COVID-19 Solutions Are Climate Solutions: Lessons From Reusable Gowns.

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the inadequacy of the U.S. healthcare system to deliver timely and resilient care. According to the American Hospital Association, the pandemic has created a $202 billion loss across the healthcare industry, forcing health care systems to lay off workers and making hospitals scramble to minimize supply chain costs. However, as the demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) grows, hospitals have sacrificed sustainable solutions for disposable options that, although convenient, will exacerbate supply strains, financial burden, and waste. We advocate for reusable gowns as a means to lower health care costs, address climate change, and improve resilience while preserving the safety of health care workers. Reusable gowns' polyester material provides comparable capacity to reduce microbial cross-transmission and liquid penetration. In addition, previous hospitals have reported a 50% cost reduction in gown expenditures after adopting reusable gowns; given the current 2000% price increase in isolation gowns during COVID-19, reusable gown use will build both healthcare resilience and security from price fluctuations. Finally, with the United States' medical waste stream worsening, reusable isolation gowns show promising reductions in energy and water use, solid waste, and carbon footprint. The gowns are shown to withstand laundering 75-100 times in contrast to the single-use disposable gown. The circumstances of the pandemic forewarn the need to shift our single-use PPE practices to standardized reusable applications. Ultimately, sustainable forms of protective equipment can help us prepare for future crises that challenge the resilience of the healthcare system.

Facilitators of research registry enrollment and potential variation by race and gender.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about what motivates people to enroll in research registries. The purpose of this study is to identify facilitators of registry enrollment among diverse older adults. METHODS: Participants completed an 18-item Research Interest Assessment Tool. We used logistic regression analyses to examine responses across participants and by race and gender. RESULTS: Participants (N=374) were 58% black, 76% women, with a mean age of 68.2 years. All participants were motivated to maintain their memory while aging. Facilitators of registry enrolled varied by both race and gender. Notably, blacks (estimate=0.71, p<0.0001) and women (estimate=0.32, p=0.03) were more willing to enroll in the registry due to home visits compared with whites and men, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers must consider participant desire for maintaining memory while aging and home visits when designing culturally tailored registries.

Cost-effectiveness and patient tolerance of low-attenuation oral contrast material: milk versus VoLumen.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to prospectively compare the cost, effectiveness, and patient tolerance of milk and VoLumen, a 0.1% barium suspension, in patients undergoing abdominal and pelvic CT with oral and i.v. contrast media. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifteen consecutive outpatients were randomly assigned to receive either whole milk (n = 115) or VoLumen (n = 100). Results were independently reviewed by two radiologists who were blinded to the oral contrast agent used. Degree of bowel distention was qualitatively scored on a 4-point scale, and bowel wall visibility was graded qualitatively on a yes-or-no basis. A questionnaire regarding oral contrast tolerability was provided to each patient. Cost comparison of the two agents was performed. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were seen between whole milk and VoLumen with respect to degree of bowel distention and mural visualization for all segments of bowel studied (p > 0.05 for both reviewers). Significantly more patients ranked milk as pleasant in taste compared with VoLumen (p < 0.0001). More patients preferred milk compared with VoLumen (p < 0.0001). Milk was better tolerated than VoLumen, with fewer abdominal side effects, including abdominal discomfort (p = 0.019), cramping (p = 0.019), nausea (p = 0.016), and diarrhea (p = 0.0002). The cost per patient for VoLumen is $18 compared with $1.48 for milk. CONCLUSION: Whole milk is comparable to VoLumen with respect to bowel distention and bowel wall visualization and has a lower cost, better patient acceptance, and fewer adverse symptoms. Milk is a cost-effective alternative to VoLumen as a low-attenuation oral contrast agent.