Perceptions, Coping Strategies, and Mental Health of Residents during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Since the inception of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the United States has been the leader in cases and deaths. Healthcare workers treating these severely ill patients are at risk of many deleterious consequences. Residents, in particular, may be affected by physical as well as psychological consequences. Because data are sparse on perceptions, coping strategies, and the mental health of residents during COVID-19, we explored these issues in survey data from a community-based academic program in the southeastern United States. METHODS: In May 2020, when US deaths from COVID-19 reached 100,000, we administered multiple-choice online anonymous surveys to assess resident perceptions, coping strategies, and self-reported levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. We used the COPE inventory to assess coping strategies and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 59 (41.3%) of 143 eligible residents completed the survey, 52 (88.1%) of whom believed that they were likely or very likely to become infected with COVID-19. If infected, 17 (28.8%) believed that their illness would be serious or very serious. The top three strategies to cope with COVID-19 included acceptance, self-distraction, and use of emotional support. With respect to depression, anxiety, and stress, all of the mean scores were in the normal range. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, residents in a southern community-based program with an academic affiliation reported effective coping strategies, predominantly acceptance, self-distraction, and use of emotional support. They reported concerns about becoming infected and, if they did, that their illness would likely be serious. Finally, they have not experienced depression, anxiety, or reported stress. The findings may be restricted in generalizability to a southern community-based program with an academic affiliation.

Superfluous Amylase/Lipase Testing at a University-Affiliated Teaching Hospital: A Retrospective Review.

Background: The combination of amylase and lipase tests for diagnosing acute pancreatitis is not better than a lipase test alone; however, both tests are commonly ordered simultaneously. Further, although no data indicate usefulness of monitoring changes in elevated amylase and lipase levels, the tests are often ordered multiple times during the same clinical encounter. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all amylase and lipase tests performed at a university-affiliated teaching hospital during a 6-month period. We considered amylase and lipase results diagnostic if they were >3 times the upper limit of normal and borderline if they were ≤3 times the upper limit of normal. During a single clinical encounter, we considered amylase tests superfluous if ordered simultaneously with lipase tests or repeated after diagnostic results, questionably superfluous if repeated alone, and nonsuperfluous otherwise. Lipase tests were considered superfluous if repeated after diagnostic results, questionably superfluous if repeated after nondiagnostic results, and nonsuperfluous otherwise. Results: In this study, 3,502 patients had 8,801 tests (4,926 lipase, 3,875 amylase), 4% of which were diagnostic and 10% borderline. Of the 8,801 tests, 45% were superfluous and 9% were questionably superfluous. Nonsuperfluous testing was less frequent (P<0.0001) in the intensive care/stepdown units (22% of 748 tests) than in the emergency department (54% of 6,000 tests) or other settings (31% of 2,053 tests). Among 3,545 simultaneous amylase/lipase tests with nondiagnostic lipase results, 0.6% amylase results were diagnostic. Of the 190 lipase tests repeated after nondiagnostic lipase results, 12% were diagnostic. Conclusion: Superfluous amylase/lipase testing in one teaching hospital is substantial, suggesting significant potential for reducing healthcare costs without compromising the quality of care when evaluating patients for acute pancreatitis.

Nebivolol: new therapy update.

Nebivolol is a beta-blocker under U.S. Food and Drug Administration review for the treatment of hypertension. The unique pharmacologic properties of nebivolol include high specificity for the beta-1 receptor and a nitric oxide-mediated vasodilatory effect. The agent provides significant blood pressure reduction from baseline values as compared with placebo. Clinical trials have demonstrated that nebivolol reduces blood pressure similarly to atenolol, bisoprolol, amlodipine, nifedipine, lisinopril, and hydrochlorothiazide. The tolerability of nebivolol is similar to or better than that of these agents. In elderly patients (> or = 70 years of age) with clinically stable congestive heart failure, the addition of nebivolol to the treatment regimen improved the time to all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospital admissions over that of placebo. If approved, nebivolol would likely be a viable alternative therapy for hypertension and heart failure; however, additional studies are needed in patients having coronary artery disease.