Characteristics and Outcomes of Endoscopies before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed hospital workflows. This study aimed to characterize differences in gastrointestinal endoscopies in the New York metropolitan region before, during, and after the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Across 3 hospitals, we compared demographics, indications, and yield of endoscopies before and after March 16, 2020, the date on which elective procedures were canceled, as well as a recovery period for 5 months after they were resumed. RESULTS: A total of 9,401 procedures before and 332 procedures during the first wave were performed. Females comprised 57 and 44% of patients (p < 0.01), respectively. There was a decline in the proportion of Black (15 vs. 7%, p < 0.02) and Hispanic patients (29 vs. 16%, p < 0.02) undergoing outpatient procedures. There was a significant rise in urgent indications such as bleeding and jaundice. There was an increase in the diagnostic yield of all esophagogastroduodenoscopies for bleeding (p < 0.01) and of outpatient endoscopic ultrasounds for malignancy (p = 0.01), but no increase in yield of inpatient colonoscopy for bleeding. A review of 7,475 procedures during the recovery period showed a return to many nonurgent indications, but still showed decreased proportions of Hispanic and male patients compared to the prepandemic period. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Lower proportions of Black and Hispanic patients underwent outpatient endoscopies during and after the first wave. The proportion of procedures done for emergent indications and their diagnostic yield increased during the pandemic, suggesting a higher threshold to perform endoscopy. In resource-sparing conditions, clinicians should pay attention to thresholds to perform colonoscopy for bleeding and to racial disparities in outpatient healthcare access.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Endoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Study from New York City.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the practice of endoscopy, but characteristics of COVID patients undergoing endoscopy have not been adequately described. AIMS: To compare findings, clinical outcomes, and patient characteristics of endoscopies performed during the pandemic in patients with and without COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study of adult endoscopies at six academic hospitals in New York between March 16 and April 30, 2020. Patient and procedure characteristics including age, sex, indication, findings, interventions, and outcomes were compared in patients testing positive, negative, or untested for COVID-19. RESULTS: Six hundred and five endoscopies were performed on 545 patients during the study period. There were 84 (13.9%), 255 (42.2%), and 266 (44.0%) procedures on COVID-positive, negative, and untested patients, respectively. COVID patients were more likely to undergo endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding or gastrostomy tube placement, and COVID patients with gastrointestinal bleeding more often required hemostatic interventions on multivariable logistic regression. COVID patients had increased length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and intubation rate. Twenty-seven of 521 patients (5.2%) with no or negative COVID testing prior to endoscopy later tested positive, a median of 13.5 days post-procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopies in COVID patients were more likely to require interventions, due either to more severe illness or a higher threshold to perform endoscopy. A significant number of patients endoscoped without testing were subsequently found to be COVID-positive. Gastroenterologists in areas affected by the pandemic must adapt to changing patterns of endoscopy practice and ensure pre-endoscopy COVID testing.

Impact of a Novel Goals-of-Care Communication Skills Coaching Intervention for Practicing Oncologists.

Background: Oncologists routinely have opportunities for goals-of-care (GoC) discussions with patients. GoC discussions increase the likelihood that patients receive care consistent with their values. However, oncologists often feel ill-equipped to discuss end-of-life care. Objective: To assess the impact of a communication training and coaching intervention (INT) for oncologists during GoC discussions. Design: We randomized oncologists to usual care (UC) or a communication skills training INT, which consisted of an interactive training session and four joint visits with communication coaches. Setting/Subjects: Solid tumor oncologists seeing advanced cancer patients at four hospitals in New York and Connecticut. Measurements: Three blinded coders evaluated recorded encounters before and after INT using a validated tool to assess skill attainment. Results: Oncologists (n = 22) were 32% female and averaged 46 years of age. In baseline visits, INT oncologists (n = 11) and UC oncologists (n = 11) had no difference in the number of mean skills employed out of 8 GoC skills (INT 3.5, UC 2.4; p = 0.18). Post-INT, INT oncologists were significantly more likely to elicit patient values (55% vs. 0%; p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in overall mean skills employed (INT 3.4, UC 2.2; p = 0.14). Assessing for understanding, offering "I wish" statements, and providing prognosis were the least utilized skills among all oncologists. Conclusion: Our real-time communication skills coaching INT resulted in a significant increase in oncologists' ability to elicit patient values during GoC discussions, suggesting that skill acquisition can occur in the face of less intensive training. Future studies can highlight gaps leading to the lack of differences in utilization of other skills.