Emergency department staff compassion is associated with lower fear of enacted stigma among patients with opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Fear of enacted stigma (fear of discrimination or being treated unfairly) is associated with decreased health care-seeking behaviors among patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). We sought to describe the prevalence of fear of enacted stigma among patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with OUD and to test whether experiencing greater compassion from ED staff is associated with lower fear of enacted stigma. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in the ED of an academic medical center between February and August 2023. We included adult patients with OUD presenting to the ED and assessed patient experience of compassion from ED staff using a previously validated 5-item compassion measure (score range 5-20). The primary outcome measure was fear of enacted stigma in the ED, measured using the validated 9-item subscale of the Substance Abuse Self-Stigma Scale (score range 9-45). RESULTS: Of the 116 subjects enrolled, 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91%-99%) reported some degree of stigma, with a median (interquartile range) score of 23 (16-31). In a multivariable model adjusting for potential confounders, patient experience of greater ED compassion was independently associated with lower fear of enacted stigma, ß = -0.66 (95% CI -1.03 to -0.29), suggesting that every 1-point increase in the 5-item compassion measure score is associated with a 0.66-point decrease in the fear of enacted stigma score. CONCLUSIONS: Among ED patients with OUD, fear of enacted stigma is common. Patient experience of compassion from ED staff is associated with lower fear of enacted stigma. Future research is warranted to test if interventions aimed at increasing compassion from ED staff reduce patient fear of enacted stigma among patients with OUD.

Partial pressure of carbon dioxide/pH interaction and its association with mortality among patients mechanically ventilated in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: There is currently conflicting data as to the effects of hypercapnia on clinical outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients in the emergency department (ED). These conflicting results may be explained by the degree of acidosis. We sought to test the hypothesis that hypercapnia is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and decreased ventilator-free days at lower pH, but associated with decreased in-hospital mortality and increased ventilator-free days at higher pH, among patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Secondary analysis of patient level data from prior clinical trials and cohort studies that enrolled adult patients who required mechanical ventilation in the ED. Patients who had a documented blood gas while on mechanical ventilation in the ED were included in these analyses. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcome was ventilator-free days. Mixed-effects logistic, linear, and survival-time regression models were used to test if pH modified the association between partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) and outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 2348 subjects included, the median [interquartile range (IQR)] pCO2 was 43 (35-54) and pH was 7.31 (7.22-7.39). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 27%. We found pH modified the association between pCO2 and outcomes, with higher pCO2 associated with increased probability of in-hospital mortality when pH is below 7.00, and decreased probability of in-hospital mortality when pH is above 7.10. These results remained consistent across multiple sensitivity and subgroup analyses. A similar relationship was found with ventilator-free days. CONCLUSIONS: Higher pCO2 is associated with decreased mortality and greater ventilator-free days when pH is >7.10; however, it is associated with increased mortality and fewer ventilator-free days when the pH is below 7.00. Targeting pCO2 based on pH in the ED may be a potential intervention target for future clinical trials to improve clinical outcomes.

Awareness with paralysis and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder among mechanically ventilated emergency department survivors (ED-AWARENESS-2 Trial): study protocol for a pragmatic, multicenter, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Awareness with paralysis (AWP) is memory recall during neuromuscular blockade (NMB) and can cause significant psychological harm. Decades of effort and rigorous trials have been conducted to prevent AWP in the operating room, where prevalence is 0.1-0.2%. By contrast, AWP in mechanically ventilated emergency department (ED) patients is common, with estimated prevalence of 3.3-7.4% among survivors given NMB. Longer-acting NMB use is a critical risk for AWP, and we have shown an association between ED rocuronium use and increased AWP prevalence. As NMB are given to more than 90% of ED patients during tracheal intubation, this trial provides a platform to test an intervention aimed at reducing AWP. The overall objective is to test the hypothesis that limiting ED rocuronium exposure will significantly reduce the proportion of patients experiencing AWP. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial conducted in five academic EDs, and will enroll 3090 patients. Per the design, all sites begin in a control phase, under observational conditions. At 6-month intervals, sites sequentially enter a 2-month transition phase, during which we will implement the multifaceted intervention, which will rely on use of nudges and defaults to change clinician decisions regarding ED NMB use. During the intervention phase, succinylcholine will be the default NMB over rocuronium. The primary outcome is AWP, assessed with the modified Brice questionnaire, adjudicated by three independent, blinded experts. The secondary outcome is the proportion of patients developing clinically significant symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder at 30 and 180 days after hospital discharge. We will also assess for symptoms of depression and anxiety, and health-related quality of life. A generalized linear model, adjusted for time and cluster interactions, will be used to compare AWP in control versus intervention phases, analyzed by intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: The ED-AWARENESS-2 Trial will be the first ED-based trial aimed at preventing AWP, a critical threat to patient safety. Results could shape clinical use of NMB in the ED and prevent more than 10,000 annual cases of AWP related to ED care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05534243 . Registered 06, September 2022.

Arterial to end-tidal carbon dioxide gap and its characterization in mechanically ventilated adults in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: To evaluate early measurement of the arterial to end-tidal carbon dioxide (PaCO2-PetCO2) gap, a surrogate for physiologic dead space, and its association with clinical outcomes in intubated adults in the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational cohort study of invasively mechanically ventilated adults in an academic medical center (years 2009 to 2016). The association of the PaCO2-PetCO2 gap was evaluated with respect to clinical outcomes; the primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 519 patients were included. 325 (63%) patients had an elevated (>5 mmHg) PaCO2-PetCO2. Patients with an elevated PaCO2-PetCO2 were significantly older, had higher APACHE II scores, more frequently had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), had lower arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (P:F) ratios, and were more likely to be intubated for exacerbation of COPD or sepsis. There was no difference in mortality for patients with an elevated PaCO2-PetCO2 (25% vs 26%) in unadjusted analysis (p = 0.829) or adjusted analysis (aOR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.53-1.26]), as compared to a non-elevated PaCO2-PetCO2. CONCLUSIONS: An elevated PaCO2-PetCO2 gap is common in the post-intubation period in the ED, but not significantly associated with clinical outcomes.

The Practice Change and Clinical Impact of Lung-Protective Ventilation Initiated in the Emergency Department: A Secondary Analysis of Individual Patient-Level Data From Prior Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Mechanically ventilated emergency department (ED) patients experience high morbidity and mortality. In a prior trial at our center, ED-based lung-protective ventilation was associated with improved care delivery and outcomes. Whether this strategy has persisted in the years after the trial remains unclear. The objective was to assess practice change and clinical outcomes associated with ED lung-protective ventilation. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of individual patient-level data from prior clinical trials and cohort studies. SETTING: ED and ICUs of a single academic center. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adults. INTERVENTIONS: A lung-protective ventilator protocol used as the default approach in the ED. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary ventilator-related outcome was tidal volume, and the primary clinical outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, hospital-, and ICU-free days. Multivariable logistic regression, propensity score (PS)-adjustment, and multiple a priori subgroup analyses were used to evaluate outcome as a function of the intervention. A total of 1,796 patients in the preintervention period and 1,403 patients in the intervention period were included. In the intervention period, tidal volume was reduced from 8.2 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) (7.3-9.1) to 6.5 mL/kg PBW (6.1-7.1), and low tidal volume ventilation increased from 46.8% to 96.2% ( p < 0.01). The intervention period was associated with lower mortality (35.9% vs 19.1%), remaining significant after multivariable logistic regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.53; p < 0.01). Similar results were seen after PS adjustment and in subgroups. The intervention group had more ventilator- (18.8 [10.1] vs 14.1 [11.9]; p < 0.01), hospital- (12.2 [9.6] vs 9.4 [9.5]; p < 0.01), and ICU-free days (16.6 [10.1] vs 13.1 [11.1]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ED lung-protective ventilation has persisted in the years since implementation and was associated with improved outcomes. These data suggest the use of ED-based lung-protective ventilation as a means to improve outcome.

Awareness With Paralysis Among Critically Ill Emergency Department Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: In mechanically ventilated patients, awareness with paralysis (AWP) can have devastating consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and thoughts of suicide. Single-center data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate an event rate for AWP factors higher than that reported from the operating room. However, there remains a lack of data on AWP among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The objective was to assess the proportion of ED patients experiencing AWP and investigate modifiable variables associated with its occurrence. DESIGN: An a priori planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, before-and-after clinical trial. SETTING: The ED of three academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adult patients that received neuromuscular blockers. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All data related to sedation and analgesia were collected. AWP was the primary outcome, assessed with the modified Brice questionnaire, and was independently adjudicated by three expert reviewers. Perceived threat, in the causal pathway for PTSD, was the secondary outcome. A total of 388 patients were studied. The proportion of patients experiencing AWP was 3.4% ( n = 13), the majority of whom received rocuronium ( n = 12/13; 92.3%). Among patients who received rocuronium, 5.5% ( n = 12/230) experienced AWP, compared with 0.6% ( n = 1/158) among patients who did not receive rocuronium in the ED (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.15). Patients experiencing AWP had a higher mean ( sd ) threat perception scale score, compared with patients without AWP (15.6 [5.8] vs 7.7 [6.0]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: AWP was present in a concerning proportion of mechanically ventilated ED patients, was associated with rocuronium exposure in the ED, and led to increased levels of perceived threat, placing patients at greater risk for PTSD. Studies that aim to further quantify AWP in this vulnerable population and eliminate its occurrence are urgently needed.

A dual-center cohort study on the association between early deep sedation and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-SED study.

BACKGROUND: Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. RESULTS: 391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.

Mechanical Ventilation Practices and Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in Air Medical Transport Patients: The AIR-VENT Study.

BACKGROUND: The management of mechanical ventilation critically impacts outcome for patients with acute respiratory failure. Ventilator settings in the early post-intubation period may be especially influential on outcome. Low tidal volume ventilation in the prehospital setting has been shown to impact the provision of low tidal volume after admission and influence outcome. However, there is an overall paucity of data on mechanical ventilation for air medical transport patients. The objectives of this study were to characterize air medical transport ventilation practices and assess variables associated with nonprotective ventilation. METHODS: This was a multi-center, nationwide (approximately 130 bases) retrospective cohort study conducted on consecutive, adult mechanically ventilated air medical transport patients treated in the prehospital environment. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the cohort; the chi-square test compared categorical variables, and continuous variables were compared using independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test. To assess for predictors of nonprotective ventilation, a multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to adjust for potentially confounding variables. Low tidal volume ventilation was defined as a tidal volume of ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). RESULTS: A total of 68,365 subjects were studied. Height was documented in only 4,186 (6.1%) subjects. Significantly higher tidal volume/PBW (8.6 [8.3-9.2] mL vs 6.5 [6.1-7.0] mL) and plateau pressure (20.0 [16.5-25.0] cm H2O vs 18.0 [15.0-22.0] cm H2O) were seen in the nonpro-tective ventilation group (P < .001 for both). According to sex, females received higher tidal volume/PBW compared to males (7.4 [6.6-8.0] mL vs 6.4 [6.0-6.8] mL, P < .001) and composed 75% of those subjects with nonprotective ventilation compared to 25% male, P < .001. After multivariable logistic regression, female sex was an independent predictor of nonprotective ventilation (adjusted odds ratio 6.79 [95% CI 5.47-8.43], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming majority of air medical transport subjects had tidal volume set empirically, which may be exposing patients to nonprotective ventilator settings. Given a lack of PBW assessments, the frequency of low tidal volume use remains unknown. Performance improvement initiatives aimed at indexing tidal volume to PBW are easy targets to improve the delivery of mechanical ventilation in the prehospital arena, especially for females.

The Feasibility of Implementing Targeted SEDation in Mechanically Ventilated Emergency Department Patients: The ED-SED Pilot Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Deep sedation in the emergency department (ED) is common, increases deep sedation in the ICU, and is negatively associated with outcome. Limiting ED deep sedation may, therefore, be a high-yield intervention to improve outcome. However, the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered ED-based clinical sedation trial is unknown. Our objectives were to assess trial feasibility in terms of: 1) recruitment, 2) protocol implementation and practice change, and 3) safety. Patient-centered clinical outcomes were assessed to better plan for a future large-scale clinical trial. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter ( n = 3), prospective before-after pilot and feasibility trial. SETTING: The ED and ICUs at three medical centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive, adult mechanically ventilation ED patients. INTERVENTIONS: An educational initiative aimed at reliable ED sedation depth documentation and reducing the proportion of deeply sedated patients (primary outcome). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sedation-related data in the ED and the first 48 ICU hours were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or a Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. One thousand three hundred fifty-six patients were screened; 415 comprised the final population. Lighter ED sedation was achieved in the intervention group, and the proportion of deeply sedated patients was reduced from 60.2% to 38.8% ( p < 0.01). There were no concerning trends in adverse events (i.e., inadvertent extubation, device removal, and awareness with paralysis). Mortality was 10.0% in the intervention group and 20.4% in the preintervention group ( p < 0.01). Compared with preintervention, the intervention group experienced more ventilator-free days [22.0 (9.0) vs 19.9 (10.6)] and ICU-free days [20.8 (8.7) vs 18.1 (10.4)], p < 0.05 for both. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial confirmed the feasibility of targeting the ED in order to improve sedation practices and reduce deep sedation. These findings justify an appropriately powered clinical trial regarding ED-based sedation to improve clinical outcomes.

A Dual-Center Cohort Study on The Association Between Early Deep Sedation and Clinical Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: the COVID-SED Study.

Background : Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Study Design and Methods : Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over six months (March - August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 hours were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1 - 3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome) we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. Results : 391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation ( p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65 - 7.17; p <0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19. Conclusions : The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach. Clinical Trial Registration : Not applicable.

Low Tidal Volume Ventilation for Emergency Department Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Practice Patterns and Clinical Impact.

OBJECTIVES: Data suggest that low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) initiated in the emergency department (ED) has a positive impact on outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantify the impact of ED-based LTVV on outcomes and ventilator settings in the ED and ICU. DATA SOURCES: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, references, conferences, and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and nonrandomized studies of mechanically ventilated ED adults were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilation duration, lengths of stay, and occurrence rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We assessed impact of ED LTVV interventions on ED and ICU tidal volumes. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search identified 1,023 studies. Eleven studies (n = 12,912) provided outcome data and were meta-analyzed; 10 additional studies (n = 1,863) provided descriptive ED tidal volume data. Overall quality of evidence was low. Random effect meta-analytic models revealed that ED LTVV was associated with lower mortality (26.5%) versus non-LTVV (31.1%) (odds ratio, 0.80 [0.72-0.88]). ED LTVV was associated with shorter ICU (mean difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3) and hospital (mean difference, -1.2; 95% CI, -2.3 to -0.1) lengths of stay, more ventilator-free days (mean difference, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.4-2.4), and lower occurrence rate (4.5% vs 8.3%) of ARDS (odds ratio, 0.57 [0.44-0.75]). ED LTVV interventions were associated with reductions in ED (-1.5-mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW] [-1.9 to -1.0]; p < 0.001) and ICU (-1.0-mL/kg PBW [-1.8 to -0.2]; p = 0.01) tidal volume. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LTVV in the ED is associated with improved clinical outcomes and increased use of lung protection, recognizing low quality of evidence in this domain. Interventions aimed at implementing and sustaining LTVV in the ED should be explored.

Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms after respiratory and cardiovascular emergencies predict risk of hospital readmission: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Twenty-five percent of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) for a respiratory or cardiovascular medical emergency develop clinically significant posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. It is possible that development of PTSD symptoms in this cohort is associated with subsequent adverse physical health events. Our objective was to test whether clinically significant PTSD symptoms 30 days postdischarge are associated with increased risk for hospital readmission within 24 months after discharge among patients presenting to the ED for a respiratory or cardiovascular emergency. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, at a U.S. academic medical center, including adult patients presenting with acute respiratory failure or cardiovascular instability requiring a potentially life-sustaining intervention in the ED. PTSD symptoms 30 days postdischarge were measured using the PTSD Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5. The primary outcome was all-cause hospital readmission over the subsequent 24 months after hospital discharge from the index ED visit. RESULTS: Of the 99 patients included, 73% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63% to 81%) had a hospital readmission within 24 months. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for potential confounders (e.g., age, severity of illness during index ED visit, preexisting comorbid conditions) presence of clinically significant PTSD symptoms at 30 days was independently associated with increased risk for all-cause hospital readmission at 24 months (hazards ratio = 2.19, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.69). These results remained statistically significant across multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital readmission is common among survivors of acute respiratory failure and cardiovascular instability, and PTSD symptoms 30 days postdischarge are an independent predictor of hospital readmission. Survivors of medical emergencies may warrant follow-up evaluation for PTSD symptoms, and future research is warranted to better understand the relationship between psychological trauma and hospital readmission.

Validation of a 5-Item Tool to Measure Patient Assessment of Clinician Compassion in Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: We previously validated a 5-item compassion measure to assess patient experience of clinician compassion in the outpatient setting. However, currently, there is no validated and feasible method for health care systems to measure patient experience of clinician compassion in the inpatient setting across multiple hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To test if the 5-item compassion measure can validly and distinctly measure patient assessment of physician and nurse compassion in the inpatient setting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study between July 1 and July 31, 2020, in a US health care network of 91 community hospitals across 16 states consisting of approximately 15,000 beds. PATIENTS: Adult patients who had an inpatient hospital stay and completed the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. MEASUREMENTS: We adapted the original 5-item compassion measure to be specific for physicians, as well as for nurses. We disseminated both measures with the HCAHPS survey and used confirmatory factor analysis for validity testing. We tested reliability using Cronbach's alpha, as well as convergent validity with patient assessment of physician and nursing communication and overall hospital rating questions from HCAHPS. RESULTS: We analyzed 4756 patient responses. Confirmatory factor analysis found good fit for two distinct constructs (i.e., physician and nurse compassion). Both measures demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha > 0.90) and good convergent validity but reflected a construct (compassionate care) distinct from what is currently captured in HCAHPS. CONCLUSION: We validated two 5-item tools that can distinctly measure patient experience of physician and nurse compassion for use in the inpatient hospital setting in conjunction with HCAHPS.

Clinical characteristics and symptom duration among outpatients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of people with COVID-19 do not require hospitalization. Studies examining the outpatient experience have not tracked symptoms to resolution leading to unknown expected symptom duration. Our objectives were to (1) determine symptom duration among patients with COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization and (2) identify potential risk factors associated with prolonged symptom duration. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted across an academic healthcare system including adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18th and April 28th, 2020 who were not hospitalized. Symptom duration encompassed time from patient-reported symptom onset as documented in the chart until documented symptom resolution. We calculated the median symptom duration and tested if demographics, comorbidities, or reported symptoms were associated with symptom duration. KEY RESULTS: Of 294 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 178 (60.5%) had documented symptom resolution. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] symptom duration for included patients was 15 (8-24) days. No associations were found between comorbidities and symptom duration. Factors associated with prolonged symptom duration were presence vs lack of lower respiratory symptoms [median (IQR) 16.5 (10.75-33.5) vs 14.5 (7-21.75) days respectively, P < .001] and neurologic symptoms [median (IQR) 17 (9-28) vs 9.5 (4-17) days, P < .001] at disease onset. CONCLUSIONS: The median symptom duration in outpatients is 15 days and over 25% of patients have symptoms longer than 21 days.

The AIR-SED Study: A Multicenter Cohort Study of SEDation Practices, Deep Sedation, and Coma Among Mechanically Ventilated AIR Transport Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize prehospital air medical transport sedation practices and test the hypothesis that modifiable variables related to the monitoring and delivery of analgesia and sedation are associated with prehospital deep sedation. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A nationwide, multicenter (approximately 130 bases) air medical transport provider. PATIENTS: Consecutive, adult mechanically ventilated air medical transport patients treated in the prehospital environment (January 2015 to December 2020). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All data involving sedation (medications, monitoring) were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as: 1) Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5; 2) Ramsay Sedation Scale of 5 or 6; or 3) Glasgow Coma Scale of less than or equal to 9. Coma was defined as being unresponsive and based on median sedation depth: 1) Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -5; 2) Ramsay of 6; or 3) Glasgow Coma Scale of 3. A total of 72,148 patients were studied. Prehospital deep sedation was observed in 63,478 patients (88.0%), and coma occurred in 42,483 patients (58.9%). Deeply sedated patients received neuromuscular blockers more frequently and were less likely to have sedation depth documented with a validated sedation depth scale (i.e., Ramsay or Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale). After adjusting for covariates, a multivariable logistic regression model demonstrated that the use of longer-acting neuromuscular blockers (i.e., rocuronium and vecuronium) was an independent predictor of deep sedation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35; p < 0.001), while use of a validated sedation scale was associated with a lower odds of deep sedation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.27-0.30; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Deep sedation (and coma) is very common in mechanically ventilated air transport patients and associated with modifiable variables related to the monitoring and delivery of analgesia and sedation. Sedation practices in the prehospital arena and associated clinical outcomes are in need of further investigation.

The Use of Dexmedetomidine in the Emergency Department: A Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Management of sedation, analgesia, and anxiolysis are cornerstone therapies in the emergency department (ED). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a central alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly being used, and intensive care unit (ICU) data demonstrate improved outcomes in patients with respiratory failure. However, there is a lack of ED-based data. We therefore sought to: 1) characterize ED DEX use; 2) describe the incidence of adverse events; and 3) explore factors associated with adverse events among patients receiving DEX in the ED. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study of consecutive ED patients administered DEX (January 1, 2017-July 1, 2019) at an academic, tertiary care ED with an annual census of ~90,000 patient visits. All included patients (n= 103) were analyzed for characterization of DEX use in the ED. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events, bradycardia and hypotension. Secondary clinical outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and hospital mortality. To examine for variables associated with adverse events, we used a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: We report on 103 patients. Dexmedetomidine was most commonly given for acute respiratory failure, including sedation for mechanical ventilation (28.9%) and facilitation of non-invasive ventilation (17.4%). Fifty-four (52.4%) patients experienced the composite adverse event, with hypotension occurring in 41 patients (39.8%) and bradycardia occurring in 18 patients (17.5%). Dexmedetomidine was stopped secondary to an adverse event in eight patients (7.8%). Duration of DEX use in the ED was associated with an increase adverse event risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 1.001, 1.008). CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered in the ED for patients with acute respiratory failure. Adverse events are relatively common, yet DEX is discontinued comparatively infrequently due to adverse events. Our results suggest that DEX could be a viable option for analgesia, anxiolysis, and sedation in ED patients.

Delays in reporting and publishing trial results during pandemics: cross sectional analysis of 2009 H1N1, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO's established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16-76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9-34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Very few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.

Preconsultation compassion intervention to reduce anxiety among patients referred to a cancer center: protocol for a randomised control trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients diagnosed with cancer commonly have a high degree of anxiety during an initial oncology consultation, which may interfere with a patient's ability to retain information required to make informed treatment decisions. A previous study randomised breast cancer survivors (volunteers) to view either (a) a brief video depicting a standard initial consultation from an oncologist or (b) an identical consultation with the addition of compassionate statements from the oncologist, and found the compassionate statements reduced anxiety among the volunteers. However, while compassionate statements reduced anxiety during simulation, it is currently unknown whether watching a video containing compassionate statements from an oncologist prior to an initial oncology consultation will reduce anxiety among patients referred to a cancer centre. The aim of this randomised control trial is to test whether watching a brief video containing compassionate statements from an oncologist, compared with watching a standard introduction video, prior to an initial oncology consultation will reduce the degree of anxiety among patients referred to a cancer centre. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective, randomised controlled clinical trial at an academic cancer centre. We will enrol adult patients scheduled for an initial oncology consultation. Subjects will be randomly assigned to receive a standard introduction video or enhanced compassion video for viewing prior to the initial oncology consultation. On arrival to the cancer centre, we will measure anxiety severity using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The HADS has two 7-item subscales (HADS anxiety and HADS depression) and is well-validated among oncology patients. We will use Wilcoxon rank-sum test to test for a difference in the HADS subscales between the two video groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Cooper University Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study. The results from this randomised control trial will be submitted for publication to a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04503681.

Socioeconomic, racial and ethnic differences in patient experience of clinician empathy: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Empathy is essential for high quality health care. Health care disparities may reflect a systemic lack of empathy for disadvantaged people; however, few data exist on disparities in patient experience of empathy during face-to-face health care encounters with individual clinicians. We systematically analyzed the literature to test if socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity disparities exist in patient-reported experience of clinician empathy. METHODS: Using a published protocol, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsychINFO for studies using the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure, which to date is the most commonly used and well-validated methodology for measuring clinician empathy from the patient perspective. We included studies containing CARE Measure data stratified by SES and/or race/ethnicity. We contacted authors to request stratified data, when necessary. We performed quantitative meta-analyses using random effects models to test for empathy differences by SES and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (n = 9,708 patients) were included. We found that, compared to patients whose SES was not low, low SES patients experienced lower empathy from clinicians (mean difference = -0.87 [95% confidence interval -1.72 to -0.02]). Compared to white patients, empathy scores were numerically lower for patients of multiple race/ethnicity groups (Black/African American, Asian, Native American, and all non-whites combined) but none of these differences reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION: These data suggest an empathy gap may exist for patients with low SES. More research is needed to further test for SES and race/ethnicity disparities in clinician empathy and help promote health care equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration (PROSPERO): CRD42019142809.

Awareness With Paralysis in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Emergency Department and ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Awareness with paralysis is a devastating complication for mechanically ventilated patients and can carry long-term psychologic sequelae. Hundreds of thousands of patients require mechanical ventilation in the emergency department and ICU annually, yet awareness has only been rigorously examined in the operating room (incidence ~0.1%). This report collates the global literature regarding the incidence of awareness with paralysis outside of the operating room. DATA SOURCES: We searched OvidMedline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized or nonrandomized studies (except single case studies) reporting on awareness with paralysis in the emergency department or ICU were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for eligibility. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search identified 4,454 potentially eligible studies. Seven studies (n = 941 patients) were included for analysis. A random effects meta-analysis of proportions along with multiple subgroup analyses was performed. Significant between-study heterogeneity in reporting of awareness with paralysis was noted, and the quality of the evidence was low. Analyses stratified by: 1) good-quality studies and 2) use of the modified Brice questionnaire to detect awareness revealed estimates of 3.4% (95% CI, 0-10.2%) and 1.9% (95% CI, 1.0-3.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of awareness with paralysis in mechanically ventilated patients in the emergency department and ICU, as evaluated in a small number of qualifying studies from this comprehensive systematic review, appears much higher than that reported from the operating room. Given the clinical and statistical heterogeneity, caution is warranted in the interpretation of these findings. Further high-quality studies are needed to both define the true incidence and to target the prevention of awareness with paralysis in this vulnerable patient cohort.