Lung Ultrasound Score in COVID-19 Patients Correlates with PO2/FiO2, Intubation Rates, and Mortality.

Introduction: The point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) score has been used in coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients for diagnosis and risk stratification, due to excellent sensitivity and infection control concerns. We studied the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to the fraction of inspiratory oxygen concentration (PO2/FiO2), intubation rates, and mortality correlation to the LUS score. Methods: We conducted a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines. Included were articles published from December 1, 2019-November 30, 2021 using LUS in adult COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit or the emergency department. Excluded were studies on animals and on pediatric and pregnant patients. We assessed bias using QUADAS-2. Outcomes were LUS score and correlation to PO2/FiO2, intubation, and mortality rates. Random effects model pooled the meta-analysis results. Results: We reviewed 27 of 5,267 studies identified. Of the 27 studies, seven were included in the intubation outcome, six in the correlation to PO2/FiO2 outcome, and six in the mortality outcome. Heterogeneity was found in ultrasound protocols and outcomes. In the pooled results of 267 patients, LUS score was found to have a strong negative correlation to PO2/FiO2 with a correlation coefficient of -0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.75, -0.62). In pooled results, 273 intubated patients had a mean LUS score that was 6.95 points higher (95% CI 4.58-9.31) than that of 379 non-intubated patients. In the mortality outcome, 385 survivors had a mean LUS score that was 4.61 points lower (95% CI 3.64-5.58) than that of 181 non-survivors. There was significant heterogeneity between the studies as measured by the I2 and Cochran Q test. Conclusion: A higher LUS score was strongly correlated with a decreasing PO2/FiO2 in COVID-19 pneumonia patients. The LUS score was significantly higher in intubated vs non-intubated patients with COVID-19. The LUS score was significantly lower in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia that survive.

Characterizing malpractice cases involving emergency department advanced practice providers, physicians in training, and attending physicians.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate available characteristics and financial costs of malpractice cases among advanced practice providers (APPs; nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]), trainees (medical students, residents, fellows), and attending physicians. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of claims occurring in the emergency department (ED) from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, contained in the Candello database. Cases were classified according to the provider type(s) involved: NP, PA, trainee, or cases that did not identify an extender as being substantially involved in the adverse event that resulted in the case ("no extender"). RESULTS: There were 5854 cases identified with a total gross indemnity paid of $1,007,879,346. Of these cases, 193 (3.3%) involved an NP, 513 (8.8%) involved a PA, 535 (9.1%) involved a trainee, and 4568 (78.0%) were no extender. Cases where a trainee was involved account for the highest average gross indemnity paid whereas no-extender cases are the lowest. NP and PA cases differed by contributing factors compared to no-extender cases: clinical judgment (NP 89.1% vs. no extender 76.8%, p < 0.0001; PA 84.6% vs. no extender, p < 0.0001), documentation (NP 23.3% vs. no extender 17.8%, p = 0.0489; PA 25.9% vs. no extender, p < 0.0001), and supervision (NP 22.3% vs. no extender 1.8%, p < 0.0001; PA 25.7% vs. no extender p < 0.0001). Cases involving NPs and PAs had a lower percentage of high-severity cases such as loss of limb or death (NP 45.6% vs. no extender 50.2%, p = 0.0004; PA 48.3% vs. no extender, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: APPs and trainees comprise approximately 21% of malpractice cases and 33% of total gross indemnity paid in this large national ED data set. Understanding differences in characteristics of malpractice claims that occur in emergency care settings can be used to help to mitigate provider risk.