Clinical Features and Follow-up of Referred Children and Young People With Long COVID.

BACKGROUND: Patient-level data on the clinical features and outcomes of children and young people referred for possible long coronavirus disease (COVID) can guide clinicians on what to expect in managing patients and advising families. METHODS: A Post-Acute COVID Clinic for persons <21 years of age was established in October 2020. Intake was standardized and management was tailored to presenting symptoms. Data were abstracted from the charts of all patients evaluated through December 2021, and the study cohort consisted of patients who had a history of confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, had ≥1 symptom persisting for ≥12 weeks and had no pre-existing diagnosis that explained the symptoms. A structured follow-up interview was conducted in early 2022. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were referred, 81 of whom met inclusion criteria. The median age was 14 years (interquartile range, 13-16), and most were female, White/Caucasian and had commercial health insurance. Patients reported previously good health but over half reported moderate-to-severe disability at their first visit. Two clusters of presenting symptoms-fatigue with multiple symptoms, and fatigue and headache with cardiopulmonary symptoms-were identified. Extensive routine testing did not affirm alternative diagnoses. Incident conditions-most commonly anxiety, depression and/or panic disorder; migraines; and autonomic dysfunction-were diagnosed on clinical grounds. Telephone interviews (N = 55) revealed that 78% of patients were improved by about 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of a single-center, referral-based, observational cohort, this study provides reassurance to patients and parents in that most cases of long COVID were self-limited. Extensive evaluations may be more useful in ruling out alternative diagnoses than in affirming specific physiologic disturbances.

Standardized Vaccine-Hesitant Patients in the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Vaccine Communication Training.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if training residents in a structured communication method elicits specific behaviors in a laboratory model of interaction with vaccine-hesitant parents. STUDY DESIGN: Standardized patients portraying vaccine-hesitant parents were used to assess the effectiveness of training in the Announce, Inquire, Mirror, Secure (AIMS) Method for Healthy Conversations. Blinded pediatric residents were pseudorandomized to receive AIMS or control training and underwent pre- and post-training encounters with blinded standardized patients. Encounters were assessed by blinded raters using a novel tool. Participant confidence and standardized patient evaluations of the participants' general communication skills were assessed. RESULTS: Ratings were available for 27 AIMS and 26 control participants. Statistically significant increases in post-training scores (maximum = 30) were detected in AIMS, but not in control, participants (median, 21.3 [IQR, 19.8-24.8] vs 18.8 [IQR, 16.9-20.9]; P < .001). Elements (maximum score = 6) with significant increases were Inquire (0.67 [IQR, 0-1.76] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P < .001); Mirror (1.33 [IQR, 0 to 2] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.92 to 0]; P < .001) and Secure (0.33 [IQR, 0 to 1.67] vs -0.17 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P = .017). Self-confidence increased equally in both groups. Standardized patients did not detect a difference in communication skills after training and between groups. Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the assessment tool were modest. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized patients proved useful in studying the effectiveness of structured communication training, but may have been limited in their ability to perceive a difference between groups owing to the predetermined encounter outcome of vaccine refusal. AIMS training should be studied in real-world scenarios to determine if it impacts vaccine acceptance.