a model from the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Fundamental Disaster Management Program can be adopted. This involves an intensivist overseeing four different teams, with each team caring for 24 patients. Each team is led by a non-ICU physician or an ICU advanced practice provider (APP) who in turn cares for the patient with respiratory therapists, pharmacists, ICU nurses, and other non-ICU health professionals.
It is essential that infrastructure and human power be augmented and optimized, as well as contingency plans, including triage based on ethical and legal considerations, put in place if demand overwhelms capacity.
Lack of PPE and fear among health care staff
There have been widespread reports in the media, and several anecdotal reports, about severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), and as a result, an increase in fear and anxiety among frontline health care workers.
In addition, there also have been reports about hospital administrators disciplining medical and nursing staff for voicing their concerns about PPE shortages to the general public and the media. This likely stems from the narrow “optics” and public relations concerns of health care facilities.
It is evident that the size and magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic was grossly underestimated, and preparations were inadequate. But according to past surveys of health care workers, a good number of them believe that medical and nursing staff have a duty to deliver care to sick people even if it exposes them to personal danger.
Given the special skills and privileges that health care professionals possess, they do have a moral and ethical responsibility to take care of sick patients even if a danger to themselves exists. However, society also has a responsibility to provide for the safety of these health care workers by supplying them with appropriate safety gear. Given the unprecedented nature of this pandemic, it is obvious that federal and state governments, public health officials, and hospital administrators (along with health care professionals) are still learning how to appropriately respond to the challenge.
It would be reasonable and appropriate for everyone concerned to understand and acknowledge that there is a shortage of PPE, and while arranging for this to be replenished, undertake and implement measures that maximize the safety of all health care workers. An open forum, mutually agreed-upon policy and procedures, along with mechanisms to address concerns should be formulated.
In addition, health care workers who test positive for COVID-19 can be a source of infection for other health care workers and non-infected patients. Therefore, health care workers have the responsibility of reporting their symptoms, the right to have themselves tested, and they must follow agreed-upon procedures that would limit their ability to infect other people, including mandated absenteeism from work. Every individual has a right to safety at the workplace and this right cannot be compromised, as otherwise this will lead to a suboptimal response to the pandemic. The government, hospital administrators, and health care workers will need to come together and work cohesively.
Ethical issues surrounding resource allocation
At the time of hospital admission, any suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patient should have his or her wishes recorded with the admitting team regarding the goals of care and code status. During any critical illness, goals evolve depending on discussions, reflections of the patient with family, and clinical response to therapy. A patient who does not want any kind of life support obviously should not be offered an ICU level of care.
On the other hand, in the event of resources becoming overwhelmed by demand as can be expected during this pandemic, careful ethical considerations will need to be applied.
A carefully crafted transparent ethical framework, with a clear understanding of the decision-making process, that involves all stakeholders – including government entities, public health officials, health care workers, ethics specialists, and members of the community – is essential. Ideally, allocation of resources should be made according to a well-written plan, by a triage team that can include a nontreating physician, bioethicists, legal personnel, and religious representatives. It should not be left to the front-line treating physician, who is unlikely to be trained to make these decisions and who has an ethical responsibility to advocate for the patient under his care.
Ethical principles that deserve consideration
The “principle of utility” provides the maximum possible benefit to the maximum number of people. It should not only save the greatest number of lives but also maximize improvements in individuals’ posttreatment length of life.
The “principle of equity” requires that resources are allocated on a nondiscriminatory basis with a fair distribution of benefits and burdens. When conflicts arise between these two principles, a balanced approach likely will help when handled with a transparent decision-making process, with decisions to be applied consistently. Most experts would agree on not only saving more lives but also in preserving more years of life.
The distribution of medical resources should not be based on age or disability. Frailty and functional status are important considerations; however, priority is to be given to sicker patients who have lesser comorbidities and are also likely to survive longer. This could entail that younger, healthier patients will access scarce resources based on the principle of maximizing benefits.
Another consideration is “preservation of functioning of the society.” Those individuals who are important for providing important public services, health care services, and the functioning of other key aspects of society can be considered for prioritization of resources. While this may not satisfy the classic utilitarian principle of doing maximum good to the maximum number of people, it will help to continue augmenting the fight against the pandemic because of the critical role that such individuals play.
For patients with a similar prognosis, the principle of equality comes into play, and distribution should be done by way of random allocation, like a lottery. Distribution based on the principle of “first come, first served” is unlikely to be a fair process, as it would likely discriminate against patients based on their ability to access care.
Care should also be taken not to discriminate among people who have COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 health conditions that require medical care. Distribution should never be done based on an individual’s political influence, celebrity, or financial status, as occurred in the early days of the pandemic regarding access to testing.
Resuscitation or not?
Should a COVID-19 positive patient be offered CPR in case of cardiac arrest? The concern is that CPR is a high-level aerosolizing procedure and PPE is in short supply with the worsening of the pandemic. This will depend more on local policies and resource availability, along with goals of care that have to be determined at the time of admission and subsequent conversations.
The American Hospital Association has issued a general guideline and as more data become available, we can have more informed discussions with patients and families. At this point, all due precautions that prevent the infection of health care personnel are applicable.
Ethical considerations often do not have answers that are a universal fit, and the challenge is always to promote the best interest of the patient with a balance of judiciously utilizing scarce community resources.
Although many states have had discussions and some even have written policies, they have never been implemented. The organization and application of a judicious ethical “crisis level of care” is extremely challenging and likely to test the foundation and fabric of the society.
Dr. Jain is senior associate consultant, hospital & critical care medicine, at Mayo Clinic in Mankato, Minn. He is a board-certified internal medicine, pulmonary, and critical care physician, and has special interests in rural medicine and ethical issues involving critical care medicine. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of keystone infectious diseases/HIV in Chambersburg and is currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro Hospitals, all in Pennsylvania. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.
Sources
1. United States Resource Availability for COVID-19. SCCM Blog.
2. Intensive care medicine: Triage in case of bottlenecks. l
3. Interim Guidance for Healthcare Providers during COVID-19 Outbreak.
4. Emanuel EJ et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020 Mar 23.doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114.
5. Devnani M et al. Planning and response to the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic: Ethics, equity and justice. Indian J Med Ethics. 2011 Oct-Dec;8(4):237-40.
6. Alexander C and Wynia M. Ready and willing? Physicians’ sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003 Sep-Oct;22(5):189-97.
7. Damery S et al. Healthcare workers’ perceptions of the duty to work during an influenza pandemic. J Med Ethics. 2010 Jan;36(1):12-8.
COVID 19: Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
It seems that some glitches would be inevitable. With a sudden shift to videoconferencing in private psychiatric practices, there were bound to be issues with both technology and privacy. One friend told me of such a glitch on the very first day she started telemental health: She was meeting with a patient who was sitting at her kitchen table. Unbeknownst to the patient, her husband walked into the kitchen behind her, fully naked, to get something from the refrigerator. “There was a full moon shot!” my friend said, initially quite shocked, and then eventually amused. As we all cope with a national tragedy and the total upheaval to our personal and professional lives, the stories just keep coming.
I left work on Friday, March 13, with plans to return on the following Monday to see patients. I had no idea that, by Sunday evening, I would be persuaded that for the safety of all I would need to shut down my real-life psychiatric practice and switch to a videoconferencing venue. I, along with many psychiatrists in Maryland, made this decision after Amy Huberman, MD, posted the following on the Maryland Psychiatric Society (MPS) listserv on Sunday, March 15:
“I want to make a case for starting video sessions with all your patients NOW. There is increasing evidence that the spread of coronavirus is driven primarily by asymptomatic or mildly ill people infected with the virus. Because of this, it’s not good enough to tell your patients not to come in if they have symptoms, or for you not to come into work if you have no symptoms. Even after I sent out a letter two weeks ago warning people not to come in if they had symptoms or had potentially come in contact with someone with COVID-19, several patients with coughs still came to my office, as well as several people who had just been on trips to New York City.
If we want to help slow the spread of this illness so that our health system has a better chance of being able to offer ventilators to the people who need them, we must limit all contacts as much as possible – even of asymptomatic people, given the emerging data.
I am planning to send out a message to all my patients today that they should do the same. Without the president or the media giving clear advice to people about what to do, it’s our job as physicians to do it.”
By that night, I had set up a home office with a blank wall behind me, windows in front of me, and books propping my computer at a height that would not have my patients looking up my nose. For the first time in over 20 years, I dusted my son’s Little League trophies, moved them and a 40,000 baseball card collection against the wall, carried a desk, chair, rug, houseplant, and a small Buddha into a room in which I would have some privacy, and my telepsychiatry practice found a home.
After some research, I registered for a free site called Doxy.me because it was HIPAA compliant and did not require patients to download an application; anyone with a camera on any Internet-enabled phone, computer, or tablet, could click on a link and enter my virtual waiting room. I soon discovered that images on the Doxy.me site are sometimes grainy and sometimes freeze up; in some sessions, we ended up switching to FaceTime, and as government mandates for HIPAA compliance relaxed, I offered to meet on any site that my patients might be comfortable with: if not Doxy.me (which remains my starting place for most sessions), Facetime, Skype, Zoom, or Whatsapp. I have not offered Bluejeans, Google Hangouts, or WebEx, and no one has requested those applications. I keep the phone next to the computer, and some sessions include a few minutes of tech support as I help patients (or they help me) navigate the various sites. In a few sessions, we could not get the audio to work and we used video on one venue while we talked on the phone. I haven’t figured out if the variations in the quality of the connection has to do with my Comcast connection, the fact that these websites are overloaded with users, or that my household now consists of three people, two large monitors, three laptops, two tablets, three cell phone lines (not to mention one dog and a transplanted cat), all going at the same time. The pets do not require any bandwidth, but all the people are talking to screens throughout the workday.
As my colleagues embarked on the same journey, the listserv questions and comments came quickly. What were the best platforms? Was it a good thing or a bad thing to suddenly be in people’s homes? Some felt the extraneous background to be helpful, others found it distracting and intrusive.
How do these sessions get coded for the purpose of billing? There was a tremendous amount of confusion over that, with the initial verdict being that Medicare wanted the place of service changed to “02” and that private insurers want one of two modifiers, and it was anyone’s guess which company wanted which modifier. Then there was the concern that Medicare was paying 25% less, until the MPS staff clarified that full fees would be paid, but the place of service should be filled in as “11” – not “02” – as with regular office visits, and the modifier “95” should be added on the Health Care Finance Administration claim form. We were left to wait and see what gets reimbursed and for what fees.
Could new patients be seen by videoconferencing? Could patients from other states be seen this way if the psychiatrist was not licensed in the state where the patient was calling from? One psychiatrist reported he had a patient in an adjacent state drive over the border into Maryland, but the patient brought her mother and the evaluation included unwanted input from the mom as the session consisted of the patient and her mother yelling at both each other in the car and at the psychiatrist on the screen!
Psychiatrists on the listserv began to comment that treatment sessions were intense and exhausting. I feel the literal face-to-face contact of another person’s head just inches from my own, with full eye contact, often gets to be a lot. No one asks why I’ve moved a trinket (ah, there are no trinkets) or gazes off around the room. I sometimes sit for long periods of time as I don’t even stand to see the patients to the door. Other patients move about or bounce their devices on their laps, and my stomach starts to feel queasy until I ask to have the device adjusted. In some sessions, I find I’m talking to partial heads, or that computer icons cover the patient’s mouth.
Being in people’s lives via screen has been interesting. Unlike my colleague, I have not had any streaking spouses, but I’ve greeted a few family members – often those serving as technical support – and I’ve toured part of a farm, met dogs, guinea pigs, and even a goat. I’ve made brief daily “visits” to a frightened patient in isolation on a COVID hospital unit and had the joy of celebrating the discharge to home. It’s odd to be in a bedroom with a patient, even virtually, and it is interesting to note where they choose to hold their sessions; I’ve had several patients hold sessions from their cars. Seeing my own image in the corner of the screen is also a bit distracting, and in one session, as I saw my own reaction, my patient said, “I knew you were going to make that face!”
The pandemic has usurped most of the activities of all of our lives, and without social interactions, travel, and work in the usual way, life does not hold its usual richness. In a few cases, I have ended the session after half the time as the patient insisted there was nothing to talk about. Many talk about the medical problems they can’t be seen for, what they are doing to keep safe (or not), how they are washing down their groceries, and who they are meeting with by Zoom. Of those who were terribly anxious before, some feel oddly calmer – the world has ramped up to meet their level of anxiety and they feel vindicated. No one thinks they are odd for worrying about germs on door knobs or elevator buttons. What were once neurotic fears are now our real-life reality. Others have been triggered by a paralyzing fear, often with panic attacks, and these sessions are certainly challenging as I figure out which medications will best help, while responding to requests for reassurance. And there is the troublesome aspect of trying to care for others who are fearful while living with the reality that these fears are not extraneous to our own lives: We, too, are scared for ourselves and our families.
For some people, stay-at-home mandates have been easier than for others. People who are naturally introverted, or those with social anxiety, have told me they find this time at home to be a relief. They no longer feel pressured to go out; there is permission to be alone, to read, or watch Netflix. No one is pressuring them to go to parties or look for a Tinder date. For others, the isolation and loneliness have been devastating, causing a range of emotions from being “stir crazy,” to triggering episodes of major depression and severe anxiety.
Health care workers in therapy talk about their fears of being contaminated with coronavirus, about the exposures they’ve had, their fears of bringing the virus home to family, and about the anger – sometimes rage – that their employers are not doing more to protect them.
Few people these past weeks are looking for insight into their patterns of behavior and emotion. Most of life has come to be about survival and not about personal striving. Students who are driven to excel are disappointed to have their scholastic worlds have switched to pass/fail. And for those struggling with milder forms of depression and anxiety, both the patients and I have all been a bit perplexed by losing the usual measures of what feelings are normal in a tragic world and we no longer use socializing as the hallmark that heralds a return to normalcy after a period of withdrawal.
In some aspects, it is not all been bad. I’ve enjoyed watching my neighbors walk by with their dogs through the window behind my computer screen and I’ve felt part of the daily evolution as the cherry tree outside that same window turns from dead brown wood to vibrant pink blossoms. I like the flexibility of my schedule and the sensation I always carry of being rushed has quelled. I take more walks and spend more time with the family members who are held captive with me. The dog, who no longer is left alone for hours each day, is certainly a winner.
Some of my colleagues tell me they are overwhelmed – patients they have not seen for years have returned, people are asking for more frequent sessions, and they are suddenly trying to work at home while homeschooling children. I have had only a few of those requests for crisis care, while new referrals are much quieter than normal. Some of my patients have even said that they simply aren’t comfortable meeting this way and they will see me at the other end of the pandemic. A few people I would have expected to hear from I have not, and I fear that those who have lost their jobs may avoiding the cost of treatment – this group I will reach out to in the coming weeks. A little extra time, however, has given me the opportunity to join the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Mental Health team. And my first attempt at teaching a resident seminar by Zoom has gone well.
For some in the medical field, this has been a horrible and traumatic time; they are worked to exhaustion, and surrounded by distress, death, and personal fear with every shift. For others, life has come to a standstill as the elective procedures that fill their days have virtually stopped. For outpatient psychiatry, it’s been a bit of an in-between, we may feel an odd mix of relevant and useless all at the same time, as our services are appreciated by our patients, but as actual soldiers caring for the ill COVID patients, we are leaving that to our colleagues in the EDs, COVID units, and ICUs. As a physician who has not treated a patient in an ICU for decades, I wish I had something more concrete to contribute to the effort, and at the same time, I’m relieved that I don’t.
And what about the patients? How are they doing with remote psychiatry? Some are clearly flustered or frustrated by the technology issues. Other times sessions go smoothly, and the fact that we are talking through screens gets forgotten. Some like the convenience of not having to drive a far distance and no one misses my crowded parking lot.
Kristen, another doctor’s patient in Illinois, commented: “I appreciate the continuity in care, especially if the alternative is delaying appointments. I think that’s most important. The interaction helps manage added anxiety from isolating as well. I don’t think it diminishes the care I receive; it makes me feel that my doctor is still accessible. One other point, since I have had both telemedicine and in-person appointments with my current psychiatrist, is that during in-person meetings, he is usually on his computer and rarely looks at me or makes eye contact. In virtual meetings, I feel he is much more engaged with me.”
In normal times, I spend a good deal of time encouraging patients to work on building their relationships and community – these connections lead people to healthy and fulfilling lives – and now we talk about how to best be socially distant. We see each other as vectors of disease and to greet a friend with a handshake, much less a hug, would be unthinkable. Will our collective psyches ever recover? For those of us who will survive, that remains to be seen. In the meantime, perhaps we are all being forced to be more flexible and innovative.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
It seems that some glitches would be inevitable. With a sudden shift to videoconferencing in private psychiatric practices, there were bound to be issues with both technology and privacy. One friend told me of such a glitch on the very first day she started telemental health: She was meeting with a patient who was sitting at her kitchen table. Unbeknownst to the patient, her husband walked into the kitchen behind her, fully naked, to get something from the refrigerator. “There was a full moon shot!” my friend said, initially quite shocked, and then eventually amused. As we all cope with a national tragedy and the total upheaval to our personal and professional lives, the stories just keep coming.
I left work on Friday, March 13, with plans to return on the following Monday to see patients. I had no idea that, by Sunday evening, I would be persuaded that for the safety of all I would need to shut down my real-life psychiatric practice and switch to a videoconferencing venue. I, along with many psychiatrists in Maryland, made this decision after Amy Huberman, MD, posted the following on the Maryland Psychiatric Society (MPS) listserv on Sunday, March 15:
“I want to make a case for starting video sessions with all your patients NOW. There is increasing evidence that the spread of coronavirus is driven primarily by asymptomatic or mildly ill people infected with the virus. Because of this, it’s not good enough to tell your patients not to come in if they have symptoms, or for you not to come into work if you have no symptoms. Even after I sent out a letter two weeks ago warning people not to come in if they had symptoms or had potentially come in contact with someone with COVID-19, several patients with coughs still came to my office, as well as several people who had just been on trips to New York City.
If we want to help slow the spread of this illness so that our health system has a better chance of being able to offer ventilators to the people who need them, we must limit all contacts as much as possible – even of asymptomatic people, given the emerging data.
I am planning to send out a message to all my patients today that they should do the same. Without the president or the media giving clear advice to people about what to do, it’s our job as physicians to do it.”
By that night, I had set up a home office with a blank wall behind me, windows in front of me, and books propping my computer at a height that would not have my patients looking up my nose. For the first time in over 20 years, I dusted my son’s Little League trophies, moved them and a 40,000 baseball card collection against the wall, carried a desk, chair, rug, houseplant, and a small Buddha into a room in which I would have some privacy, and my telepsychiatry practice found a home.
After some research, I registered for a free site called Doxy.me because it was HIPAA compliant and did not require patients to download an application; anyone with a camera on any Internet-enabled phone, computer, or tablet, could click on a link and enter my virtual waiting room. I soon discovered that images on the Doxy.me site are sometimes grainy and sometimes freeze up; in some sessions, we ended up switching to FaceTime, and as government mandates for HIPAA compliance relaxed, I offered to meet on any site that my patients might be comfortable with: if not Doxy.me (which remains my starting place for most sessions), Facetime, Skype, Zoom, or Whatsapp. I have not offered Bluejeans, Google Hangouts, or WebEx, and no one has requested those applications. I keep the phone next to the computer, and some sessions include a few minutes of tech support as I help patients (or they help me) navigate the various sites. In a few sessions, we could not get the audio to work and we used video on one venue while we talked on the phone. I haven’t figured out if the variations in the quality of the connection has to do with my Comcast connection, the fact that these websites are overloaded with users, or that my household now consists of three people, two large monitors, three laptops, two tablets, three cell phone lines (not to mention one dog and a transplanted cat), all going at the same time. The pets do not require any bandwidth, but all the people are talking to screens throughout the workday.
As my colleagues embarked on the same journey, the listserv questions and comments came quickly. What were the best platforms? Was it a good thing or a bad thing to suddenly be in people’s homes? Some felt the extraneous background to be helpful, others found it distracting and intrusive.
How do these sessions get coded for the purpose of billing? There was a tremendous amount of confusion over that, with the initial verdict being that Medicare wanted the place of service changed to “02” and that private insurers want one of two modifiers, and it was anyone’s guess which company wanted which modifier. Then there was the concern that Medicare was paying 25% less, until the MPS staff clarified that full fees would be paid, but the place of service should be filled in as “11” – not “02” – as with regular office visits, and the modifier “95” should be added on the Health Care Finance Administration claim form. We were left to wait and see what gets reimbursed and for what fees.
Could new patients be seen by videoconferencing? Could patients from other states be seen this way if the psychiatrist was not licensed in the state where the patient was calling from? One psychiatrist reported he had a patient in an adjacent state drive over the border into Maryland, but the patient brought her mother and the evaluation included unwanted input from the mom as the session consisted of the patient and her mother yelling at both each other in the car and at the psychiatrist on the screen!
Psychiatrists on the listserv began to comment that treatment sessions were intense and exhausting. I feel the literal face-to-face contact of another person’s head just inches from my own, with full eye contact, often gets to be a lot. No one asks why I’ve moved a trinket (ah, there are no trinkets) or gazes off around the room. I sometimes sit for long periods of time as I don’t even stand to see the patients to the door. Other patients move about or bounce their devices on their laps, and my stomach starts to feel queasy until I ask to have the device adjusted. In some sessions, I find I’m talking to partial heads, or that computer icons cover the patient’s mouth.
Being in people’s lives via screen has been interesting. Unlike my colleague, I have not had any streaking spouses, but I’ve greeted a few family members – often those serving as technical support – and I’ve toured part of a farm, met dogs, guinea pigs, and even a goat. I’ve made brief daily “visits” to a frightened patient in isolation on a COVID hospital unit and had the joy of celebrating the discharge to home. It’s odd to be in a bedroom with a patient, even virtually, and it is interesting to note where they choose to hold their sessions; I’ve had several patients hold sessions from their cars. Seeing my own image in the corner of the screen is also a bit distracting, and in one session, as I saw my own reaction, my patient said, “I knew you were going to make that face!”
The pandemic has usurped most of the activities of all of our lives, and without social interactions, travel, and work in the usual way, life does not hold its usual richness. In a few cases, I have ended the session after half the time as the patient insisted there was nothing to talk about. Many talk about the medical problems they can’t be seen for, what they are doing to keep safe (or not), how they are washing down their groceries, and who they are meeting with by Zoom. Of those who were terribly anxious before, some feel oddly calmer – the world has ramped up to meet their level of anxiety and they feel vindicated. No one thinks they are odd for worrying about germs on door knobs or elevator buttons. What were once neurotic fears are now our real-life reality. Others have been triggered by a paralyzing fear, often with panic attacks, and these sessions are certainly challenging as I figure out which medications will best help, while responding to requests for reassurance. And there is the troublesome aspect of trying to care for others who are fearful while living with the reality that these fears are not extraneous to our own lives: We, too, are scared for ourselves and our families.
For some people, stay-at-home mandates have been easier than for others. People who are naturally introverted, or those with social anxiety, have told me they find this time at home to be a relief. They no longer feel pressured to go out; there is permission to be alone, to read, or watch Netflix. No one is pressuring them to go to parties or look for a Tinder date. For others, the isolation and loneliness have been devastating, causing a range of emotions from being “stir crazy,” to triggering episodes of major depression and severe anxiety.
Health care workers in therapy talk about their fears of being contaminated with coronavirus, about the exposures they’ve had, their fears of bringing the virus home to family, and about the anger – sometimes rage – that their employers are not doing more to protect them.
Few people these past weeks are looking for insight into their patterns of behavior and emotion. Most of life has come to be about survival and not about personal striving. Students who are driven to excel are disappointed to have their scholastic worlds have switched to pass/fail. And for those struggling with milder forms of depression and anxiety, both the patients and I have all been a bit perplexed by losing the usual measures of what feelings are normal in a tragic world and we no longer use socializing as the hallmark that heralds a return to normalcy after a period of withdrawal.
In some aspects, it is not all been bad. I’ve enjoyed watching my neighbors walk by with their dogs through the window behind my computer screen and I’ve felt part of the daily evolution as the cherry tree outside that same window turns from dead brown wood to vibrant pink blossoms. I like the flexibility of my schedule and the sensation I always carry of being rushed has quelled. I take more walks and spend more time with the family members who are held captive with me. The dog, who no longer is left alone for hours each day, is certainly a winner.
Some of my colleagues tell me they are overwhelmed – patients they have not seen for years have returned, people are asking for more frequent sessions, and they are suddenly trying to work at home while homeschooling children. I have had only a few of those requests for crisis care, while new referrals are much quieter than normal. Some of my patients have even said that they simply aren’t comfortable meeting this way and they will see me at the other end of the pandemic. A few people I would have expected to hear from I have not, and I fear that those who have lost their jobs may avoiding the cost of treatment – this group I will reach out to in the coming weeks. A little extra time, however, has given me the opportunity to join the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Mental Health team. And my first attempt at teaching a resident seminar by Zoom has gone well.
For some in the medical field, this has been a horrible and traumatic time; they are worked to exhaustion, and surrounded by distress, death, and personal fear with every shift. For others, life has come to a standstill as the elective procedures that fill their days have virtually stopped. For outpatient psychiatry, it’s been a bit of an in-between, we may feel an odd mix of relevant and useless all at the same time, as our services are appreciated by our patients, but as actual soldiers caring for the ill COVID patients, we are leaving that to our colleagues in the EDs, COVID units, and ICUs. As a physician who has not treated a patient in an ICU for decades, I wish I had something more concrete to contribute to the effort, and at the same time, I’m relieved that I don’t.
And what about the patients? How are they doing with remote psychiatry? Some are clearly flustered or frustrated by the technology issues. Other times sessions go smoothly, and the fact that we are talking through screens gets forgotten. Some like the convenience of not having to drive a far distance and no one misses my crowded parking lot.
Kristen, another doctor’s patient in Illinois, commented: “I appreciate the continuity in care, especially if the alternative is delaying appointments. I think that’s most important. The interaction helps manage added anxiety from isolating as well. I don’t think it diminishes the care I receive; it makes me feel that my doctor is still accessible. One other point, since I have had both telemedicine and in-person appointments with my current psychiatrist, is that during in-person meetings, he is usually on his computer and rarely looks at me or makes eye contact. In virtual meetings, I feel he is much more engaged with me.”
In normal times, I spend a good deal of time encouraging patients to work on building their relationships and community – these connections lead people to healthy and fulfilling lives – and now we talk about how to best be socially distant. We see each other as vectors of disease and to greet a friend with a handshake, much less a hug, would be unthinkable. Will our collective psyches ever recover? For those of us who will survive, that remains to be seen. In the meantime, perhaps we are all being forced to be more flexible and innovative.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
It seems that some glitches would be inevitable. With a sudden shift to videoconferencing in private psychiatric practices, there were bound to be issues with both technology and privacy. One friend told me of such a glitch on the very first day she started telemental health: She was meeting with a patient who was sitting at her kitchen table. Unbeknownst to the patient, her husband walked into the kitchen behind her, fully naked, to get something from the refrigerator. “There was a full moon shot!” my friend said, initially quite shocked, and then eventually amused. As we all cope with a national tragedy and the total upheaval to our personal and professional lives, the stories just keep coming.
I left work on Friday, March 13, with plans to return on the following Monday to see patients. I had no idea that, by Sunday evening, I would be persuaded that for the safety of all I would need to shut down my real-life psychiatric practice and switch to a videoconferencing venue. I, along with many psychiatrists in Maryland, made this decision after Amy Huberman, MD, posted the following on the Maryland Psychiatric Society (MPS) listserv on Sunday, March 15:
“I want to make a case for starting video sessions with all your patients NOW. There is increasing evidence that the spread of coronavirus is driven primarily by asymptomatic or mildly ill people infected with the virus. Because of this, it’s not good enough to tell your patients not to come in if they have symptoms, or for you not to come into work if you have no symptoms. Even after I sent out a letter two weeks ago warning people not to come in if they had symptoms or had potentially come in contact with someone with COVID-19, several patients with coughs still came to my office, as well as several people who had just been on trips to New York City.
If we want to help slow the spread of this illness so that our health system has a better chance of being able to offer ventilators to the people who need them, we must limit all contacts as much as possible – even of asymptomatic people, given the emerging data.
I am planning to send out a message to all my patients today that they should do the same. Without the president or the media giving clear advice to people about what to do, it’s our job as physicians to do it.”
By that night, I had set up a home office with a blank wall behind me, windows in front of me, and books propping my computer at a height that would not have my patients looking up my nose. For the first time in over 20 years, I dusted my son’s Little League trophies, moved them and a 40,000 baseball card collection against the wall, carried a desk, chair, rug, houseplant, and a small Buddha into a room in which I would have some privacy, and my telepsychiatry practice found a home.
After some research, I registered for a free site called Doxy.me because it was HIPAA compliant and did not require patients to download an application; anyone with a camera on any Internet-enabled phone, computer, or tablet, could click on a link and enter my virtual waiting room. I soon discovered that images on the Doxy.me site are sometimes grainy and sometimes freeze up; in some sessions, we ended up switching to FaceTime, and as government mandates for HIPAA compliance relaxed, I offered to meet on any site that my patients might be comfortable with: if not Doxy.me (which remains my starting place for most sessions), Facetime, Skype, Zoom, or Whatsapp. I have not offered Bluejeans, Google Hangouts, or WebEx, and no one has requested those applications. I keep the phone next to the computer, and some sessions include a few minutes of tech support as I help patients (or they help me) navigate the various sites. In a few sessions, we could not get the audio to work and we used video on one venue while we talked on the phone. I haven’t figured out if the variations in the quality of the connection has to do with my Comcast connection, the fact that these websites are overloaded with users, or that my household now consists of three people, two large monitors, three laptops, two tablets, three cell phone lines (not to mention one dog and a transplanted cat), all going at the same time. The pets do not require any bandwidth, but all the people are talking to screens throughout the workday.
As my colleagues embarked on the same journey, the listserv questions and comments came quickly. What were the best platforms? Was it a good thing or a bad thing to suddenly be in people’s homes? Some felt the extraneous background to be helpful, others found it distracting and intrusive.
How do these sessions get coded for the purpose of billing? There was a tremendous amount of confusion over that, with the initial verdict being that Medicare wanted the place of service changed to “02” and that private insurers want one of two modifiers, and it was anyone’s guess which company wanted which modifier. Then there was the concern that Medicare was paying 25% less, until the MPS staff clarified that full fees would be paid, but the place of service should be filled in as “11” – not “02” – as with regular office visits, and the modifier “95” should be added on the Health Care Finance Administration claim form. We were left to wait and see what gets reimbursed and for what fees.
Could new patients be seen by videoconferencing? Could patients from other states be seen this way if the psychiatrist was not licensed in the state where the patient was calling from? One psychiatrist reported he had a patient in an adjacent state drive over the border into Maryland, but the patient brought her mother and the evaluation included unwanted input from the mom as the session consisted of the patient and her mother yelling at both each other in the car and at the psychiatrist on the screen!
Psychiatrists on the listserv began to comment that treatment sessions were intense and exhausting. I feel the literal face-to-face contact of another person’s head just inches from my own, with full eye contact, often gets to be a lot. No one asks why I’ve moved a trinket (ah, there are no trinkets) or gazes off around the room. I sometimes sit for long periods of time as I don’t even stand to see the patients to the door. Other patients move about or bounce their devices on their laps, and my stomach starts to feel queasy until I ask to have the device adjusted. In some sessions, I find I’m talking to partial heads, or that computer icons cover the patient’s mouth.
Being in people’s lives via screen has been interesting. Unlike my colleague, I have not had any streaking spouses, but I’ve greeted a few family members – often those serving as technical support – and I’ve toured part of a farm, met dogs, guinea pigs, and even a goat. I’ve made brief daily “visits” to a frightened patient in isolation on a COVID hospital unit and had the joy of celebrating the discharge to home. It’s odd to be in a bedroom with a patient, even virtually, and it is interesting to note where they choose to hold their sessions; I’ve had several patients hold sessions from their cars. Seeing my own image in the corner of the screen is also a bit distracting, and in one session, as I saw my own reaction, my patient said, “I knew you were going to make that face!”
The pandemic has usurped most of the activities of all of our lives, and without social interactions, travel, and work in the usual way, life does not hold its usual richness. In a few cases, I have ended the session after half the time as the patient insisted there was nothing to talk about. Many talk about the medical problems they can’t be seen for, what they are doing to keep safe (or not), how they are washing down their groceries, and who they are meeting with by Zoom. Of those who were terribly anxious before, some feel oddly calmer – the world has ramped up to meet their level of anxiety and they feel vindicated. No one thinks they are odd for worrying about germs on door knobs or elevator buttons. What were once neurotic fears are now our real-life reality. Others have been triggered by a paralyzing fear, often with panic attacks, and these sessions are certainly challenging as I figure out which medications will best help, while responding to requests for reassurance. And there is the troublesome aspect of trying to care for others who are fearful while living with the reality that these fears are not extraneous to our own lives: We, too, are scared for ourselves and our families.
For some people, stay-at-home mandates have been easier than for others. People who are naturally introverted, or those with social anxiety, have told me they find this time at home to be a relief. They no longer feel pressured to go out; there is permission to be alone, to read, or watch Netflix. No one is pressuring them to go to parties or look for a Tinder date. For others, the isolation and loneliness have been devastating, causing a range of emotions from being “stir crazy,” to triggering episodes of major depression and severe anxiety.
Health care workers in therapy talk about their fears of being contaminated with coronavirus, about the exposures they’ve had, their fears of bringing the virus home to family, and about the anger – sometimes rage – that their employers are not doing more to protect them.
Few people these past weeks are looking for insight into their patterns of behavior and emotion. Most of life has come to be about survival and not about personal striving. Students who are driven to excel are disappointed to have their scholastic worlds have switched to pass/fail. And for those struggling with milder forms of depression and anxiety, both the patients and I have all been a bit perplexed by losing the usual measures of what feelings are normal in a tragic world and we no longer use socializing as the hallmark that heralds a return to normalcy after a period of withdrawal.
In some aspects, it is not all been bad. I’ve enjoyed watching my neighbors walk by with their dogs through the window behind my computer screen and I’ve felt part of the daily evolution as the cherry tree outside that same window turns from dead brown wood to vibrant pink blossoms. I like the flexibility of my schedule and the sensation I always carry of being rushed has quelled. I take more walks and spend more time with the family members who are held captive with me. The dog, who no longer is left alone for hours each day, is certainly a winner.
Some of my colleagues tell me they are overwhelmed – patients they have not seen for years have returned, people are asking for more frequent sessions, and they are suddenly trying to work at home while homeschooling children. I have had only a few of those requests for crisis care, while new referrals are much quieter than normal. Some of my patients have even said that they simply aren’t comfortable meeting this way and they will see me at the other end of the pandemic. A few people I would have expected to hear from I have not, and I fear that those who have lost their jobs may avoiding the cost of treatment – this group I will reach out to in the coming weeks. A little extra time, however, has given me the opportunity to join the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Mental Health team. And my first attempt at teaching a resident seminar by Zoom has gone well.
For some in the medical field, this has been a horrible and traumatic time; they are worked to exhaustion, and surrounded by distress, death, and personal fear with every shift. For others, life has come to a standstill as the elective procedures that fill their days have virtually stopped. For outpatient psychiatry, it’s been a bit of an in-between, we may feel an odd mix of relevant and useless all at the same time, as our services are appreciated by our patients, but as actual soldiers caring for the ill COVID patients, we are leaving that to our colleagues in the EDs, COVID units, and ICUs. As a physician who has not treated a patient in an ICU for decades, I wish I had something more concrete to contribute to the effort, and at the same time, I’m relieved that I don’t.
And what about the patients? How are they doing with remote psychiatry? Some are clearly flustered or frustrated by the technology issues. Other times sessions go smoothly, and the fact that we are talking through screens gets forgotten. Some like the convenience of not having to drive a far distance and no one misses my crowded parking lot.
Kristen, another doctor’s patient in Illinois, commented: “I appreciate the continuity in care, especially if the alternative is delaying appointments. I think that’s most important. The interaction helps manage added anxiety from isolating as well. I don’t think it diminishes the care I receive; it makes me feel that my doctor is still accessible. One other point, since I have had both telemedicine and in-person appointments with my current psychiatrist, is that during in-person meetings, he is usually on his computer and rarely looks at me or makes eye contact. In virtual meetings, I feel he is much more engaged with me.”
In normal times, I spend a good deal of time encouraging patients to work on building their relationships and community – these connections lead people to healthy and fulfilling lives – and now we talk about how to best be socially distant. We see each other as vectors of disease and to greet a friend with a handshake, much less a hug, would be unthinkable. Will our collective psyches ever recover? For those of us who will survive, that remains to be seen. In the meantime, perhaps we are all being forced to be more flexible and innovative.
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.
Presymptomatic or asymptomatic? ID experts on shifting terminology
They also addressed racial disparities surrounding COVID-19, and announced new IDSA guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of the illness.
Regarding the shifting thinking on symptoms and transmission of the novel coronavirus, when it comes to presymptomatic or asymptomatic, “pre” is really the right terminology, Carlos del Rio, MD, professor of medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, said during the briefing, because it’s not that people are asymptomatic but that they develop symptoms later and start transmitting the virus 24 to 48 hours before they develop symptoms.
“Clearly, this plays a role in transmission,” with some studies suggesting that 6% to 12% of transmissions occur during this presymptomatic stage, he explained.
Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, noted that early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the presymptomatic phase “could have been missed because we didn’t realize the wide ranging symptoms this disease has.”
This is turning out to be a “very interesting” virus with “fascinating” symptoms, she told reporters on the call.
The virus seems to have capacity to affect far more than just the respiratory tract. Initially, however, it was viewed “very much like a classic respiratory viral infection. As a result, a lot of people were refused testing because they were not showing the classic signs” of respiratory infection, Marrazzo noted.
It’s now clear that the range of symptoms is quite different, she said.
Notably, loss of smell seems to be “very characteristic and very specific to this infection. I can’t think of another common viral infection that causes loss of smell before you start to see other things,” Marrazzo said.
Data also suggest that gastrointestinal symptoms are common with COVID-19. Early data suggest that diarrhea probably occurs in about one third of patients. Some people have reported abdominal pain as the first sign, she said.
“Now that we know about the more wide range of symptoms associated [with COVID-19], we are being much more open to considering people perhaps having this infection. There is a lower index of suspicion and much lower threshold for diagnostic testing,” Marrazzo said, adding that there are still many barriers to testing and getting test results.
Stark Racial Disparities Need Greater Understanding
The second major topic of discussion at the briefing was the growing realization of racial disparities in COVID-19.
“Racial disparities in our country are not new but racial disparities in this disease are pretty stark,” del Rio said. “We live in a country where disparities have really colored a lot of what our diseases are, from HIV to diabetes to hypertension, and it’s not surprising that we are seeing this now with COVID-19.”
Marrazzo noted that, in Alabama, around 20% of the population is African American, yet almost 40% of COVID-19 deaths are occurring in this population. “The most stark statistics are coming out of Illinois and Michigan, where less than around 15% of the population is African American and yet 70% of the deaths are occurring in that group,” she said.
Both del Rio and Marrazzo agreed that understanding the racial differences in COVID-19 deaths is going to require a lot of analysis in the coming months.
Part of it likely reflects the challenge of social distancing in urban areas, Marrazzo said. “Social distancing is a luxury afforded by having a really big space, and space is money.”
The other long-standing challenge of unequal access to healthcare also likely plays a role, she said. This includes missing out on preventive health appointments and screenings, which can translate into more comorbidities, particularly hypertension.
The evolving evidence about the virus, and the stark conditions that frontline clinicians face, make this an especially challenging public health crisis, del Rio said.
“Taking care of these patients is incredibly taxing and my hat is off to physicians, residents, nurses, everybody working on this in the hospitals because they are really doing a yeoman’s work,” he said.
“These are not easy patients to take care of. Not only are [the frontline clinicians] providing care, they are caring for the patient and providing a comfort and someone to listen to when family can’t be present,” del Rio emphasized.
New Guidelines
The IDSA just released new guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.
“We are learning new things every day about this virus. Things are rapidly changing, and as we learn new things we have to adapt and make changes,” del Rio said.
del Rio noted that the guildelines “will evolve and change as more information comes out.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
They also addressed racial disparities surrounding COVID-19, and announced new IDSA guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of the illness.
Regarding the shifting thinking on symptoms and transmission of the novel coronavirus, when it comes to presymptomatic or asymptomatic, “pre” is really the right terminology, Carlos del Rio, MD, professor of medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, said during the briefing, because it’s not that people are asymptomatic but that they develop symptoms later and start transmitting the virus 24 to 48 hours before they develop symptoms.
“Clearly, this plays a role in transmission,” with some studies suggesting that 6% to 12% of transmissions occur during this presymptomatic stage, he explained.
Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, noted that early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the presymptomatic phase “could have been missed because we didn’t realize the wide ranging symptoms this disease has.”
This is turning out to be a “very interesting” virus with “fascinating” symptoms, she told reporters on the call.
The virus seems to have capacity to affect far more than just the respiratory tract. Initially, however, it was viewed “very much like a classic respiratory viral infection. As a result, a lot of people were refused testing because they were not showing the classic signs” of respiratory infection, Marrazzo noted.
It’s now clear that the range of symptoms is quite different, she said.
Notably, loss of smell seems to be “very characteristic and very specific to this infection. I can’t think of another common viral infection that causes loss of smell before you start to see other things,” Marrazzo said.
Data also suggest that gastrointestinal symptoms are common with COVID-19. Early data suggest that diarrhea probably occurs in about one third of patients. Some people have reported abdominal pain as the first sign, she said.
“Now that we know about the more wide range of symptoms associated [with COVID-19], we are being much more open to considering people perhaps having this infection. There is a lower index of suspicion and much lower threshold for diagnostic testing,” Marrazzo said, adding that there are still many barriers to testing and getting test results.
Stark Racial Disparities Need Greater Understanding
The second major topic of discussion at the briefing was the growing realization of racial disparities in COVID-19.
“Racial disparities in our country are not new but racial disparities in this disease are pretty stark,” del Rio said. “We live in a country where disparities have really colored a lot of what our diseases are, from HIV to diabetes to hypertension, and it’s not surprising that we are seeing this now with COVID-19.”
Marrazzo noted that, in Alabama, around 20% of the population is African American, yet almost 40% of COVID-19 deaths are occurring in this population. “The most stark statistics are coming out of Illinois and Michigan, where less than around 15% of the population is African American and yet 70% of the deaths are occurring in that group,” she said.
Both del Rio and Marrazzo agreed that understanding the racial differences in COVID-19 deaths is going to require a lot of analysis in the coming months.
Part of it likely reflects the challenge of social distancing in urban areas, Marrazzo said. “Social distancing is a luxury afforded by having a really big space, and space is money.”
The other long-standing challenge of unequal access to healthcare also likely plays a role, she said. This includes missing out on preventive health appointments and screenings, which can translate into more comorbidities, particularly hypertension.
The evolving evidence about the virus, and the stark conditions that frontline clinicians face, make this an especially challenging public health crisis, del Rio said.
“Taking care of these patients is incredibly taxing and my hat is off to physicians, residents, nurses, everybody working on this in the hospitals because they are really doing a yeoman’s work,” he said.
“These are not easy patients to take care of. Not only are [the frontline clinicians] providing care, they are caring for the patient and providing a comfort and someone to listen to when family can’t be present,” del Rio emphasized.
New Guidelines
The IDSA just released new guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.
“We are learning new things every day about this virus. Things are rapidly changing, and as we learn new things we have to adapt and make changes,” del Rio said.
del Rio noted that the guildelines “will evolve and change as more information comes out.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
They also addressed racial disparities surrounding COVID-19, and announced new IDSA guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of the illness.
Regarding the shifting thinking on symptoms and transmission of the novel coronavirus, when it comes to presymptomatic or asymptomatic, “pre” is really the right terminology, Carlos del Rio, MD, professor of medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, said during the briefing, because it’s not that people are asymptomatic but that they develop symptoms later and start transmitting the virus 24 to 48 hours before they develop symptoms.
“Clearly, this plays a role in transmission,” with some studies suggesting that 6% to 12% of transmissions occur during this presymptomatic stage, he explained.
Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, noted that early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the presymptomatic phase “could have been missed because we didn’t realize the wide ranging symptoms this disease has.”
This is turning out to be a “very interesting” virus with “fascinating” symptoms, she told reporters on the call.
The virus seems to have capacity to affect far more than just the respiratory tract. Initially, however, it was viewed “very much like a classic respiratory viral infection. As a result, a lot of people were refused testing because they were not showing the classic signs” of respiratory infection, Marrazzo noted.
It’s now clear that the range of symptoms is quite different, she said.
Notably, loss of smell seems to be “very characteristic and very specific to this infection. I can’t think of another common viral infection that causes loss of smell before you start to see other things,” Marrazzo said.
Data also suggest that gastrointestinal symptoms are common with COVID-19. Early data suggest that diarrhea probably occurs in about one third of patients. Some people have reported abdominal pain as the first sign, she said.
“Now that we know about the more wide range of symptoms associated [with COVID-19], we are being much more open to considering people perhaps having this infection. There is a lower index of suspicion and much lower threshold for diagnostic testing,” Marrazzo said, adding that there are still many barriers to testing and getting test results.
Stark Racial Disparities Need Greater Understanding
The second major topic of discussion at the briefing was the growing realization of racial disparities in COVID-19.
“Racial disparities in our country are not new but racial disparities in this disease are pretty stark,” del Rio said. “We live in a country where disparities have really colored a lot of what our diseases are, from HIV to diabetes to hypertension, and it’s not surprising that we are seeing this now with COVID-19.”
Marrazzo noted that, in Alabama, around 20% of the population is African American, yet almost 40% of COVID-19 deaths are occurring in this population. “The most stark statistics are coming out of Illinois and Michigan, where less than around 15% of the population is African American and yet 70% of the deaths are occurring in that group,” she said.
Both del Rio and Marrazzo agreed that understanding the racial differences in COVID-19 deaths is going to require a lot of analysis in the coming months.
Part of it likely reflects the challenge of social distancing in urban areas, Marrazzo said. “Social distancing is a luxury afforded by having a really big space, and space is money.”
The other long-standing challenge of unequal access to healthcare also likely plays a role, she said. This includes missing out on preventive health appointments and screenings, which can translate into more comorbidities, particularly hypertension.
The evolving evidence about the virus, and the stark conditions that frontline clinicians face, make this an especially challenging public health crisis, del Rio said.
“Taking care of these patients is incredibly taxing and my hat is off to physicians, residents, nurses, everybody working on this in the hospitals because they are really doing a yeoman’s work,” he said.
“These are not easy patients to take care of. Not only are [the frontline clinicians] providing care, they are caring for the patient and providing a comfort and someone to listen to when family can’t be present,” del Rio emphasized.
New Guidelines
The IDSA just released new guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.
“We are learning new things every day about this virus. Things are rapidly changing, and as we learn new things we have to adapt and make changes,” del Rio said.
del Rio noted that the guildelines “will evolve and change as more information comes out.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NYC hospitals require health care workers to report in person, even for phone and telehealth work
A social worker in New York City was home, caring for his sick son, when the hospital at which he works ordered him to report back to work. His son had COVID-19, yet his hospital told him he had to show up in person.
The social worker’s situation is just one of many NYC Health + Hospitals employees who could work remotely yet are required to report in person. His circumstances were described in a letter sent by Lichten & Bright, a law firm representing the New York City Health Services Employees Union, Local 768.
“Despite the fact that all or virtually all of the work social workers perform can be done remotely, only a handful…are being permitted to work from home,” said the letter, which was written on behalf of about 1000 social workers and 150 medical records specialists and addressed to NYC H+H CEO Mitchell Katz, MD.
Most social workers stopped seeing patients in person in early March. But many still face crowded conditions at several points during their work day. They take public transportation to work, come face-to-face with other health care workers and patients in elevators, and some attend daily meetings with up to 10 employees in conference rooms too small to stay six feet apart, the letter says.
“The social workers are scared to go to work,” said Daniel Bright, the letter’s author. “They’re baffled by the lack of any management response that would allow them to work from home. They are worried about getting exposed to the coronavirus while riding the subway or the bus to work or at work from a doctor or nurse or patient, and getting sick themselves or taking it home to their families.”
There is no good reason that the social workers should be compelled to be physically at work during the COVID-19 pandemic, Bright said. The handful of social workers at NYC H+H’s World Trade Center Environmental Health Center clinic at Bellevue who have been allowed to work from home on an ad hoc basis, he said, have done so successfully.
In response to Bright’s letter, the hospital system issued a statement that seemed to downplay workers’ assessment of the situation, and included the following: “NYC Health + Hospital social workers…play different roles in our system, from acting as front-line providers to navigating safe discharges and helping patients and families with important health care decisions. Depending on the facility, the department, and the role they play, decisions are made by our hospital leaders on whether their critical work could be done remotely.”
Recently, many medical associations have issued statements supporting the rights of health care workers to speak up without fear of repercussion. But NYC H+H social workers have been complying with the orders because they say they’re scared of retaliation: In daily video conference calls, an administrator at one of NYC H+H’s hospitals has shown exasperation when asked about working from home, multiple employees told Medscape Medical News. And other questions, they said, such as whether staff could receive hazard pay, were scoffed at. Instead, the administration mentioned disciplinary action for those who didn’t show up to work.
During Thursday’s call, a recording of which was obtained by Medscape, the CEO of one NYC H+H hospital chastised his employees for taking their concerns to the press.
“People are just taking things and you know, using things for their benefit to be able to create problems for us who are trying to do our jobs,” he said, adding that he refuses to be bullied or blackmailed and that he’ll continue to do what he needs to do as CEO — but he wanted people to know “some of the garbage I have to deal with.”
He also reminded employees of documentation people need to provide if they don’t come in to work for being sick or taking a personal leave so the hospital can verify that “you have a condition that warrants you being out.”
Christopher Miller, a spokesperson for the hospital system, said that “some employees in certain functions may be approved to telecommute.” But employees contacted by Medscape who see all of their clients remotely said their requests to telecommute have not been approved.
At this point, it’s no longer a theoretical problem. COVID-19 appears to have spread among a cluster of people reporting to work in one of the H+H hospitals, employees said. In some cases, employees’ family members also became ill.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A social worker in New York City was home, caring for his sick son, when the hospital at which he works ordered him to report back to work. His son had COVID-19, yet his hospital told him he had to show up in person.
The social worker’s situation is just one of many NYC Health + Hospitals employees who could work remotely yet are required to report in person. His circumstances were described in a letter sent by Lichten & Bright, a law firm representing the New York City Health Services Employees Union, Local 768.
“Despite the fact that all or virtually all of the work social workers perform can be done remotely, only a handful…are being permitted to work from home,” said the letter, which was written on behalf of about 1000 social workers and 150 medical records specialists and addressed to NYC H+H CEO Mitchell Katz, MD.
Most social workers stopped seeing patients in person in early March. But many still face crowded conditions at several points during their work day. They take public transportation to work, come face-to-face with other health care workers and patients in elevators, and some attend daily meetings with up to 10 employees in conference rooms too small to stay six feet apart, the letter says.
“The social workers are scared to go to work,” said Daniel Bright, the letter’s author. “They’re baffled by the lack of any management response that would allow them to work from home. They are worried about getting exposed to the coronavirus while riding the subway or the bus to work or at work from a doctor or nurse or patient, and getting sick themselves or taking it home to their families.”
There is no good reason that the social workers should be compelled to be physically at work during the COVID-19 pandemic, Bright said. The handful of social workers at NYC H+H’s World Trade Center Environmental Health Center clinic at Bellevue who have been allowed to work from home on an ad hoc basis, he said, have done so successfully.
In response to Bright’s letter, the hospital system issued a statement that seemed to downplay workers’ assessment of the situation, and included the following: “NYC Health + Hospital social workers…play different roles in our system, from acting as front-line providers to navigating safe discharges and helping patients and families with important health care decisions. Depending on the facility, the department, and the role they play, decisions are made by our hospital leaders on whether their critical work could be done remotely.”
Recently, many medical associations have issued statements supporting the rights of health care workers to speak up without fear of repercussion. But NYC H+H social workers have been complying with the orders because they say they’re scared of retaliation: In daily video conference calls, an administrator at one of NYC H+H’s hospitals has shown exasperation when asked about working from home, multiple employees told Medscape Medical News. And other questions, they said, such as whether staff could receive hazard pay, were scoffed at. Instead, the administration mentioned disciplinary action for those who didn’t show up to work.
During Thursday’s call, a recording of which was obtained by Medscape, the CEO of one NYC H+H hospital chastised his employees for taking their concerns to the press.
“People are just taking things and you know, using things for their benefit to be able to create problems for us who are trying to do our jobs,” he said, adding that he refuses to be bullied or blackmailed and that he’ll continue to do what he needs to do as CEO — but he wanted people to know “some of the garbage I have to deal with.”
He also reminded employees of documentation people need to provide if they don’t come in to work for being sick or taking a personal leave so the hospital can verify that “you have a condition that warrants you being out.”
Christopher Miller, a spokesperson for the hospital system, said that “some employees in certain functions may be approved to telecommute.” But employees contacted by Medscape who see all of their clients remotely said their requests to telecommute have not been approved.
At this point, it’s no longer a theoretical problem. COVID-19 appears to have spread among a cluster of people reporting to work in one of the H+H hospitals, employees said. In some cases, employees’ family members also became ill.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A social worker in New York City was home, caring for his sick son, when the hospital at which he works ordered him to report back to work. His son had COVID-19, yet his hospital told him he had to show up in person.
The social worker’s situation is just one of many NYC Health + Hospitals employees who could work remotely yet are required to report in person. His circumstances were described in a letter sent by Lichten & Bright, a law firm representing the New York City Health Services Employees Union, Local 768.
“Despite the fact that all or virtually all of the work social workers perform can be done remotely, only a handful…are being permitted to work from home,” said the letter, which was written on behalf of about 1000 social workers and 150 medical records specialists and addressed to NYC H+H CEO Mitchell Katz, MD.
Most social workers stopped seeing patients in person in early March. But many still face crowded conditions at several points during their work day. They take public transportation to work, come face-to-face with other health care workers and patients in elevators, and some attend daily meetings with up to 10 employees in conference rooms too small to stay six feet apart, the letter says.
“The social workers are scared to go to work,” said Daniel Bright, the letter’s author. “They’re baffled by the lack of any management response that would allow them to work from home. They are worried about getting exposed to the coronavirus while riding the subway or the bus to work or at work from a doctor or nurse or patient, and getting sick themselves or taking it home to their families.”
There is no good reason that the social workers should be compelled to be physically at work during the COVID-19 pandemic, Bright said. The handful of social workers at NYC H+H’s World Trade Center Environmental Health Center clinic at Bellevue who have been allowed to work from home on an ad hoc basis, he said, have done so successfully.
In response to Bright’s letter, the hospital system issued a statement that seemed to downplay workers’ assessment of the situation, and included the following: “NYC Health + Hospital social workers…play different roles in our system, from acting as front-line providers to navigating safe discharges and helping patients and families with important health care decisions. Depending on the facility, the department, and the role they play, decisions are made by our hospital leaders on whether their critical work could be done remotely.”
Recently, many medical associations have issued statements supporting the rights of health care workers to speak up without fear of repercussion. But NYC H+H social workers have been complying with the orders because they say they’re scared of retaliation: In daily video conference calls, an administrator at one of NYC H+H’s hospitals has shown exasperation when asked about working from home, multiple employees told Medscape Medical News. And other questions, they said, such as whether staff could receive hazard pay, were scoffed at. Instead, the administration mentioned disciplinary action for those who didn’t show up to work.
During Thursday’s call, a recording of which was obtained by Medscape, the CEO of one NYC H+H hospital chastised his employees for taking their concerns to the press.
“People are just taking things and you know, using things for their benefit to be able to create problems for us who are trying to do our jobs,” he said, adding that he refuses to be bullied or blackmailed and that he’ll continue to do what he needs to do as CEO — but he wanted people to know “some of the garbage I have to deal with.”
He also reminded employees of documentation people need to provide if they don’t come in to work for being sick or taking a personal leave so the hospital can verify that “you have a condition that warrants you being out.”
Christopher Miller, a spokesperson for the hospital system, said that “some employees in certain functions may be approved to telecommute.” But employees contacted by Medscape who see all of their clients remotely said their requests to telecommute have not been approved.
At this point, it’s no longer a theoretical problem. COVID-19 appears to have spread among a cluster of people reporting to work in one of the H+H hospitals, employees said. In some cases, employees’ family members also became ill.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doing things right vs. doing the right things
A framework for a COVID-19 Person Under Investigation unit
The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic shocked the world with its rapid spread despite stringent containment efforts, and it continues to wreak havoc. The surrounding uncertainty due to the novelty of this virus has prompted significant investigation to determine proper containment, treatment, and eradication efforts.1,2 In addition, health care facilities are facing surge capacity issues and a shortage of resources resulting in lower quality care for patients and putting health care workers (HCWs) at risk for infection.3,4
While there is a lot of emerging clinical and basic science research in this area, there has been inconsistent guidance in regard to the containment and prevention of spread in health care systems. An initiative to minimize HCW exposure risk and to provide the highest quality care to patients was implemented by the Section of Hospital Medicine at our large academic medical center. We used a hospital medicine medical-surgical unit and converted it into a Person Under Investigation (PUI) unit for patients suspected of COVID-19.
Unit goals
- Deliver dedicated, comprehensive, and high-quality care to our PUI patients suspected of COVID-19.
- Minimize cross contamination with healthy patients on other hospital units.
- Provide clear and direct communications with our HCWs.
- Educate HCWs on optimal donning and doffing techniques.
- Minimize our HCW exposure risk.
- Efficiently use our personal protective equipment (PPE) supply.
Unit and team characteristics
We used a preexisting 24-bed hospital medicine medical-surgical unit with a dyad rounding model of an attending physician and advanced practice provider (APP). Other team members include a designated care coordinator (social worker/case manager), pharmacist, respiratory therapist, physical/occupational therapist, speech language pathologist, unit medical director, and nurse manager. A daily multidisciplinary huddle with all the team members was held to discuss the care of the PUI patients.
Administrative leadership
A COVID-19 task force composed of the medical director of clinical operations from the Section of Hospital Medicine, infectious disease, infection prevention, and several other important stakeholders conducted a daily conference call. This call allowed for the dissemination of information, including any treatment updates based on literature review or care processes. This information was then relayed to the HCWs following the meeting through the PUI unit medical director and nurse manager, who also facilitated feedback from the HCWs to the COVID-19 task force during the daily conference call. (See Figure 1.)
Patient flow
Hospital medicine was designated as the default service for all PUI patients suspected of COVID-19 and confirmed COVID-19 cases requiring hospitalization. These patients were admitted to this PUI unit directly from the emergency department (ED), or as transfers from outside institutions with assistance from our patient placement specialist team. Those patients admitted from our ED were tested for COVID-19 prior to arriving on the unit. Other suspected COVID-19 patients arriving as transfers from outside institutions were screened by the patient placement specialist team asking the following questions about the patient:
- “Has the patient had a fever or cough and been in contact with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patient?”
- “Has the patient had a fever and cough?”
If the answer to either screening question was “yes,” then the patient was accepted to the PUI unit and tested upon arrival. Lastly, patients who were found to be COVID-19 positive at the outside institution, but who required transfer for other clinical reasons, were placed on this PUI unit as well.
Mechanisms to efficiently utilize PPE and mitigate HCW exposure risk
Our objectives are reducing the number of HCWs encountering PUI patients, reducing the number of encounters the HCWs have with PUI patients, and reducing the amount of time HCWs spent with PUI patients.
First, we maintained a log outside each patient’s room to track the details of staff encounters. Second, there was only one medical provider (either the attending physician or APP) assigned to each patient to limit personnel exposure. Third, we removed all learners (e.g. residents and students) from this unit. Fourth, we limited the number of entries into patient rooms to only critical staff directly involved in patient care (e.g. dietary and other ancillary staff were not allowed to enter the rooms) and provided updates to the patients by calling into the rooms. In addition, care coordination, pharmacy, and other staff members also utilized the same approach of calling into the room to speak with the patient regarding updates to minimize the duration of time spent in the room. Furthermore, our medical providers – with the help of the pharmacist and nursing – timed a patient’s medications to help reduce the number of entries into the room.
The medical providers also eliminated any unnecessary blood draws, imaging, and other procedures to minimize the number of encounters our HCWs had with the PUI. Lastly, the medical providers also avoided using any nebulizer treatments and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to reduce any aerosol transmission of the virus. These measures not only helped to minimize our HCWs exposures, but also helped with the preservation of PPE.
Other efforts involved collaboration with infection prevention. They assisted with the training of our HCWs on proper PPE donning and doffing skills. This included watching a video and having an infection prevention specialist guide the HCWs throughout the entire process. We felt this was vital given the high amount of active failures with PPE use (up to 87%) reported in the literature.5 Furthermore, to ensure adequate mastery of these skills, infection prevention performed daily direct observation checks and provided real-time feedback to our HCWs.
Other things to consider for your PUI unit
There are several ideas that were not implemented in our PUI unit, but something to consider for your PUI unit, including:
- The use of elongated intravenous (IV) tubing, such that the IV poles and pumps were stationed outside the patient’s room, would be useful in reducing the amount of PPE required as well as HCW exposure to the patient.
- Having designated chest radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging scanners for these PUI patients to help minimize contamination with our non-PUI patients and to standardize the cleaning process.
- Supply our HCWs with designated scrubs at the beginning of their shifts, such that they can discard them at the end of their shifts for decontamination/sterilization purposes. This would help reduce HCWs fear of potentially exposing their families at home.
- Supply our HCWs with a designated place to stay, such as a hotel or other living quarters, to reduce HCWs fear of potentially exposing their families at home.
- Although we encouraged providers and staff to utilize designated phones to conduct patient history and review of systems information-gathering, to decrease the time spent in the room, the availability of more sophisticated audiovisual equipment could also improve the quality of the interview.
Conclusions
The increasing incidence in suspected COVID-19 patients has led to significant strain on health care systems of the world along with the associated economic and social crisis. Some health care facilities are facing surge capacity issues and inadequate resources, while others are facing a humanitarian crisis. Overall, we are all being affected by this pandemic, but are most concerned about its effects on our HCWs and our patients.
To address the concerns of low-quality care to our patients and anxiety levels among HCWs, we created this dedicated PUI unit in an effort to provide high-quality care for these suspected (and confirmed) COVID-19 patients and to maintain clear direct and constant communication with our HCWs.
Dr. Sunkara ([email protected]) is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C. He is the medical director for Hospital Medicine Units and the newly established PUI Unit, and is the corresponding author for this article. Dr. Lippert ([email protected]) is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Morris ([email protected]) is a PGY-3 internal medicine resident at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Huang ([email protected]) is associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine.
References
1. Food and Drug Administration. Recommendations for investigational COVID-19 convalescent plasma. 2020 Apr 8.
2. Fauci AS et al. Covid-19 – Navigating the uncharted. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2002387. 3. Emanuel EJ et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114.
4. Li Ran et al. Risk factors of healthcare workers with corona virus disease 2019: A retrospective cohort study in a designated hospital of Wuhan in China. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 17. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa287.
5. Krein SL et al. Identification and characterization of failures in infectious agent transmission precaution practices in hospitals: A qualitative study. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(8):1016-57. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1898.
A framework for a COVID-19 Person Under Investigation unit
A framework for a COVID-19 Person Under Investigation unit
The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic shocked the world with its rapid spread despite stringent containment efforts, and it continues to wreak havoc. The surrounding uncertainty due to the novelty of this virus has prompted significant investigation to determine proper containment, treatment, and eradication efforts.1,2 In addition, health care facilities are facing surge capacity issues and a shortage of resources resulting in lower quality care for patients and putting health care workers (HCWs) at risk for infection.3,4
While there is a lot of emerging clinical and basic science research in this area, there has been inconsistent guidance in regard to the containment and prevention of spread in health care systems. An initiative to minimize HCW exposure risk and to provide the highest quality care to patients was implemented by the Section of Hospital Medicine at our large academic medical center. We used a hospital medicine medical-surgical unit and converted it into a Person Under Investigation (PUI) unit for patients suspected of COVID-19.
Unit goals
- Deliver dedicated, comprehensive, and high-quality care to our PUI patients suspected of COVID-19.
- Minimize cross contamination with healthy patients on other hospital units.
- Provide clear and direct communications with our HCWs.
- Educate HCWs on optimal donning and doffing techniques.
- Minimize our HCW exposure risk.
- Efficiently use our personal protective equipment (PPE) supply.
Unit and team characteristics
We used a preexisting 24-bed hospital medicine medical-surgical unit with a dyad rounding model of an attending physician and advanced practice provider (APP). Other team members include a designated care coordinator (social worker/case manager), pharmacist, respiratory therapist, physical/occupational therapist, speech language pathologist, unit medical director, and nurse manager. A daily multidisciplinary huddle with all the team members was held to discuss the care of the PUI patients.
Administrative leadership
A COVID-19 task force composed of the medical director of clinical operations from the Section of Hospital Medicine, infectious disease, infection prevention, and several other important stakeholders conducted a daily conference call. This call allowed for the dissemination of information, including any treatment updates based on literature review or care processes. This information was then relayed to the HCWs following the meeting through the PUI unit medical director and nurse manager, who also facilitated feedback from the HCWs to the COVID-19 task force during the daily conference call. (See Figure 1.)
Patient flow
Hospital medicine was designated as the default service for all PUI patients suspected of COVID-19 and confirmed COVID-19 cases requiring hospitalization. These patients were admitted to this PUI unit directly from the emergency department (ED), or as transfers from outside institutions with assistance from our patient placement specialist team. Those patients admitted from our ED were tested for COVID-19 prior to arriving on the unit. Other suspected COVID-19 patients arriving as transfers from outside institutions were screened by the patient placement specialist team asking the following questions about the patient:
- “Has the patient had a fever or cough and been in contact with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patient?”
- “Has the patient had a fever and cough?”
If the answer to either screening question was “yes,” then the patient was accepted to the PUI unit and tested upon arrival. Lastly, patients who were found to be COVID-19 positive at the outside institution, but who required transfer for other clinical reasons, were placed on this PUI unit as well.
Mechanisms to efficiently utilize PPE and mitigate HCW exposure risk
Our objectives are reducing the number of HCWs encountering PUI patients, reducing the number of encounters the HCWs have with PUI patients, and reducing the amount of time HCWs spent with PUI patients.
First, we maintained a log outside each patient’s room to track the details of staff encounters. Second, there was only one medical provider (either the attending physician or APP) assigned to each patient to limit personnel exposure. Third, we removed all learners (e.g. residents and students) from this unit. Fourth, we limited the number of entries into patient rooms to only critical staff directly involved in patient care (e.g. dietary and other ancillary staff were not allowed to enter the rooms) and provided updates to the patients by calling into the rooms. In addition, care coordination, pharmacy, and other staff members also utilized the same approach of calling into the room to speak with the patient regarding updates to minimize the duration of time spent in the room. Furthermore, our medical providers – with the help of the pharmacist and nursing – timed a patient’s medications to help reduce the number of entries into the room.
The medical providers also eliminated any unnecessary blood draws, imaging, and other procedures to minimize the number of encounters our HCWs had with the PUI. Lastly, the medical providers also avoided using any nebulizer treatments and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to reduce any aerosol transmission of the virus. These measures not only helped to minimize our HCWs exposures, but also helped with the preservation of PPE.
Other efforts involved collaboration with infection prevention. They assisted with the training of our HCWs on proper PPE donning and doffing skills. This included watching a video and having an infection prevention specialist guide the HCWs throughout the entire process. We felt this was vital given the high amount of active failures with PPE use (up to 87%) reported in the literature.5 Furthermore, to ensure adequate mastery of these skills, infection prevention performed daily direct observation checks and provided real-time feedback to our HCWs.
Other things to consider for your PUI unit
There are several ideas that were not implemented in our PUI unit, but something to consider for your PUI unit, including:
- The use of elongated intravenous (IV) tubing, such that the IV poles and pumps were stationed outside the patient’s room, would be useful in reducing the amount of PPE required as well as HCW exposure to the patient.
- Having designated chest radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging scanners for these PUI patients to help minimize contamination with our non-PUI patients and to standardize the cleaning process.
- Supply our HCWs with designated scrubs at the beginning of their shifts, such that they can discard them at the end of their shifts for decontamination/sterilization purposes. This would help reduce HCWs fear of potentially exposing their families at home.
- Supply our HCWs with a designated place to stay, such as a hotel or other living quarters, to reduce HCWs fear of potentially exposing their families at home.
- Although we encouraged providers and staff to utilize designated phones to conduct patient history and review of systems information-gathering, to decrease the time spent in the room, the availability of more sophisticated audiovisual equipment could also improve the quality of the interview.
Conclusions
The increasing incidence in suspected COVID-19 patients has led to significant strain on health care systems of the world along with the associated economic and social crisis. Some health care facilities are facing surge capacity issues and inadequate resources, while others are facing a humanitarian crisis. Overall, we are all being affected by this pandemic, but are most concerned about its effects on our HCWs and our patients.
To address the concerns of low-quality care to our patients and anxiety levels among HCWs, we created this dedicated PUI unit in an effort to provide high-quality care for these suspected (and confirmed) COVID-19 patients and to maintain clear direct and constant communication with our HCWs.
Dr. Sunkara ([email protected]) is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C. He is the medical director for Hospital Medicine Units and the newly established PUI Unit, and is the corresponding author for this article. Dr. Lippert ([email protected]) is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Morris ([email protected]) is a PGY-3 internal medicine resident at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Huang ([email protected]) is associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine.
References
1. Food and Drug Administration. Recommendations for investigational COVID-19 convalescent plasma. 2020 Apr 8.
2. Fauci AS et al. Covid-19 – Navigating the uncharted. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2002387. 3. Emanuel EJ et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114.
4. Li Ran et al. Risk factors of healthcare workers with corona virus disease 2019: A retrospective cohort study in a designated hospital of Wuhan in China. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 17. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa287.
5. Krein SL et al. Identification and characterization of failures in infectious agent transmission precaution practices in hospitals: A qualitative study. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(8):1016-57. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1898.
The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic shocked the world with its rapid spread despite stringent containment efforts, and it continues to wreak havoc. The surrounding uncertainty due to the novelty of this virus has prompted significant investigation to determine proper containment, treatment, and eradication efforts.1,2 In addition, health care facilities are facing surge capacity issues and a shortage of resources resulting in lower quality care for patients and putting health care workers (HCWs) at risk for infection.3,4
While there is a lot of emerging clinical and basic science research in this area, there has been inconsistent guidance in regard to the containment and prevention of spread in health care systems. An initiative to minimize HCW exposure risk and to provide the highest quality care to patients was implemented by the Section of Hospital Medicine at our large academic medical center. We used a hospital medicine medical-surgical unit and converted it into a Person Under Investigation (PUI) unit for patients suspected of COVID-19.
Unit goals
- Deliver dedicated, comprehensive, and high-quality care to our PUI patients suspected of COVID-19.
- Minimize cross contamination with healthy patients on other hospital units.
- Provide clear and direct communications with our HCWs.
- Educate HCWs on optimal donning and doffing techniques.
- Minimize our HCW exposure risk.
- Efficiently use our personal protective equipment (PPE) supply.
Unit and team characteristics
We used a preexisting 24-bed hospital medicine medical-surgical unit with a dyad rounding model of an attending physician and advanced practice provider (APP). Other team members include a designated care coordinator (social worker/case manager), pharmacist, respiratory therapist, physical/occupational therapist, speech language pathologist, unit medical director, and nurse manager. A daily multidisciplinary huddle with all the team members was held to discuss the care of the PUI patients.
Administrative leadership
A COVID-19 task force composed of the medical director of clinical operations from the Section of Hospital Medicine, infectious disease, infection prevention, and several other important stakeholders conducted a daily conference call. This call allowed for the dissemination of information, including any treatment updates based on literature review or care processes. This information was then relayed to the HCWs following the meeting through the PUI unit medical director and nurse manager, who also facilitated feedback from the HCWs to the COVID-19 task force during the daily conference call. (See Figure 1.)
Patient flow
Hospital medicine was designated as the default service for all PUI patients suspected of COVID-19 and confirmed COVID-19 cases requiring hospitalization. These patients were admitted to this PUI unit directly from the emergency department (ED), or as transfers from outside institutions with assistance from our patient placement specialist team. Those patients admitted from our ED were tested for COVID-19 prior to arriving on the unit. Other suspected COVID-19 patients arriving as transfers from outside institutions were screened by the patient placement specialist team asking the following questions about the patient:
- “Has the patient had a fever or cough and been in contact with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patient?”
- “Has the patient had a fever and cough?”
If the answer to either screening question was “yes,” then the patient was accepted to the PUI unit and tested upon arrival. Lastly, patients who were found to be COVID-19 positive at the outside institution, but who required transfer for other clinical reasons, were placed on this PUI unit as well.
Mechanisms to efficiently utilize PPE and mitigate HCW exposure risk
Our objectives are reducing the number of HCWs encountering PUI patients, reducing the number of encounters the HCWs have with PUI patients, and reducing the amount of time HCWs spent with PUI patients.
First, we maintained a log outside each patient’s room to track the details of staff encounters. Second, there was only one medical provider (either the attending physician or APP) assigned to each patient to limit personnel exposure. Third, we removed all learners (e.g. residents and students) from this unit. Fourth, we limited the number of entries into patient rooms to only critical staff directly involved in patient care (e.g. dietary and other ancillary staff were not allowed to enter the rooms) and provided updates to the patients by calling into the rooms. In addition, care coordination, pharmacy, and other staff members also utilized the same approach of calling into the room to speak with the patient regarding updates to minimize the duration of time spent in the room. Furthermore, our medical providers – with the help of the pharmacist and nursing – timed a patient’s medications to help reduce the number of entries into the room.
The medical providers also eliminated any unnecessary blood draws, imaging, and other procedures to minimize the number of encounters our HCWs had with the PUI. Lastly, the medical providers also avoided using any nebulizer treatments and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to reduce any aerosol transmission of the virus. These measures not only helped to minimize our HCWs exposures, but also helped with the preservation of PPE.
Other efforts involved collaboration with infection prevention. They assisted with the training of our HCWs on proper PPE donning and doffing skills. This included watching a video and having an infection prevention specialist guide the HCWs throughout the entire process. We felt this was vital given the high amount of active failures with PPE use (up to 87%) reported in the literature.5 Furthermore, to ensure adequate mastery of these skills, infection prevention performed daily direct observation checks and provided real-time feedback to our HCWs.
Other things to consider for your PUI unit
There are several ideas that were not implemented in our PUI unit, but something to consider for your PUI unit, including:
- The use of elongated intravenous (IV) tubing, such that the IV poles and pumps were stationed outside the patient’s room, would be useful in reducing the amount of PPE required as well as HCW exposure to the patient.
- Having designated chest radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging scanners for these PUI patients to help minimize contamination with our non-PUI patients and to standardize the cleaning process.
- Supply our HCWs with designated scrubs at the beginning of their shifts, such that they can discard them at the end of their shifts for decontamination/sterilization purposes. This would help reduce HCWs fear of potentially exposing their families at home.
- Supply our HCWs with a designated place to stay, such as a hotel or other living quarters, to reduce HCWs fear of potentially exposing their families at home.
- Although we encouraged providers and staff to utilize designated phones to conduct patient history and review of systems information-gathering, to decrease the time spent in the room, the availability of more sophisticated audiovisual equipment could also improve the quality of the interview.
Conclusions
The increasing incidence in suspected COVID-19 patients has led to significant strain on health care systems of the world along with the associated economic and social crisis. Some health care facilities are facing surge capacity issues and inadequate resources, while others are facing a humanitarian crisis. Overall, we are all being affected by this pandemic, but are most concerned about its effects on our HCWs and our patients.
To address the concerns of low-quality care to our patients and anxiety levels among HCWs, we created this dedicated PUI unit in an effort to provide high-quality care for these suspected (and confirmed) COVID-19 patients and to maintain clear direct and constant communication with our HCWs.
Dr. Sunkara ([email protected]) is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C. He is the medical director for Hospital Medicine Units and the newly established PUI Unit, and is the corresponding author for this article. Dr. Lippert ([email protected]) is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Morris ([email protected]) is a PGY-3 internal medicine resident at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Huang ([email protected]) is associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine.
References
1. Food and Drug Administration. Recommendations for investigational COVID-19 convalescent plasma. 2020 Apr 8.
2. Fauci AS et al. Covid-19 – Navigating the uncharted. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2002387. 3. Emanuel EJ et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114.
4. Li Ran et al. Risk factors of healthcare workers with corona virus disease 2019: A retrospective cohort study in a designated hospital of Wuhan in China. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 17. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa287.
5. Krein SL et al. Identification and characterization of failures in infectious agent transmission precaution practices in hospitals: A qualitative study. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(8):1016-57. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.1898.
Coronavirus tests are being fast-tracked by the FDA, but it’s unclear how accurate they are
Kendra Boroff believes she contracted the coronavirus on her 71st birthday, Feb. 20, when her family went out for a celebratory dinner, perhaps from their waiter, who was coughing into his elbow. Four days later, she developed a fever and a raging sore throat.
“You feel like you’re suffocating,” recalled Boroff, a real estate agent in Maineville, Ohio. “You cough and breathe with the top fourth or maybe less of your chest, because everything else is in a vise.”
Over the course of the next 3 weeks, as Boroff started getting chills and nausea, a series of doctors would suggest that it could be the common cold, bronchitis or pneumonia. She tested negative for the flu, and her chest x-rays showed signs of lung damage, including white patches called “ground-glass opacities” that are common in COVID-19 cases. By March 7, she was pretty sure it was COVID-19, but she couldn’t get a test until she arrived at the emergency room at the University of Cincinnati Health Center on March 19. She had a 103 degree fever and her oxygen levels were plummeting, so the doctors admitted her immediately.
Nearly a week later, as Boroff’s condition was stabilizing, the test results came back: negative.
Boroff was flummoxed, but her physician was clear that she had the virus, no matter what her test said.
“ ‘This is my diagnosis,’ ” she recalled him saying. “ ‘There is no other explanation.’ ”
Tests turning up negative even when all signs point to COVID-19 has been a common experience in American hospitals over the past month, public health experts have told ProPublica. It’s unclear what proportion of these negative results are inaccurate – known as “false negatives” – and whether that’s due to some external factor, like bad sample collection, or because of an issue inherent in the tests’ design.
Neither the major test manufacturers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would say how common false negatives are. While the FDA requires test makers to report any known instances of false negatives as a condition of granting them provisional approval, known as emergency use authorizations, no such reports are visible in a database the agency maintains for that purpose.
Without much data on how COVID-19 tests are performing in the real world, concerns are mounting that a lack of accurate testing will make it more difficult for America to relax social distancing, as the ability to track and trace new infections will be critical for any strategy to reopen the country.
Those warnings have reached Capitol Hill, where Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett had heard from a doctor in his district about the accuracy of the tests. On Thursday, he and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut sent a letter to the FDA demanding more data about the prevalence of false negatives in both the diagnostic tests currently in widespread use, as well as inaccuracies in the coming wave of rapid blood tests that detect immunity once the infection has passed.
“I’m very concerned about it,” Doggett told ProPublica. Too many false results, he worries, could lead to a new surge of infections when people go back to work or are allowed to gather in bars, sports arenas, and restaurants. “They have to monitor this very closely to ensure that we’re not creating false expectations, and in the process ending up with an epidemic that is even worse than the one we have now.”
Lowering the bar in an emergency
In the early days of the pandemic, the FDA, which regulates diagnostic tests, was criticized for not moving quickly enough to make testing widely available. For much of February, the only available test was the CDC’s, which initially had flaws when it was sent out to public health labs. Only on Feb. 29 did the FDA announce a new policy that made it easier for private labs and academic medical centers to make tests available as well.
Since then, the ongoing need for even more testing capacity across the United States has pushed the agency to loosen its typical requirements for manufacturers to prove that their tests are accurate before allowing them onto the market.
Normally, to get FDA approval, diagnostic makers need to run trials to gather evidence on their tests’ performance, a process that can take months or even years. The agency is currently skipping a lot of those steps by issuing emergency use authorizations.
Manufacturers are now required to run their COVID-19 tests on a minimum of 30 positive samples and 30 negative samples. They must demonstrate to the agency that the test has at least a 95% sensitivity, meaning it must correctly identify at least 95% of the positive samples as having the coronavirus, and 100% specificity, meaning that it must accurately identify all the negative samples as not having the coronavirus.
But the manufacturers are demonstrating their diagnostics’ performance with what’s known as “contrived samples,” which are not taken from actual patients. A contrived sample is made by taking coronavirus RNA made in a lab and putting it into a medium that mimics nasal mucus.
“This is supposed to represent a swab specimen, but it’s not a positive sample from a real patient, and that does make a real difference,” said Benjamin Pinsky, medical director of the Clinical Virology Laboratory for Stanford Health Care.
It’s not clear if the concentrations of virus on the simulated samples are representative of the full range of material taken from patients’ bodies in the real world. Pinksy says that it’s reasonable for the FDA to allow the use of contrived samples, because it makes it much faster for a manufacturer to run validation studies, and the need for speed has been pressing.
“But then we need to have studies to compare these assays and see how they perform with real-world samples, and whether some are more or less sensitive and whether some are more or less specific,” Pinsky said. “We don’t know the answer to these questions at this point.”
To compensate for the lower standard up front, experts say the FDA should track data on accuracy to make sure the tests are performing as expected, but this is easier said than done.
“In diagnostic tests in particular, it’s very difficult to know if something is failing,” said Alberto Gutierrez, former director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health. “When are you getting more erroneous results than you should? It’s not always easy to figure out.”
Swiss manufacturer Roche, whose test was authorized by the FDA on March 12, told ProPublica it couldn’t give specific numbers about its test’s actual rate of false negatives and false positives, though it said studies have demonstrated its test could detect very low levels of the coronavirus.
“Clinical studies, which take months to run and would be part of a regular (nonemergency) test approval process, are needed to give us an exact percentage of false negatives and false positives,” Roche spokesman Mike Weist wrote in an email. “We will continue to work with the FDA on ongoing studies post-EUA that will allow us to potentially say more in the future.”
Abbott, which makes a rapid COVID-19 test, also said that “performance characteristics, including accuracy data, will continue to be collected in the field.”
Abbott and the testing firms LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics all told ProPublica that tests should be used by physicians along with other information to form a diagnosis.
Even good tests can give inaccurate results
Clinicians and researchers said that a number of factors could cause inaccurate results on COVID-19 tests, and many of them have nothing to do with the test’s design.
For starters, the timing of when a patient receives the test matters. “If you’re far out from the initial exposure, the more days you are after onset, viral load goes down,” explained Stanford’s Pinsky. Viral load refers to the amount of virus that is being emitted from an infected person’s cells, and if that drops too low, even a person who still has an active infection may test negative.
Another issue is where the virus is in a person’s body. As the disease progresses, scientists think the virus tends to move down into a patient’s lungs, so the window of time when a nose swab will return a positive result may be limited.
“One of the issues with this stupid virus is that, if it’s down in your lungs, and we’re putting a swab up your nose, that’s not the best way to measure what’s in your lungs,” said Alex Greninger, assistant director of the clinical virology lab at the University of Washington Medical Center.
While it is possible to stick a scope down a patient’s airway to collect a sample from the bottom of the lungs, this is a much more complex procedure that requires sedating the patient. Technicians can ask a patient to cough up phlegm, known as sputum, but doing so substantially raises the risk of infecting health care workers. Even with a nasopharyngeal sample collected with a nose swab, one needs to collect it properly, which involves sticking the swab quite far up a patient’s nose.
Daniel Brook, a freelance journalist and historian in New Orleans, says he thinks his test result may have been a false negative because he was incorrectly swabbed.
During Mardi Gras, he hung out with a friend who was visiting from Manhattan. A few days later, as he started to get night sweats and chills, Brook’s friend texted to say that he had tested positive for COVID-19. Brook has asthma, so when he started to have trouble breathing, he went to an urgent care center, which said it didn’t have enough tests to give him one.
Four days later, as Brook found himself even more winded going up stairs, he and his girlfriend, who also had symptoms, received a letter from an emergency room doctor that would get them a test at a drive-through center. They first were tested for the flu and then finally for COVID-19.
“This flu test was way the hell in there. It was almost like you ate too much hot pepper,” Brook said. “And then we had this COVID test, and it was barely in the nose at all, which may be one of the issues.” Nine days later, they received their results: Both were negative.
Brook was confused. He had been trying to tell all of the people he had been in contact with, like his barber, that they might have been exposed, and he shared the good news with many of them. But his doctor told him that clinically, he had all the symptoms of COVID-19, and that his diagnosis would not change based on his test result.
Even if the sample is taken correctly, mishandling of the swab can also invalidate the result. RNA is similar to DNA but due to chemical differences is a much more fragile material and degrades more readily. This coronavirus is an RNA virus, essentially a string of RNA encased in a membrane “envelope.”
Abbott, one of the test makers, said that it recommends that samples be kept for no more than 8 hours at about 60-85 degrees Fahrenheit, or refrigerated for 72 hours. “People should make sure it is tested in a timely fashion,” Abbott said in its statement to ProPublica.
None of this bodes well for the numerous labs that have reported backlogs of tens of thousands of samples that are waiting to be tested.
A technician at an academic laboratory, who asked for anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of his university, described seeing basic mishandling of samples that is probably ruining dozens of patients’ test results.
“I don’t know why, but with COVID, we’ve just been awash with problems,” he told ProPublica. “Even simple things like caps not screwed on tightly – we’ll get a bag of samples, and two or three of them will be leaking, so you have this media completely soaking the inside of the bag. If one of those leaking samples is positive, you’ll have droplets all over the bag.”
Those samples, the technician said, often can’t be processed at all. His experience isn’t unique: In Alabama in late March, hundreds of samples were ruined in transit to a lab in Montgomery.
The dangers of inaccuracy
In the absence of data, physicians and public health officials are left to guess how many false negatives may be occurring – which could have serious consequences both for individuals and for combating the spread of the disease.
“You want to be right every time, because you miss somebody, and tell them that they’re negative, then you’re infecting people,” said Gutierrez, the former FDA official. “Let’s say you consider Amazon essential, and at the warehouse they’re testing people, even if they miss 1 or 5 people out of 100, that can be problematic.”
In addition, false negatives can make it more difficult to track spread of the virus, since those patients are not reported as confirmed cases and people who die without a positive test result won’t be counted in COVID-19 mortality statistics.
False positives also present problems. If you mistakenly think a patient has COVID-19, “then you have the potential to clog up the health care system and waste personal protective equipment and the time and effort of health care workers who think they are caring for individuals with COVID-19,” Stanford’s Pinsky said. “In addition, you’re producing a lot of anxiety for the patient.”
Pinsky says he hopes that real-world data will be gathered on the tests’ performance, especially as more and more come on the market: “If physicians have this information, they could move on to a different, better performing test and use that instead.”
Dr. Yukari Manabe, associate director of Global Health Research and Innovation at Johns Hopkins Medicine, estimates that 10%-25% of test results are false negatives. That’s not based on any data, she cautions, since hard evidence isn’t available. But she has been noticing many patients in the Hopkins system being tested more than once, when the first result doesn’t match their clinical symptoms.
Like others, Manabe acknowledges that the FDA has needed to greenlight tests quickly in order to get them out into the public. But she laments that companies weren’t encouraged to develop diagnostics earlier, which might have allowed the agency to keep the bar for approval higher, and also churn out more tests sooner.
“If people had seen the writing on the wall back in December, someone should’ve paid these companies what they needed to develop these tests on platforms that could’ve been rapidly ramped up to millions of tests,” Manabe said.
Instead, a test shortage caused doctors to limit tests to only the sickest patients, at a time when the virus had probably moved out of the back of the nasal cavity and into their lungs. A larger supply would have allowed for testing more people as soon as they started showing symptoms. That would have resulted in a lower rate of false negatives, Manabe said, since nose swabs are more likely to detect the virus soon after it’s been contracted.
The next wave of tests may be even less accurate
The questions swirling around the accuracy of the COVID-19 diagnostic tests are likely to persist as the next set of tests – antibody blood tests – start hitting the market. Already, the FDA has authorized the first of these tests, which search for molecules in a patient’s blood that can indicate if the immune system did battle with the coronavirus. Unlike the swab-based tests, which look for the viral RNA that indicate active infection, antibody tests are used to seek evidence of a past encounter with the virus.
Antibody tests are already seen as a critical tool in lifting lock-down measures, because they could potentially be used to figure out who has immunity to the coronavirus. In this case, false positives would be the greater concern, because it could be dangerous to tell someone that they have antibodies and are safe to go back to work when that is a false signal.
There are issues that need to be figured out before rushing to rely on these tests, Stanford’s Pinsky warned. What level of antibodies are needed to mean that someone is protected? And if you are protected, how long are you protected? The answers to these basic questions are still unknown, he said. This week, the World Health Organization put out guidance recommending against using antibody tests for clinical decision making.
The FDA, meanwhile, is lowering the bar even further. On March 16, it issued new guidance allowing manufacturers to distribute tests even before receiving emergency use authorization, for a “reasonable period of time” – about 15 days – after a diagnostic maker had validated the test internally and while preparing its request to the agency for an EUA.
Local governments are desperate enough for tests that they’ll buy them without assurances of accuracy at all. Chicago recently ordered 11,000 antibody tests made in South Korea that had not been reviewed by the FDA but are legal to distribute as long as they include several disclaimers including a recommendation that any negative result be confirmed with a diagnostic test.
“There’s no time really to put the effort into saying, ’Where’s the problem here?’ ” said Catherine Troisi, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center. “I’m not saying the test is bad. But what good is a test if you don’t know it’s giving you reliable results? We just don’t know.”
Correction, April 10, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that Kendra Boroff was admitted to an intensive care unit.
This article was first published on ProPublica.com.
Kendra Boroff believes she contracted the coronavirus on her 71st birthday, Feb. 20, when her family went out for a celebratory dinner, perhaps from their waiter, who was coughing into his elbow. Four days later, she developed a fever and a raging sore throat.
“You feel like you’re suffocating,” recalled Boroff, a real estate agent in Maineville, Ohio. “You cough and breathe with the top fourth or maybe less of your chest, because everything else is in a vise.”
Over the course of the next 3 weeks, as Boroff started getting chills and nausea, a series of doctors would suggest that it could be the common cold, bronchitis or pneumonia. She tested negative for the flu, and her chest x-rays showed signs of lung damage, including white patches called “ground-glass opacities” that are common in COVID-19 cases. By March 7, she was pretty sure it was COVID-19, but she couldn’t get a test until she arrived at the emergency room at the University of Cincinnati Health Center on March 19. She had a 103 degree fever and her oxygen levels were plummeting, so the doctors admitted her immediately.
Nearly a week later, as Boroff’s condition was stabilizing, the test results came back: negative.
Boroff was flummoxed, but her physician was clear that she had the virus, no matter what her test said.
“ ‘This is my diagnosis,’ ” she recalled him saying. “ ‘There is no other explanation.’ ”
Tests turning up negative even when all signs point to COVID-19 has been a common experience in American hospitals over the past month, public health experts have told ProPublica. It’s unclear what proportion of these negative results are inaccurate – known as “false negatives” – and whether that’s due to some external factor, like bad sample collection, or because of an issue inherent in the tests’ design.
Neither the major test manufacturers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would say how common false negatives are. While the FDA requires test makers to report any known instances of false negatives as a condition of granting them provisional approval, known as emergency use authorizations, no such reports are visible in a database the agency maintains for that purpose.
Without much data on how COVID-19 tests are performing in the real world, concerns are mounting that a lack of accurate testing will make it more difficult for America to relax social distancing, as the ability to track and trace new infections will be critical for any strategy to reopen the country.
Those warnings have reached Capitol Hill, where Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett had heard from a doctor in his district about the accuracy of the tests. On Thursday, he and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut sent a letter to the FDA demanding more data about the prevalence of false negatives in both the diagnostic tests currently in widespread use, as well as inaccuracies in the coming wave of rapid blood tests that detect immunity once the infection has passed.
“I’m very concerned about it,” Doggett told ProPublica. Too many false results, he worries, could lead to a new surge of infections when people go back to work or are allowed to gather in bars, sports arenas, and restaurants. “They have to monitor this very closely to ensure that we’re not creating false expectations, and in the process ending up with an epidemic that is even worse than the one we have now.”
Lowering the bar in an emergency
In the early days of the pandemic, the FDA, which regulates diagnostic tests, was criticized for not moving quickly enough to make testing widely available. For much of February, the only available test was the CDC’s, which initially had flaws when it was sent out to public health labs. Only on Feb. 29 did the FDA announce a new policy that made it easier for private labs and academic medical centers to make tests available as well.
Since then, the ongoing need for even more testing capacity across the United States has pushed the agency to loosen its typical requirements for manufacturers to prove that their tests are accurate before allowing them onto the market.
Normally, to get FDA approval, diagnostic makers need to run trials to gather evidence on their tests’ performance, a process that can take months or even years. The agency is currently skipping a lot of those steps by issuing emergency use authorizations.
Manufacturers are now required to run their COVID-19 tests on a minimum of 30 positive samples and 30 negative samples. They must demonstrate to the agency that the test has at least a 95% sensitivity, meaning it must correctly identify at least 95% of the positive samples as having the coronavirus, and 100% specificity, meaning that it must accurately identify all the negative samples as not having the coronavirus.
But the manufacturers are demonstrating their diagnostics’ performance with what’s known as “contrived samples,” which are not taken from actual patients. A contrived sample is made by taking coronavirus RNA made in a lab and putting it into a medium that mimics nasal mucus.
“This is supposed to represent a swab specimen, but it’s not a positive sample from a real patient, and that does make a real difference,” said Benjamin Pinsky, medical director of the Clinical Virology Laboratory for Stanford Health Care.
It’s not clear if the concentrations of virus on the simulated samples are representative of the full range of material taken from patients’ bodies in the real world. Pinksy says that it’s reasonable for the FDA to allow the use of contrived samples, because it makes it much faster for a manufacturer to run validation studies, and the need for speed has been pressing.
“But then we need to have studies to compare these assays and see how they perform with real-world samples, and whether some are more or less sensitive and whether some are more or less specific,” Pinsky said. “We don’t know the answer to these questions at this point.”
To compensate for the lower standard up front, experts say the FDA should track data on accuracy to make sure the tests are performing as expected, but this is easier said than done.
“In diagnostic tests in particular, it’s very difficult to know if something is failing,” said Alberto Gutierrez, former director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health. “When are you getting more erroneous results than you should? It’s not always easy to figure out.”
Swiss manufacturer Roche, whose test was authorized by the FDA on March 12, told ProPublica it couldn’t give specific numbers about its test’s actual rate of false negatives and false positives, though it said studies have demonstrated its test could detect very low levels of the coronavirus.
“Clinical studies, which take months to run and would be part of a regular (nonemergency) test approval process, are needed to give us an exact percentage of false negatives and false positives,” Roche spokesman Mike Weist wrote in an email. “We will continue to work with the FDA on ongoing studies post-EUA that will allow us to potentially say more in the future.”
Abbott, which makes a rapid COVID-19 test, also said that “performance characteristics, including accuracy data, will continue to be collected in the field.”
Abbott and the testing firms LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics all told ProPublica that tests should be used by physicians along with other information to form a diagnosis.
Even good tests can give inaccurate results
Clinicians and researchers said that a number of factors could cause inaccurate results on COVID-19 tests, and many of them have nothing to do with the test’s design.
For starters, the timing of when a patient receives the test matters. “If you’re far out from the initial exposure, the more days you are after onset, viral load goes down,” explained Stanford’s Pinsky. Viral load refers to the amount of virus that is being emitted from an infected person’s cells, and if that drops too low, even a person who still has an active infection may test negative.
Another issue is where the virus is in a person’s body. As the disease progresses, scientists think the virus tends to move down into a patient’s lungs, so the window of time when a nose swab will return a positive result may be limited.
“One of the issues with this stupid virus is that, if it’s down in your lungs, and we’re putting a swab up your nose, that’s not the best way to measure what’s in your lungs,” said Alex Greninger, assistant director of the clinical virology lab at the University of Washington Medical Center.
While it is possible to stick a scope down a patient’s airway to collect a sample from the bottom of the lungs, this is a much more complex procedure that requires sedating the patient. Technicians can ask a patient to cough up phlegm, known as sputum, but doing so substantially raises the risk of infecting health care workers. Even with a nasopharyngeal sample collected with a nose swab, one needs to collect it properly, which involves sticking the swab quite far up a patient’s nose.
Daniel Brook, a freelance journalist and historian in New Orleans, says he thinks his test result may have been a false negative because he was incorrectly swabbed.
During Mardi Gras, he hung out with a friend who was visiting from Manhattan. A few days later, as he started to get night sweats and chills, Brook’s friend texted to say that he had tested positive for COVID-19. Brook has asthma, so when he started to have trouble breathing, he went to an urgent care center, which said it didn’t have enough tests to give him one.
Four days later, as Brook found himself even more winded going up stairs, he and his girlfriend, who also had symptoms, received a letter from an emergency room doctor that would get them a test at a drive-through center. They first were tested for the flu and then finally for COVID-19.
“This flu test was way the hell in there. It was almost like you ate too much hot pepper,” Brook said. “And then we had this COVID test, and it was barely in the nose at all, which may be one of the issues.” Nine days later, they received their results: Both were negative.
Brook was confused. He had been trying to tell all of the people he had been in contact with, like his barber, that they might have been exposed, and he shared the good news with many of them. But his doctor told him that clinically, he had all the symptoms of COVID-19, and that his diagnosis would not change based on his test result.
Even if the sample is taken correctly, mishandling of the swab can also invalidate the result. RNA is similar to DNA but due to chemical differences is a much more fragile material and degrades more readily. This coronavirus is an RNA virus, essentially a string of RNA encased in a membrane “envelope.”
Abbott, one of the test makers, said that it recommends that samples be kept for no more than 8 hours at about 60-85 degrees Fahrenheit, or refrigerated for 72 hours. “People should make sure it is tested in a timely fashion,” Abbott said in its statement to ProPublica.
None of this bodes well for the numerous labs that have reported backlogs of tens of thousands of samples that are waiting to be tested.
A technician at an academic laboratory, who asked for anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of his university, described seeing basic mishandling of samples that is probably ruining dozens of patients’ test results.
“I don’t know why, but with COVID, we’ve just been awash with problems,” he told ProPublica. “Even simple things like caps not screwed on tightly – we’ll get a bag of samples, and two or three of them will be leaking, so you have this media completely soaking the inside of the bag. If one of those leaking samples is positive, you’ll have droplets all over the bag.”
Those samples, the technician said, often can’t be processed at all. His experience isn’t unique: In Alabama in late March, hundreds of samples were ruined in transit to a lab in Montgomery.
The dangers of inaccuracy
In the absence of data, physicians and public health officials are left to guess how many false negatives may be occurring – which could have serious consequences both for individuals and for combating the spread of the disease.
“You want to be right every time, because you miss somebody, and tell them that they’re negative, then you’re infecting people,” said Gutierrez, the former FDA official. “Let’s say you consider Amazon essential, and at the warehouse they’re testing people, even if they miss 1 or 5 people out of 100, that can be problematic.”
In addition, false negatives can make it more difficult to track spread of the virus, since those patients are not reported as confirmed cases and people who die without a positive test result won’t be counted in COVID-19 mortality statistics.
False positives also present problems. If you mistakenly think a patient has COVID-19, “then you have the potential to clog up the health care system and waste personal protective equipment and the time and effort of health care workers who think they are caring for individuals with COVID-19,” Stanford’s Pinsky said. “In addition, you’re producing a lot of anxiety for the patient.”
Pinsky says he hopes that real-world data will be gathered on the tests’ performance, especially as more and more come on the market: “If physicians have this information, they could move on to a different, better performing test and use that instead.”
Dr. Yukari Manabe, associate director of Global Health Research and Innovation at Johns Hopkins Medicine, estimates that 10%-25% of test results are false negatives. That’s not based on any data, she cautions, since hard evidence isn’t available. But she has been noticing many patients in the Hopkins system being tested more than once, when the first result doesn’t match their clinical symptoms.
Like others, Manabe acknowledges that the FDA has needed to greenlight tests quickly in order to get them out into the public. But she laments that companies weren’t encouraged to develop diagnostics earlier, which might have allowed the agency to keep the bar for approval higher, and also churn out more tests sooner.
“If people had seen the writing on the wall back in December, someone should’ve paid these companies what they needed to develop these tests on platforms that could’ve been rapidly ramped up to millions of tests,” Manabe said.
Instead, a test shortage caused doctors to limit tests to only the sickest patients, at a time when the virus had probably moved out of the back of the nasal cavity and into their lungs. A larger supply would have allowed for testing more people as soon as they started showing symptoms. That would have resulted in a lower rate of false negatives, Manabe said, since nose swabs are more likely to detect the virus soon after it’s been contracted.
The next wave of tests may be even less accurate
The questions swirling around the accuracy of the COVID-19 diagnostic tests are likely to persist as the next set of tests – antibody blood tests – start hitting the market. Already, the FDA has authorized the first of these tests, which search for molecules in a patient’s blood that can indicate if the immune system did battle with the coronavirus. Unlike the swab-based tests, which look for the viral RNA that indicate active infection, antibody tests are used to seek evidence of a past encounter with the virus.
Antibody tests are already seen as a critical tool in lifting lock-down measures, because they could potentially be used to figure out who has immunity to the coronavirus. In this case, false positives would be the greater concern, because it could be dangerous to tell someone that they have antibodies and are safe to go back to work when that is a false signal.
There are issues that need to be figured out before rushing to rely on these tests, Stanford’s Pinsky warned. What level of antibodies are needed to mean that someone is protected? And if you are protected, how long are you protected? The answers to these basic questions are still unknown, he said. This week, the World Health Organization put out guidance recommending against using antibody tests for clinical decision making.
The FDA, meanwhile, is lowering the bar even further. On March 16, it issued new guidance allowing manufacturers to distribute tests even before receiving emergency use authorization, for a “reasonable period of time” – about 15 days – after a diagnostic maker had validated the test internally and while preparing its request to the agency for an EUA.
Local governments are desperate enough for tests that they’ll buy them without assurances of accuracy at all. Chicago recently ordered 11,000 antibody tests made in South Korea that had not been reviewed by the FDA but are legal to distribute as long as they include several disclaimers including a recommendation that any negative result be confirmed with a diagnostic test.
“There’s no time really to put the effort into saying, ’Where’s the problem here?’ ” said Catherine Troisi, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center. “I’m not saying the test is bad. But what good is a test if you don’t know it’s giving you reliable results? We just don’t know.”
Correction, April 10, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that Kendra Boroff was admitted to an intensive care unit.
This article was first published on ProPublica.com.
Kendra Boroff believes she contracted the coronavirus on her 71st birthday, Feb. 20, when her family went out for a celebratory dinner, perhaps from their waiter, who was coughing into his elbow. Four days later, she developed a fever and a raging sore throat.
“You feel like you’re suffocating,” recalled Boroff, a real estate agent in Maineville, Ohio. “You cough and breathe with the top fourth or maybe less of your chest, because everything else is in a vise.”
Over the course of the next 3 weeks, as Boroff started getting chills and nausea, a series of doctors would suggest that it could be the common cold, bronchitis or pneumonia. She tested negative for the flu, and her chest x-rays showed signs of lung damage, including white patches called “ground-glass opacities” that are common in COVID-19 cases. By March 7, she was pretty sure it was COVID-19, but she couldn’t get a test until she arrived at the emergency room at the University of Cincinnati Health Center on March 19. She had a 103 degree fever and her oxygen levels were plummeting, so the doctors admitted her immediately.
Nearly a week later, as Boroff’s condition was stabilizing, the test results came back: negative.
Boroff was flummoxed, but her physician was clear that she had the virus, no matter what her test said.
“ ‘This is my diagnosis,’ ” she recalled him saying. “ ‘There is no other explanation.’ ”
Tests turning up negative even when all signs point to COVID-19 has been a common experience in American hospitals over the past month, public health experts have told ProPublica. It’s unclear what proportion of these negative results are inaccurate – known as “false negatives” – and whether that’s due to some external factor, like bad sample collection, or because of an issue inherent in the tests’ design.
Neither the major test manufacturers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would say how common false negatives are. While the FDA requires test makers to report any known instances of false negatives as a condition of granting them provisional approval, known as emergency use authorizations, no such reports are visible in a database the agency maintains for that purpose.
Without much data on how COVID-19 tests are performing in the real world, concerns are mounting that a lack of accurate testing will make it more difficult for America to relax social distancing, as the ability to track and trace new infections will be critical for any strategy to reopen the country.
Those warnings have reached Capitol Hill, where Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett had heard from a doctor in his district about the accuracy of the tests. On Thursday, he and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut sent a letter to the FDA demanding more data about the prevalence of false negatives in both the diagnostic tests currently in widespread use, as well as inaccuracies in the coming wave of rapid blood tests that detect immunity once the infection has passed.
“I’m very concerned about it,” Doggett told ProPublica. Too many false results, he worries, could lead to a new surge of infections when people go back to work or are allowed to gather in bars, sports arenas, and restaurants. “They have to monitor this very closely to ensure that we’re not creating false expectations, and in the process ending up with an epidemic that is even worse than the one we have now.”
Lowering the bar in an emergency
In the early days of the pandemic, the FDA, which regulates diagnostic tests, was criticized for not moving quickly enough to make testing widely available. For much of February, the only available test was the CDC’s, which initially had flaws when it was sent out to public health labs. Only on Feb. 29 did the FDA announce a new policy that made it easier for private labs and academic medical centers to make tests available as well.
Since then, the ongoing need for even more testing capacity across the United States has pushed the agency to loosen its typical requirements for manufacturers to prove that their tests are accurate before allowing them onto the market.
Normally, to get FDA approval, diagnostic makers need to run trials to gather evidence on their tests’ performance, a process that can take months or even years. The agency is currently skipping a lot of those steps by issuing emergency use authorizations.
Manufacturers are now required to run their COVID-19 tests on a minimum of 30 positive samples and 30 negative samples. They must demonstrate to the agency that the test has at least a 95% sensitivity, meaning it must correctly identify at least 95% of the positive samples as having the coronavirus, and 100% specificity, meaning that it must accurately identify all the negative samples as not having the coronavirus.
But the manufacturers are demonstrating their diagnostics’ performance with what’s known as “contrived samples,” which are not taken from actual patients. A contrived sample is made by taking coronavirus RNA made in a lab and putting it into a medium that mimics nasal mucus.
“This is supposed to represent a swab specimen, but it’s not a positive sample from a real patient, and that does make a real difference,” said Benjamin Pinsky, medical director of the Clinical Virology Laboratory for Stanford Health Care.
It’s not clear if the concentrations of virus on the simulated samples are representative of the full range of material taken from patients’ bodies in the real world. Pinksy says that it’s reasonable for the FDA to allow the use of contrived samples, because it makes it much faster for a manufacturer to run validation studies, and the need for speed has been pressing.
“But then we need to have studies to compare these assays and see how they perform with real-world samples, and whether some are more or less sensitive and whether some are more or less specific,” Pinsky said. “We don’t know the answer to these questions at this point.”
To compensate for the lower standard up front, experts say the FDA should track data on accuracy to make sure the tests are performing as expected, but this is easier said than done.
“In diagnostic tests in particular, it’s very difficult to know if something is failing,” said Alberto Gutierrez, former director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health. “When are you getting more erroneous results than you should? It’s not always easy to figure out.”
Swiss manufacturer Roche, whose test was authorized by the FDA on March 12, told ProPublica it couldn’t give specific numbers about its test’s actual rate of false negatives and false positives, though it said studies have demonstrated its test could detect very low levels of the coronavirus.
“Clinical studies, which take months to run and would be part of a regular (nonemergency) test approval process, are needed to give us an exact percentage of false negatives and false positives,” Roche spokesman Mike Weist wrote in an email. “We will continue to work with the FDA on ongoing studies post-EUA that will allow us to potentially say more in the future.”
Abbott, which makes a rapid COVID-19 test, also said that “performance characteristics, including accuracy data, will continue to be collected in the field.”
Abbott and the testing firms LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics all told ProPublica that tests should be used by physicians along with other information to form a diagnosis.
Even good tests can give inaccurate results
Clinicians and researchers said that a number of factors could cause inaccurate results on COVID-19 tests, and many of them have nothing to do with the test’s design.
For starters, the timing of when a patient receives the test matters. “If you’re far out from the initial exposure, the more days you are after onset, viral load goes down,” explained Stanford’s Pinsky. Viral load refers to the amount of virus that is being emitted from an infected person’s cells, and if that drops too low, even a person who still has an active infection may test negative.
Another issue is where the virus is in a person’s body. As the disease progresses, scientists think the virus tends to move down into a patient’s lungs, so the window of time when a nose swab will return a positive result may be limited.
“One of the issues with this stupid virus is that, if it’s down in your lungs, and we’re putting a swab up your nose, that’s not the best way to measure what’s in your lungs,” said Alex Greninger, assistant director of the clinical virology lab at the University of Washington Medical Center.
While it is possible to stick a scope down a patient’s airway to collect a sample from the bottom of the lungs, this is a much more complex procedure that requires sedating the patient. Technicians can ask a patient to cough up phlegm, known as sputum, but doing so substantially raises the risk of infecting health care workers. Even with a nasopharyngeal sample collected with a nose swab, one needs to collect it properly, which involves sticking the swab quite far up a patient’s nose.
Daniel Brook, a freelance journalist and historian in New Orleans, says he thinks his test result may have been a false negative because he was incorrectly swabbed.
During Mardi Gras, he hung out with a friend who was visiting from Manhattan. A few days later, as he started to get night sweats and chills, Brook’s friend texted to say that he had tested positive for COVID-19. Brook has asthma, so when he started to have trouble breathing, he went to an urgent care center, which said it didn’t have enough tests to give him one.
Four days later, as Brook found himself even more winded going up stairs, he and his girlfriend, who also had symptoms, received a letter from an emergency room doctor that would get them a test at a drive-through center. They first were tested for the flu and then finally for COVID-19.
“This flu test was way the hell in there. It was almost like you ate too much hot pepper,” Brook said. “And then we had this COVID test, and it was barely in the nose at all, which may be one of the issues.” Nine days later, they received their results: Both were negative.
Brook was confused. He had been trying to tell all of the people he had been in contact with, like his barber, that they might have been exposed, and he shared the good news with many of them. But his doctor told him that clinically, he had all the symptoms of COVID-19, and that his diagnosis would not change based on his test result.
Even if the sample is taken correctly, mishandling of the swab can also invalidate the result. RNA is similar to DNA but due to chemical differences is a much more fragile material and degrades more readily. This coronavirus is an RNA virus, essentially a string of RNA encased in a membrane “envelope.”
Abbott, one of the test makers, said that it recommends that samples be kept for no more than 8 hours at about 60-85 degrees Fahrenheit, or refrigerated for 72 hours. “People should make sure it is tested in a timely fashion,” Abbott said in its statement to ProPublica.
None of this bodes well for the numerous labs that have reported backlogs of tens of thousands of samples that are waiting to be tested.
A technician at an academic laboratory, who asked for anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of his university, described seeing basic mishandling of samples that is probably ruining dozens of patients’ test results.
“I don’t know why, but with COVID, we’ve just been awash with problems,” he told ProPublica. “Even simple things like caps not screwed on tightly – we’ll get a bag of samples, and two or three of them will be leaking, so you have this media completely soaking the inside of the bag. If one of those leaking samples is positive, you’ll have droplets all over the bag.”
Those samples, the technician said, often can’t be processed at all. His experience isn’t unique: In Alabama in late March, hundreds of samples were ruined in transit to a lab in Montgomery.
The dangers of inaccuracy
In the absence of data, physicians and public health officials are left to guess how many false negatives may be occurring – which could have serious consequences both for individuals and for combating the spread of the disease.
“You want to be right every time, because you miss somebody, and tell them that they’re negative, then you’re infecting people,” said Gutierrez, the former FDA official. “Let’s say you consider Amazon essential, and at the warehouse they’re testing people, even if they miss 1 or 5 people out of 100, that can be problematic.”
In addition, false negatives can make it more difficult to track spread of the virus, since those patients are not reported as confirmed cases and people who die without a positive test result won’t be counted in COVID-19 mortality statistics.
False positives also present problems. If you mistakenly think a patient has COVID-19, “then you have the potential to clog up the health care system and waste personal protective equipment and the time and effort of health care workers who think they are caring for individuals with COVID-19,” Stanford’s Pinsky said. “In addition, you’re producing a lot of anxiety for the patient.”
Pinsky says he hopes that real-world data will be gathered on the tests’ performance, especially as more and more come on the market: “If physicians have this information, they could move on to a different, better performing test and use that instead.”
Dr. Yukari Manabe, associate director of Global Health Research and Innovation at Johns Hopkins Medicine, estimates that 10%-25% of test results are false negatives. That’s not based on any data, she cautions, since hard evidence isn’t available. But she has been noticing many patients in the Hopkins system being tested more than once, when the first result doesn’t match their clinical symptoms.
Like others, Manabe acknowledges that the FDA has needed to greenlight tests quickly in order to get them out into the public. But she laments that companies weren’t encouraged to develop diagnostics earlier, which might have allowed the agency to keep the bar for approval higher, and also churn out more tests sooner.
“If people had seen the writing on the wall back in December, someone should’ve paid these companies what they needed to develop these tests on platforms that could’ve been rapidly ramped up to millions of tests,” Manabe said.
Instead, a test shortage caused doctors to limit tests to only the sickest patients, at a time when the virus had probably moved out of the back of the nasal cavity and into their lungs. A larger supply would have allowed for testing more people as soon as they started showing symptoms. That would have resulted in a lower rate of false negatives, Manabe said, since nose swabs are more likely to detect the virus soon after it’s been contracted.
The next wave of tests may be even less accurate
The questions swirling around the accuracy of the COVID-19 diagnostic tests are likely to persist as the next set of tests – antibody blood tests – start hitting the market. Already, the FDA has authorized the first of these tests, which search for molecules in a patient’s blood that can indicate if the immune system did battle with the coronavirus. Unlike the swab-based tests, which look for the viral RNA that indicate active infection, antibody tests are used to seek evidence of a past encounter with the virus.
Antibody tests are already seen as a critical tool in lifting lock-down measures, because they could potentially be used to figure out who has immunity to the coronavirus. In this case, false positives would be the greater concern, because it could be dangerous to tell someone that they have antibodies and are safe to go back to work when that is a false signal.
There are issues that need to be figured out before rushing to rely on these tests, Stanford’s Pinsky warned. What level of antibodies are needed to mean that someone is protected? And if you are protected, how long are you protected? The answers to these basic questions are still unknown, he said. This week, the World Health Organization put out guidance recommending against using antibody tests for clinical decision making.
The FDA, meanwhile, is lowering the bar even further. On March 16, it issued new guidance allowing manufacturers to distribute tests even before receiving emergency use authorization, for a “reasonable period of time” – about 15 days – after a diagnostic maker had validated the test internally and while preparing its request to the agency for an EUA.
Local governments are desperate enough for tests that they’ll buy them without assurances of accuracy at all. Chicago recently ordered 11,000 antibody tests made in South Korea that had not been reviewed by the FDA but are legal to distribute as long as they include several disclaimers including a recommendation that any negative result be confirmed with a diagnostic test.
“There’s no time really to put the effort into saying, ’Where’s the problem here?’ ” said Catherine Troisi, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center. “I’m not saying the test is bad. But what good is a test if you don’t know it’s giving you reliable results? We just don’t know.”
Correction, April 10, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that Kendra Boroff was admitted to an intensive care unit.
This article was first published on ProPublica.com.
The 7 strategies of highly effective people facing the COVID-19 pandemic
A few weeks ago, I saw more than 60 responses to a post on Nextdoor.com entitled, “Toilet paper strategies?”
Asking for help is a great coping mechanism when one is struggling to find a strategy, even if it’s for toilet paper. What other kinds of coping strategies can help us through this historic and unprecedented time?
The late Stephen R. Covey, PhD, wrote about the coping strategies of highly effective people in his book, “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.”1 For, no matter how smart, perfect, or careful you may be, life will never be trouble free. When trouble comes, it’s important to have coping strategies that help you navigate through choppy waters. Whether you are a practitioner trying to help your patients or someone who wants to maximize their personal resilience during a worldwide pandemic, here are my conceptualizations of the seven top strategies highly effective people use when facing challenges.
Strategy #1: Begin with the end in mind
In 2007, this strategy helped me not only survive but thrive when I battled for my right to practice as a holistic psychiatrist against the Maryland Board of Physicians.2 From the first moment when I read the letter from the board, to the last when I read the administrative law judge’s dismissal, I turned to this strategy to help me cope with unrelenting stress.
I imagined myself remembering being the kind of person I wanted to be, wrote that script for myself, and created those memories for my future self. I wanted to remember myself as being brave, calm, strong, and grounded, so I behaved each day as if I were all of those things.
As Dr. Covey wrote, “ ‘Begin with the end in mind’ is based on the principle that all things are created twice. There’s a mental or first creation, and a physical or second creation to all things.” Imagine who you would like to remember yourself being a year or two down the road. Do you want to remember yourself showing good judgment and being positive and compassionate during this pandemic? Then, follow the script you’ve created in your mind and be that person now, knowing that you are forming memories for your future self. Your future self will look back at who you are right now with appreciation and satisfaction. Of course, this is a habit that you can apply to your entire life.
Strategy #2: Be proactive
Between the event and the outcome is you. You are the interpreter and transformer of the event, with the freedom to apply your will and intention on the event. Whether it is living through a pandemic or dealing with misplaced keys, every day you are revealing your nature through how you deal with life. To be proactive is different from being reactive. Within each of us there is a will, the drive, to rise above our difficult environments.
Dr. Covey wrote, “the ability to subordinate an impulse to a value is the essence of the proactive person.” A woman shared with me that she created an Excel spreadsheet with some of the things she plans to do with her free time while she stays in her NYC apartment. She doesn’t want to slip into a passive state and waste her time. That’s being proactive.
Strategy #3: Set proper priorities
Or, as Dr. Covey would say, “Put first things first.” During a pandemic, when the world seems to be precariously tilting at an angle, it’s easy to cling to outdated standards, expectations, and behavioral patterns. Doing so heightens our sense of regret, fear, and scarcity. Valuing gratitude will empower you to deal with financial loss differently because you can still remain grateful despite uncontrollable losses. We can choose “to have or to be” as psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, PhD, would say.3 If your happiness is measured by how much money you have, then it would make sense that, when the amount shrinks, so does your happiness. However, if your happiness is a side effect of who you are, you will remain a mountain before the winds and tides of circumstance.
Strategy #4: Create a win/win mentality
This state of mind is built on character. Dr. Covey separates character into three categories: integrity, maturity, and abundance mentality. A lack of character resulted in the hoarding of toilet paper in many communities and the cry for help from Nextdoor.com. I noticed that, in the 60+ responses that included advice about using bidets, old towels, and even leaves, no one offered to share a bag of toilet paper. That’s because people experienced the fear of scarcity, in turn, causing the scarcity they feared.
During a pandemic, a highly effective person or company thinks beyond themselves to create a win/win scenario. At a grocery store in my neighborhood, a man stands at its entrance with a bottle of disinfectant spray in one hand for the shoppers and a sign on the sidewalk with guidelines for purchasing products to avoid hoarding. He tells you where the wipes are for the carts as you enter the store. People line up 6 feet apart, waiting to enter, to limit the number of shoppers inside the store, facilitating proper physical distancing. Instead of maximizing profits at the expense of everyone’s health and safety, the process is a win/win for everyone, from shoppers to employees.
Strategy #5: Develop empathy and understanding
Seeking to first understand and then be understood is one of the most powerful tools of effective people. In my holistic practice, every patient comes in with their own unique needs that evolve and transform over time. I must remain open, or I fail to deliver appropriately.
Learning to listen and then to clearly communicate ideas is essential to effective health care. During this time, it is critical that health care providers and political leaders first listen/understand and then communicate clearly to serve everyone in the best way possible.
In our brains, the frontal lobes (the adult in the room) manages our amygdala (the child in the room) when we get enough sleep, meditate, spend time in nature, exercise, and eat healthy food.4 Stress can interfere with the frontal lobe’s ability to maintain empathy, inhibit unhealthy impulses, and delay gratification. During the pandemic, we can help to shift from the stress response, or “fight-or-flight” response, driven by the sympathetic nervous system to a “rest-and-digest” response driven by the parasympathetic system through coherent breathing, taking slow, deep, relaxed breaths (6 seconds on inhalation and 6 seconds on exhalation). The vagus nerve connected to our diaphragm will help the heart return to a healthy rhythm.5
Strategy #6: Synergize and integrate
All of life is interdependent, each part no more or less important than any other. Is oxygen more important than hydrogen? Is H2O different from the oxygen and hydrogen atoms that make it?
During a pandemic, it’s important for us to appreciate each other’s contributions and work synergistically for the good of the whole. Our survival depends on valuing each other and our planet. This perspective informs the practice of physical distancing and staying home to minimize the spread of the virus and its impact on the health care system, regardless of whether an individual belongs in the high-risk group or not.
Many high-achieving people train in extremely competitive settings in which survival depends on individual performance rather than mutual cooperation. This training process encourages a disregard for others. Good leaders, however, understand that cooperation and mutual respect are essential to personal well-being.
Strategy #7: Practice self-care
There are five aspects of our lives that depend on our self-care: spiritual, mental, emotional, physical, and social. Unfortunately, many kind-hearted people are kinder to others than to themselves. There is really only one person who can truly take care of you properly, and that is yourself. In Seattle, where many suffered early in the pandemic, holistic psychiatrist David Kopacz, MD, is reminding people to nurture themselves in his post, “Nurture Yourself During the Pandemic: Try New Recipes!”6 Indeed, that is what many must do since eating out is not an option now. If you find yourself stuck at home with more time on your hands, take the opportunity to care for yourself. Ask yourself what you really need during this time, and make the effort to provide it to yourself.
After the pandemic is over, will you have grown from the experiences and become a better person from it? Despite our current circumstances, we can continue to grow as individuals and as a community, armed with strategies that can benefit all of us.
References
1. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1989.
2. Lee AW. Townsend Letter. 2009 Jun;311:22-3.
3. Fromm E. To Have or To Be? New York: Continuum International Publishing; 2005.
4. Rushlau K. Integrative Healthcare Symposium. 2020 Feb 21.
5. Gerbarg PL. Mind Body Practices for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Presentation at Integrative Medicine for Mental Health Conference. 2016 Sep.
6. Kopacz D. Nurture Yourself During the Pandemic: Try New Recipes! Being Fully Human. 2020 Mar 22.
Dr. Lee specializes in integrative and holistic psychiatry and has a private practice in Gaithersburg, Md. She has no disclosures.
A few weeks ago, I saw more than 60 responses to a post on Nextdoor.com entitled, “Toilet paper strategies?”
Asking for help is a great coping mechanism when one is struggling to find a strategy, even if it’s for toilet paper. What other kinds of coping strategies can help us through this historic and unprecedented time?
The late Stephen R. Covey, PhD, wrote about the coping strategies of highly effective people in his book, “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.”1 For, no matter how smart, perfect, or careful you may be, life will never be trouble free. When trouble comes, it’s important to have coping strategies that help you navigate through choppy waters. Whether you are a practitioner trying to help your patients or someone who wants to maximize their personal resilience during a worldwide pandemic, here are my conceptualizations of the seven top strategies highly effective people use when facing challenges.
Strategy #1: Begin with the end in mind
In 2007, this strategy helped me not only survive but thrive when I battled for my right to practice as a holistic psychiatrist against the Maryland Board of Physicians.2 From the first moment when I read the letter from the board, to the last when I read the administrative law judge’s dismissal, I turned to this strategy to help me cope with unrelenting stress.
I imagined myself remembering being the kind of person I wanted to be, wrote that script for myself, and created those memories for my future self. I wanted to remember myself as being brave, calm, strong, and grounded, so I behaved each day as if I were all of those things.
As Dr. Covey wrote, “ ‘Begin with the end in mind’ is based on the principle that all things are created twice. There’s a mental or first creation, and a physical or second creation to all things.” Imagine who you would like to remember yourself being a year or two down the road. Do you want to remember yourself showing good judgment and being positive and compassionate during this pandemic? Then, follow the script you’ve created in your mind and be that person now, knowing that you are forming memories for your future self. Your future self will look back at who you are right now with appreciation and satisfaction. Of course, this is a habit that you can apply to your entire life.
Strategy #2: Be proactive
Between the event and the outcome is you. You are the interpreter and transformer of the event, with the freedom to apply your will and intention on the event. Whether it is living through a pandemic or dealing with misplaced keys, every day you are revealing your nature through how you deal with life. To be proactive is different from being reactive. Within each of us there is a will, the drive, to rise above our difficult environments.
Dr. Covey wrote, “the ability to subordinate an impulse to a value is the essence of the proactive person.” A woman shared with me that she created an Excel spreadsheet with some of the things she plans to do with her free time while she stays in her NYC apartment. She doesn’t want to slip into a passive state and waste her time. That’s being proactive.
Strategy #3: Set proper priorities
Or, as Dr. Covey would say, “Put first things first.” During a pandemic, when the world seems to be precariously tilting at an angle, it’s easy to cling to outdated standards, expectations, and behavioral patterns. Doing so heightens our sense of regret, fear, and scarcity. Valuing gratitude will empower you to deal with financial loss differently because you can still remain grateful despite uncontrollable losses. We can choose “to have or to be” as psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, PhD, would say.3 If your happiness is measured by how much money you have, then it would make sense that, when the amount shrinks, so does your happiness. However, if your happiness is a side effect of who you are, you will remain a mountain before the winds and tides of circumstance.
Strategy #4: Create a win/win mentality
This state of mind is built on character. Dr. Covey separates character into three categories: integrity, maturity, and abundance mentality. A lack of character resulted in the hoarding of toilet paper in many communities and the cry for help from Nextdoor.com. I noticed that, in the 60+ responses that included advice about using bidets, old towels, and even leaves, no one offered to share a bag of toilet paper. That’s because people experienced the fear of scarcity, in turn, causing the scarcity they feared.
During a pandemic, a highly effective person or company thinks beyond themselves to create a win/win scenario. At a grocery store in my neighborhood, a man stands at its entrance with a bottle of disinfectant spray in one hand for the shoppers and a sign on the sidewalk with guidelines for purchasing products to avoid hoarding. He tells you where the wipes are for the carts as you enter the store. People line up 6 feet apart, waiting to enter, to limit the number of shoppers inside the store, facilitating proper physical distancing. Instead of maximizing profits at the expense of everyone’s health and safety, the process is a win/win for everyone, from shoppers to employees.
Strategy #5: Develop empathy and understanding
Seeking to first understand and then be understood is one of the most powerful tools of effective people. In my holistic practice, every patient comes in with their own unique needs that evolve and transform over time. I must remain open, or I fail to deliver appropriately.
Learning to listen and then to clearly communicate ideas is essential to effective health care. During this time, it is critical that health care providers and political leaders first listen/understand and then communicate clearly to serve everyone in the best way possible.
In our brains, the frontal lobes (the adult in the room) manages our amygdala (the child in the room) when we get enough sleep, meditate, spend time in nature, exercise, and eat healthy food.4 Stress can interfere with the frontal lobe’s ability to maintain empathy, inhibit unhealthy impulses, and delay gratification. During the pandemic, we can help to shift from the stress response, or “fight-or-flight” response, driven by the sympathetic nervous system to a “rest-and-digest” response driven by the parasympathetic system through coherent breathing, taking slow, deep, relaxed breaths (6 seconds on inhalation and 6 seconds on exhalation). The vagus nerve connected to our diaphragm will help the heart return to a healthy rhythm.5
Strategy #6: Synergize and integrate
All of life is interdependent, each part no more or less important than any other. Is oxygen more important than hydrogen? Is H2O different from the oxygen and hydrogen atoms that make it?
During a pandemic, it’s important for us to appreciate each other’s contributions and work synergistically for the good of the whole. Our survival depends on valuing each other and our planet. This perspective informs the practice of physical distancing and staying home to minimize the spread of the virus and its impact on the health care system, regardless of whether an individual belongs in the high-risk group or not.
Many high-achieving people train in extremely competitive settings in which survival depends on individual performance rather than mutual cooperation. This training process encourages a disregard for others. Good leaders, however, understand that cooperation and mutual respect are essential to personal well-being.
Strategy #7: Practice self-care
There are five aspects of our lives that depend on our self-care: spiritual, mental, emotional, physical, and social. Unfortunately, many kind-hearted people are kinder to others than to themselves. There is really only one person who can truly take care of you properly, and that is yourself. In Seattle, where many suffered early in the pandemic, holistic psychiatrist David Kopacz, MD, is reminding people to nurture themselves in his post, “Nurture Yourself During the Pandemic: Try New Recipes!”6 Indeed, that is what many must do since eating out is not an option now. If you find yourself stuck at home with more time on your hands, take the opportunity to care for yourself. Ask yourself what you really need during this time, and make the effort to provide it to yourself.
After the pandemic is over, will you have grown from the experiences and become a better person from it? Despite our current circumstances, we can continue to grow as individuals and as a community, armed with strategies that can benefit all of us.
References
1. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1989.
2. Lee AW. Townsend Letter. 2009 Jun;311:22-3.
3. Fromm E. To Have or To Be? New York: Continuum International Publishing; 2005.
4. Rushlau K. Integrative Healthcare Symposium. 2020 Feb 21.
5. Gerbarg PL. Mind Body Practices for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Presentation at Integrative Medicine for Mental Health Conference. 2016 Sep.
6. Kopacz D. Nurture Yourself During the Pandemic: Try New Recipes! Being Fully Human. 2020 Mar 22.
Dr. Lee specializes in integrative and holistic psychiatry and has a private practice in Gaithersburg, Md. She has no disclosures.
A few weeks ago, I saw more than 60 responses to a post on Nextdoor.com entitled, “Toilet paper strategies?”
Asking for help is a great coping mechanism when one is struggling to find a strategy, even if it’s for toilet paper. What other kinds of coping strategies can help us through this historic and unprecedented time?
The late Stephen R. Covey, PhD, wrote about the coping strategies of highly effective people in his book, “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.”1 For, no matter how smart, perfect, or careful you may be, life will never be trouble free. When trouble comes, it’s important to have coping strategies that help you navigate through choppy waters. Whether you are a practitioner trying to help your patients or someone who wants to maximize their personal resilience during a worldwide pandemic, here are my conceptualizations of the seven top strategies highly effective people use when facing challenges.
Strategy #1: Begin with the end in mind
In 2007, this strategy helped me not only survive but thrive when I battled for my right to practice as a holistic psychiatrist against the Maryland Board of Physicians.2 From the first moment when I read the letter from the board, to the last when I read the administrative law judge’s dismissal, I turned to this strategy to help me cope with unrelenting stress.
I imagined myself remembering being the kind of person I wanted to be, wrote that script for myself, and created those memories for my future self. I wanted to remember myself as being brave, calm, strong, and grounded, so I behaved each day as if I were all of those things.
As Dr. Covey wrote, “ ‘Begin with the end in mind’ is based on the principle that all things are created twice. There’s a mental or first creation, and a physical or second creation to all things.” Imagine who you would like to remember yourself being a year or two down the road. Do you want to remember yourself showing good judgment and being positive and compassionate during this pandemic? Then, follow the script you’ve created in your mind and be that person now, knowing that you are forming memories for your future self. Your future self will look back at who you are right now with appreciation and satisfaction. Of course, this is a habit that you can apply to your entire life.
Strategy #2: Be proactive
Between the event and the outcome is you. You are the interpreter and transformer of the event, with the freedom to apply your will and intention on the event. Whether it is living through a pandemic or dealing with misplaced keys, every day you are revealing your nature through how you deal with life. To be proactive is different from being reactive. Within each of us there is a will, the drive, to rise above our difficult environments.
Dr. Covey wrote, “the ability to subordinate an impulse to a value is the essence of the proactive person.” A woman shared with me that she created an Excel spreadsheet with some of the things she plans to do with her free time while she stays in her NYC apartment. She doesn’t want to slip into a passive state and waste her time. That’s being proactive.
Strategy #3: Set proper priorities
Or, as Dr. Covey would say, “Put first things first.” During a pandemic, when the world seems to be precariously tilting at an angle, it’s easy to cling to outdated standards, expectations, and behavioral patterns. Doing so heightens our sense of regret, fear, and scarcity. Valuing gratitude will empower you to deal with financial loss differently because you can still remain grateful despite uncontrollable losses. We can choose “to have or to be” as psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, PhD, would say.3 If your happiness is measured by how much money you have, then it would make sense that, when the amount shrinks, so does your happiness. However, if your happiness is a side effect of who you are, you will remain a mountain before the winds and tides of circumstance.
Strategy #4: Create a win/win mentality
This state of mind is built on character. Dr. Covey separates character into three categories: integrity, maturity, and abundance mentality. A lack of character resulted in the hoarding of toilet paper in many communities and the cry for help from Nextdoor.com. I noticed that, in the 60+ responses that included advice about using bidets, old towels, and even leaves, no one offered to share a bag of toilet paper. That’s because people experienced the fear of scarcity, in turn, causing the scarcity they feared.
During a pandemic, a highly effective person or company thinks beyond themselves to create a win/win scenario. At a grocery store in my neighborhood, a man stands at its entrance with a bottle of disinfectant spray in one hand for the shoppers and a sign on the sidewalk with guidelines for purchasing products to avoid hoarding. He tells you where the wipes are for the carts as you enter the store. People line up 6 feet apart, waiting to enter, to limit the number of shoppers inside the store, facilitating proper physical distancing. Instead of maximizing profits at the expense of everyone’s health and safety, the process is a win/win for everyone, from shoppers to employees.
Strategy #5: Develop empathy and understanding
Seeking to first understand and then be understood is one of the most powerful tools of effective people. In my holistic practice, every patient comes in with their own unique needs that evolve and transform over time. I must remain open, or I fail to deliver appropriately.
Learning to listen and then to clearly communicate ideas is essential to effective health care. During this time, it is critical that health care providers and political leaders first listen/understand and then communicate clearly to serve everyone in the best way possible.
In our brains, the frontal lobes (the adult in the room) manages our amygdala (the child in the room) when we get enough sleep, meditate, spend time in nature, exercise, and eat healthy food.4 Stress can interfere with the frontal lobe’s ability to maintain empathy, inhibit unhealthy impulses, and delay gratification. During the pandemic, we can help to shift from the stress response, or “fight-or-flight” response, driven by the sympathetic nervous system to a “rest-and-digest” response driven by the parasympathetic system through coherent breathing, taking slow, deep, relaxed breaths (6 seconds on inhalation and 6 seconds on exhalation). The vagus nerve connected to our diaphragm will help the heart return to a healthy rhythm.5
Strategy #6: Synergize and integrate
All of life is interdependent, each part no more or less important than any other. Is oxygen more important than hydrogen? Is H2O different from the oxygen and hydrogen atoms that make it?
During a pandemic, it’s important for us to appreciate each other’s contributions and work synergistically for the good of the whole. Our survival depends on valuing each other and our planet. This perspective informs the practice of physical distancing and staying home to minimize the spread of the virus and its impact on the health care system, regardless of whether an individual belongs in the high-risk group or not.
Many high-achieving people train in extremely competitive settings in which survival depends on individual performance rather than mutual cooperation. This training process encourages a disregard for others. Good leaders, however, understand that cooperation and mutual respect are essential to personal well-being.
Strategy #7: Practice self-care
There are five aspects of our lives that depend on our self-care: spiritual, mental, emotional, physical, and social. Unfortunately, many kind-hearted people are kinder to others than to themselves. There is really only one person who can truly take care of you properly, and that is yourself. In Seattle, where many suffered early in the pandemic, holistic psychiatrist David Kopacz, MD, is reminding people to nurture themselves in his post, “Nurture Yourself During the Pandemic: Try New Recipes!”6 Indeed, that is what many must do since eating out is not an option now. If you find yourself stuck at home with more time on your hands, take the opportunity to care for yourself. Ask yourself what you really need during this time, and make the effort to provide it to yourself.
After the pandemic is over, will you have grown from the experiences and become a better person from it? Despite our current circumstances, we can continue to grow as individuals and as a community, armed with strategies that can benefit all of us.
References
1. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1989.
2. Lee AW. Townsend Letter. 2009 Jun;311:22-3.
3. Fromm E. To Have or To Be? New York: Continuum International Publishing; 2005.
4. Rushlau K. Integrative Healthcare Symposium. 2020 Feb 21.
5. Gerbarg PL. Mind Body Practices for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Presentation at Integrative Medicine for Mental Health Conference. 2016 Sep.
6. Kopacz D. Nurture Yourself During the Pandemic: Try New Recipes! Being Fully Human. 2020 Mar 22.
Dr. Lee specializes in integrative and holistic psychiatry and has a private practice in Gaithersburg, Md. She has no disclosures.
CDC: Screen nearly all adults, including pregnant women, for HCV
In the latest issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended hepatitis C virus screening for all adults and all pregnant women – during each of their pregnancies – in areas where prevalence of the infection is 0.1% or greater.
That’s essentially the entire United States; there’s no state with a statewide adult prevalence below 0.1%, and “few settings are known to exist” otherwise, the CDC noted (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69(2):1-17).
The agency encouraged providers to consult state or local health departments or the CDC directly to determine local HCV prevalence. “As a general guide ... approximately 59% of anti-HCV positive persons are HCV RNA positive,” indicating active infection, the agency noted.
The advice was an expansion from the CDC’s last universal screening recommendation in 2012, which was limited to people born from 1945 to 1965; the incidence of acute infections has climbed since then and is highest now among younger people, so the guideline needed to be revisited, explained authors led by Sarah Schillie, MD, of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, Atlanta.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also recently recommended universal adult screening after previously limiting it to baby boomers.
As for pregnancy, the CDC’s past advice was to screen pregnant women with known risk factors, but that needed to be revisited as well. For one thing, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have since recommended testing all pregnant women.
But also, the CDC said, it’s an opportune time for screening because “many women only have access to health care during pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period,” when treatment, if needed, can be started. Plus, HCV status is important for management decisions, such as using amniocentesis in positive women instead of chorionic villus sampling.
The rest of CDC’s 2012 recommendations stand, including screening all people with risk factors and repeating screening while they persist. Also, “any person who requests hepatitis C testing should receive it, regardless of disclosure of risk,” because people might be reluctant to report things like IV drug use, the authors said.
Screening in the guidelines means an HCV antibody test, followed by a nucleic acid test to check for active infection. The CDC encouraged automatic reflex testing, meaning immediately checking antibody positive samples for HCV RNA. RNA in the blood indicates active, replicating virus.
The new recommendations penciled out in modeling, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for universal adult screening of approximately $36,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and an ICER of approximately $15,000 per QALY gained for pregnancy screening, where HCV prevalence is 0.1%; the 0.1% cost/benefit cutpoint was one of the reasons it was chosen as the prevalence threshold. An ICER under $50,000 is the conservative benchmark for cost-effectiveness, the authors noted.
There was no external funding, and the authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Schillie S et al. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69[2]:1-17).
In the latest issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended hepatitis C virus screening for all adults and all pregnant women – during each of their pregnancies – in areas where prevalence of the infection is 0.1% or greater.
That’s essentially the entire United States; there’s no state with a statewide adult prevalence below 0.1%, and “few settings are known to exist” otherwise, the CDC noted (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69(2):1-17).
The agency encouraged providers to consult state or local health departments or the CDC directly to determine local HCV prevalence. “As a general guide ... approximately 59% of anti-HCV positive persons are HCV RNA positive,” indicating active infection, the agency noted.
The advice was an expansion from the CDC’s last universal screening recommendation in 2012, which was limited to people born from 1945 to 1965; the incidence of acute infections has climbed since then and is highest now among younger people, so the guideline needed to be revisited, explained authors led by Sarah Schillie, MD, of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, Atlanta.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also recently recommended universal adult screening after previously limiting it to baby boomers.
As for pregnancy, the CDC’s past advice was to screen pregnant women with known risk factors, but that needed to be revisited as well. For one thing, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have since recommended testing all pregnant women.
But also, the CDC said, it’s an opportune time for screening because “many women only have access to health care during pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period,” when treatment, if needed, can be started. Plus, HCV status is important for management decisions, such as using amniocentesis in positive women instead of chorionic villus sampling.
The rest of CDC’s 2012 recommendations stand, including screening all people with risk factors and repeating screening while they persist. Also, “any person who requests hepatitis C testing should receive it, regardless of disclosure of risk,” because people might be reluctant to report things like IV drug use, the authors said.
Screening in the guidelines means an HCV antibody test, followed by a nucleic acid test to check for active infection. The CDC encouraged automatic reflex testing, meaning immediately checking antibody positive samples for HCV RNA. RNA in the blood indicates active, replicating virus.
The new recommendations penciled out in modeling, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for universal adult screening of approximately $36,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and an ICER of approximately $15,000 per QALY gained for pregnancy screening, where HCV prevalence is 0.1%; the 0.1% cost/benefit cutpoint was one of the reasons it was chosen as the prevalence threshold. An ICER under $50,000 is the conservative benchmark for cost-effectiveness, the authors noted.
There was no external funding, and the authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Schillie S et al. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69[2]:1-17).
In the latest issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended hepatitis C virus screening for all adults and all pregnant women – during each of their pregnancies – in areas where prevalence of the infection is 0.1% or greater.
That’s essentially the entire United States; there’s no state with a statewide adult prevalence below 0.1%, and “few settings are known to exist” otherwise, the CDC noted (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69(2):1-17).
The agency encouraged providers to consult state or local health departments or the CDC directly to determine local HCV prevalence. “As a general guide ... approximately 59% of anti-HCV positive persons are HCV RNA positive,” indicating active infection, the agency noted.
The advice was an expansion from the CDC’s last universal screening recommendation in 2012, which was limited to people born from 1945 to 1965; the incidence of acute infections has climbed since then and is highest now among younger people, so the guideline needed to be revisited, explained authors led by Sarah Schillie, MD, of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, Atlanta.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also recently recommended universal adult screening after previously limiting it to baby boomers.
As for pregnancy, the CDC’s past advice was to screen pregnant women with known risk factors, but that needed to be revisited as well. For one thing, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America have since recommended testing all pregnant women.
But also, the CDC said, it’s an opportune time for screening because “many women only have access to health care during pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period,” when treatment, if needed, can be started. Plus, HCV status is important for management decisions, such as using amniocentesis in positive women instead of chorionic villus sampling.
The rest of CDC’s 2012 recommendations stand, including screening all people with risk factors and repeating screening while they persist. Also, “any person who requests hepatitis C testing should receive it, regardless of disclosure of risk,” because people might be reluctant to report things like IV drug use, the authors said.
Screening in the guidelines means an HCV antibody test, followed by a nucleic acid test to check for active infection. The CDC encouraged automatic reflex testing, meaning immediately checking antibody positive samples for HCV RNA. RNA in the blood indicates active, replicating virus.
The new recommendations penciled out in modeling, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for universal adult screening of approximately $36,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and an ICER of approximately $15,000 per QALY gained for pregnancy screening, where HCV prevalence is 0.1%; the 0.1% cost/benefit cutpoint was one of the reasons it was chosen as the prevalence threshold. An ICER under $50,000 is the conservative benchmark for cost-effectiveness, the authors noted.
There was no external funding, and the authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Schillie S et al. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2020 Apr 10;69[2]:1-17).
Almost 90% of COVID-19 admissions involve comorbidities
The hospitalization rate for COVID-19 is 4.6 per 100,000 population, and almost 90% of hospitalized patients have some type of underlying condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Data collected by the newly created COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) put the exact prevalence of underlying conditions at 89.3% for patients hospitalized during March 1-30, 2020, Shikha Garg, MD, of the CDC’s COVID-NET team and associates wrote in the MMWR.
The hospitalization rate, based on COVID-NET data for March 1-28, increased with patient age. Those aged 65 years and older were admitted at a rate of 13.8 per 100,000, with 50- to 64-year-olds next at 7.4 per 100,000 and 18- to 49-year-olds at 2.5, they wrote.
The patients aged 65 years and older also were the most likely to have one or more underlying conditions, at 94.4%, compared with 86.4% of those aged 50-64 years and 85.4% of individuals who were aged 18-44 years, the investigators reported.
Hypertension was the most common comorbidity among the oldest patients, with a prevalence of 72.6%, followed by cardiovascular disease at 50.8% and obesity at 41%. In the two younger groups, obesity was the condition most often seen in COVID-19 patients, with prevalences of 49% in 50- to 64-year-olds and 59% in those aged 18-49, Dr. Garg and associates wrote.
“These findings underscore the importance of preventive measures (e.g., social distancing, respiratory hygiene, and wearing face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain) to protect older adults and persons with underlying medical conditions,” the investigators wrote.
COVID-NET surveillance includes laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations in 99 counties in 14 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah. Those counties represent about 10% of the U.S. population.
SOURCE: Garg S et al. MMWR. 2020 Apr 8;69(early release):1-7.
The hospitalization rate for COVID-19 is 4.6 per 100,000 population, and almost 90% of hospitalized patients have some type of underlying condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Data collected by the newly created COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) put the exact prevalence of underlying conditions at 89.3% for patients hospitalized during March 1-30, 2020, Shikha Garg, MD, of the CDC’s COVID-NET team and associates wrote in the MMWR.
The hospitalization rate, based on COVID-NET data for March 1-28, increased with patient age. Those aged 65 years and older were admitted at a rate of 13.8 per 100,000, with 50- to 64-year-olds next at 7.4 per 100,000 and 18- to 49-year-olds at 2.5, they wrote.
The patients aged 65 years and older also were the most likely to have one or more underlying conditions, at 94.4%, compared with 86.4% of those aged 50-64 years and 85.4% of individuals who were aged 18-44 years, the investigators reported.
Hypertension was the most common comorbidity among the oldest patients, with a prevalence of 72.6%, followed by cardiovascular disease at 50.8% and obesity at 41%. In the two younger groups, obesity was the condition most often seen in COVID-19 patients, with prevalences of 49% in 50- to 64-year-olds and 59% in those aged 18-49, Dr. Garg and associates wrote.
“These findings underscore the importance of preventive measures (e.g., social distancing, respiratory hygiene, and wearing face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain) to protect older adults and persons with underlying medical conditions,” the investigators wrote.
COVID-NET surveillance includes laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations in 99 counties in 14 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah. Those counties represent about 10% of the U.S. population.
SOURCE: Garg S et al. MMWR. 2020 Apr 8;69(early release):1-7.
The hospitalization rate for COVID-19 is 4.6 per 100,000 population, and almost 90% of hospitalized patients have some type of underlying condition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Data collected by the newly created COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) put the exact prevalence of underlying conditions at 89.3% for patients hospitalized during March 1-30, 2020, Shikha Garg, MD, of the CDC’s COVID-NET team and associates wrote in the MMWR.
The hospitalization rate, based on COVID-NET data for March 1-28, increased with patient age. Those aged 65 years and older were admitted at a rate of 13.8 per 100,000, with 50- to 64-year-olds next at 7.4 per 100,000 and 18- to 49-year-olds at 2.5, they wrote.
The patients aged 65 years and older also were the most likely to have one or more underlying conditions, at 94.4%, compared with 86.4% of those aged 50-64 years and 85.4% of individuals who were aged 18-44 years, the investigators reported.
Hypertension was the most common comorbidity among the oldest patients, with a prevalence of 72.6%, followed by cardiovascular disease at 50.8% and obesity at 41%. In the two younger groups, obesity was the condition most often seen in COVID-19 patients, with prevalences of 49% in 50- to 64-year-olds and 59% in those aged 18-49, Dr. Garg and associates wrote.
“These findings underscore the importance of preventive measures (e.g., social distancing, respiratory hygiene, and wearing face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain) to protect older adults and persons with underlying medical conditions,” the investigators wrote.
COVID-NET surveillance includes laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations in 99 counties in 14 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah. Those counties represent about 10% of the U.S. population.
SOURCE: Garg S et al. MMWR. 2020 Apr 8;69(early release):1-7.
FROM THE MMWR
COVID 19: Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
The COVID-19 pandemic represents a looming crisis for patients with severe mental illness (SMI) and the healthcare systems that serve them, one expert warns.
However, Benjamin Druss, MD, MPH, from Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, Georgia, says there are strategies that can help minimize the risk of exposure and transmission of the virus in SMI patients.
In a viewpoint published online April 3 in JAMA Psychiatry, Druss, professor and chair in mental health, notes that “disasters disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable populations, and patients with serious mental illness may be among the hardest hit.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Druss said patients with SMI have “a whole range of vulnerabilities” that put them at higher risk for COVID-19.
These include high rates of smoking, cardiovascular and lung disease, poverty, and homelessness. In fact, estimates show 25% of the US homeless population has a serious mental illness, said Druss.
“You have to keep an eye on these overlapping circles of vulnerable populations: those with disabilities in general and people with serious mental illness in particular; people who are poor; and people who have limited social networks,” he said.
Tailored Communication Vital
It’s important for patients with SMI to have up-to-date, accurate information about mitigating risk and knowing when to seek medical treatment for COVID-19, Druss noted.
Communication materials developed for the general population need to be tailored to address limited health literacy and challenges in implementing physical distancing recommendations, he said.
Patients with SMI also need support in maintaining healthy habits, including diet and physical activity, as well as self-management of chronic mental and physical health conditions, he added.
He noted that even in the face of current constraints on mental health care delivery, ensuring access to services is essential. The increased emphasis on caring for, and keeping in touch with, SMI patients through telepsychiatry is one effective way of addressing this issue, said Druss.
Since mental health clinicians are often the first responders for people with SMI, these professionals need training to recognize the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and learn basic strategies to mitigate the spread of disease, not only for their patients but also for themselves, he added.
“Any given provider is going to be responsible for many, many patients, so keeping physically and mentally healthy will be vital.”
In order to ease the strain of COVID-19 on community mental health centers and psychiatric hospitals, which are at high risk for outbreaks and have limited capacity to treat medical illness, these institutions need contingency plans to detect and contain outbreaks if they occur.
“Careful planning and execution at multiple levels will be essential for minimizing the adverse outcomes of this pandemic for this vulnerable population,” Druss writes.
Voice of Experience
Commenting on the article for Medscape Medical News, Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, distinguished advisor for the New York State Office of Mental Health and adjunct professor at the Columbia School of Public Health in New York City, commended Druss for highlighting the need for more mental health services during the pandemic.
However, although Druss “has made some very good general statements,” these don’t really apply “in the wake of a real catastrophic event, which is what we’re having here,” Sederer said.
Sederer led Project Liberty, a massive mental health disaster response effort established in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. Druss seems to infer that the mental health workforce is capable of expanding, but “what we learned is that the mental health system in this country is vastly undersupplied,” said Sederer.
During a disaster, the system “actually contracts” because clinics close and workforces are reduced. In this environment, some patients with a serious mental illness let their treatment “erode,” Sederer said.
While Druss called for clinics to have protocols for identifying and referring patients at risk for COVID-19, Sederer pointed out that “all the clinics are closed.”
However, he did note that many mental health clinics and hospitals are continuing to reach out to their vulnerable patients during this crisis.
On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Sederer and colleagues published an article in Psychiatric Services that highlighted the “lessons learned” from the Project Liberty experience. One of the biggest lessons was the need for crisis counseling, which is “a recognized, proven intervention,” said Sederer.
Such an initiative involves trained outreach workers, identifying the untreated seriously mentally ill in the community, and “literally shepherding them to services,” he added.
In this current pandemic, it would be up to the federal government to mobilize such a crisis counseling initiative, Sederer explained.
Sederer noted that rapid relief groups like the Federal Emergency Management Agency do not cover mental health services. In order to be effective, disaster-related mental health services need to include funding for treatment, including focused therapies and medication.
Druss and Sederer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic represents a looming crisis for patients with severe mental illness (SMI) and the healthcare systems that serve them, one expert warns.
However, Benjamin Druss, MD, MPH, from Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, Georgia, says there are strategies that can help minimize the risk of exposure and transmission of the virus in SMI patients.
In a viewpoint published online April 3 in JAMA Psychiatry, Druss, professor and chair in mental health, notes that “disasters disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable populations, and patients with serious mental illness may be among the hardest hit.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Druss said patients with SMI have “a whole range of vulnerabilities” that put them at higher risk for COVID-19.
These include high rates of smoking, cardiovascular and lung disease, poverty, and homelessness. In fact, estimates show 25% of the US homeless population has a serious mental illness, said Druss.
“You have to keep an eye on these overlapping circles of vulnerable populations: those with disabilities in general and people with serious mental illness in particular; people who are poor; and people who have limited social networks,” he said.
Tailored Communication Vital
It’s important for patients with SMI to have up-to-date, accurate information about mitigating risk and knowing when to seek medical treatment for COVID-19, Druss noted.
Communication materials developed for the general population need to be tailored to address limited health literacy and challenges in implementing physical distancing recommendations, he said.
Patients with SMI also need support in maintaining healthy habits, including diet and physical activity, as well as self-management of chronic mental and physical health conditions, he added.
He noted that even in the face of current constraints on mental health care delivery, ensuring access to services is essential. The increased emphasis on caring for, and keeping in touch with, SMI patients through telepsychiatry is one effective way of addressing this issue, said Druss.
Since mental health clinicians are often the first responders for people with SMI, these professionals need training to recognize the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and learn basic strategies to mitigate the spread of disease, not only for their patients but also for themselves, he added.
“Any given provider is going to be responsible for many, many patients, so keeping physically and mentally healthy will be vital.”
In order to ease the strain of COVID-19 on community mental health centers and psychiatric hospitals, which are at high risk for outbreaks and have limited capacity to treat medical illness, these institutions need contingency plans to detect and contain outbreaks if they occur.
“Careful planning and execution at multiple levels will be essential for minimizing the adverse outcomes of this pandemic for this vulnerable population,” Druss writes.
Voice of Experience
Commenting on the article for Medscape Medical News, Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, distinguished advisor for the New York State Office of Mental Health and adjunct professor at the Columbia School of Public Health in New York City, commended Druss for highlighting the need for more mental health services during the pandemic.
However, although Druss “has made some very good general statements,” these don’t really apply “in the wake of a real catastrophic event, which is what we’re having here,” Sederer said.
Sederer led Project Liberty, a massive mental health disaster response effort established in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. Druss seems to infer that the mental health workforce is capable of expanding, but “what we learned is that the mental health system in this country is vastly undersupplied,” said Sederer.
During a disaster, the system “actually contracts” because clinics close and workforces are reduced. In this environment, some patients with a serious mental illness let their treatment “erode,” Sederer said.
While Druss called for clinics to have protocols for identifying and referring patients at risk for COVID-19, Sederer pointed out that “all the clinics are closed.”
However, he did note that many mental health clinics and hospitals are continuing to reach out to their vulnerable patients during this crisis.
On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Sederer and colleagues published an article in Psychiatric Services that highlighted the “lessons learned” from the Project Liberty experience. One of the biggest lessons was the need for crisis counseling, which is “a recognized, proven intervention,” said Sederer.
Such an initiative involves trained outreach workers, identifying the untreated seriously mentally ill in the community, and “literally shepherding them to services,” he added.
In this current pandemic, it would be up to the federal government to mobilize such a crisis counseling initiative, Sederer explained.
Sederer noted that rapid relief groups like the Federal Emergency Management Agency do not cover mental health services. In order to be effective, disaster-related mental health services need to include funding for treatment, including focused therapies and medication.
Druss and Sederer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The COVID-19 pandemic represents a looming crisis for patients with severe mental illness (SMI) and the healthcare systems that serve them, one expert warns.
However, Benjamin Druss, MD, MPH, from Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, Georgia, says there are strategies that can help minimize the risk of exposure and transmission of the virus in SMI patients.
In a viewpoint published online April 3 in JAMA Psychiatry, Druss, professor and chair in mental health, notes that “disasters disproportionately affect poor and vulnerable populations, and patients with serious mental illness may be among the hardest hit.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Druss said patients with SMI have “a whole range of vulnerabilities” that put them at higher risk for COVID-19.
These include high rates of smoking, cardiovascular and lung disease, poverty, and homelessness. In fact, estimates show 25% of the US homeless population has a serious mental illness, said Druss.
“You have to keep an eye on these overlapping circles of vulnerable populations: those with disabilities in general and people with serious mental illness in particular; people who are poor; and people who have limited social networks,” he said.
Tailored Communication Vital
It’s important for patients with SMI to have up-to-date, accurate information about mitigating risk and knowing when to seek medical treatment for COVID-19, Druss noted.
Communication materials developed for the general population need to be tailored to address limited health literacy and challenges in implementing physical distancing recommendations, he said.
Patients with SMI also need support in maintaining healthy habits, including diet and physical activity, as well as self-management of chronic mental and physical health conditions, he added.
He noted that even in the face of current constraints on mental health care delivery, ensuring access to services is essential. The increased emphasis on caring for, and keeping in touch with, SMI patients through telepsychiatry is one effective way of addressing this issue, said Druss.
Since mental health clinicians are often the first responders for people with SMI, these professionals need training to recognize the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and learn basic strategies to mitigate the spread of disease, not only for their patients but also for themselves, he added.
“Any given provider is going to be responsible for many, many patients, so keeping physically and mentally healthy will be vital.”
In order to ease the strain of COVID-19 on community mental health centers and psychiatric hospitals, which are at high risk for outbreaks and have limited capacity to treat medical illness, these institutions need contingency plans to detect and contain outbreaks if they occur.
“Careful planning and execution at multiple levels will be essential for minimizing the adverse outcomes of this pandemic for this vulnerable population,” Druss writes.
Voice of Experience
Commenting on the article for Medscape Medical News, Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, distinguished advisor for the New York State Office of Mental Health and adjunct professor at the Columbia School of Public Health in New York City, commended Druss for highlighting the need for more mental health services during the pandemic.
However, although Druss “has made some very good general statements,” these don’t really apply “in the wake of a real catastrophic event, which is what we’re having here,” Sederer said.
Sederer led Project Liberty, a massive mental health disaster response effort established in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York. Druss seems to infer that the mental health workforce is capable of expanding, but “what we learned is that the mental health system in this country is vastly undersupplied,” said Sederer.
During a disaster, the system “actually contracts” because clinics close and workforces are reduced. In this environment, some patients with a serious mental illness let their treatment “erode,” Sederer said.
While Druss called for clinics to have protocols for identifying and referring patients at risk for COVID-19, Sederer pointed out that “all the clinics are closed.”
However, he did note that many mental health clinics and hospitals are continuing to reach out to their vulnerable patients during this crisis.
On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Sederer and colleagues published an article in Psychiatric Services that highlighted the “lessons learned” from the Project Liberty experience. One of the biggest lessons was the need for crisis counseling, which is “a recognized, proven intervention,” said Sederer.
Such an initiative involves trained outreach workers, identifying the untreated seriously mentally ill in the community, and “literally shepherding them to services,” he added.
In this current pandemic, it would be up to the federal government to mobilize such a crisis counseling initiative, Sederer explained.
Sederer noted that rapid relief groups like the Federal Emergency Management Agency do not cover mental health services. In order to be effective, disaster-related mental health services need to include funding for treatment, including focused therapies and medication.
Druss and Sederer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.