Implementation of a COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Department Education Program for Underserved Communities.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an opportunity for significant reflection on our public health response as providers. Throughout the past two years, we learned that administration of COVID-19 vaccines, rapidly and widely across all communities, has been key to halting the spread of the virus. One significant challenge in promoting a large-scale immunization program is the threat of vaccine hesitancy. A general mistrust in healthcare providers exists across the country, especially in underrepresented minority (URM) communities. Objective This study aims to determine reasons for vaccine hesitancy in an urban emergency department and to provide targeted education on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines to patients. Methods An interprofessional quality improvement team was assembled to develop an educational intervention addressing COVID-19 vaccine safety for vaccine-eligible patients receiving treatment in the emergency department at an urban community hospital where over 70% of patients identify as URM. A survey was conducted to elucidate patients' concerns surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine. Upon completion of the survey, up-to-date safety information and education targeting their surveyed concerns were provided by trained medical students. A follow-up survey was conducted to assess the impact of education on patients' attitudes toward the vaccine. Surveys were developed using standardized scoring systems from the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (OCEANS) II study and the Kaiser Foundation. Hesitancy scores before and after education were tabulated to assess the effectiveness of targeted education in improving vaccine hesitancy. Results Patients cited a variety of concerns surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine. The three most common reasons for declining vaccines were potential side effects (67.3% were concerned or extremely concerned), the belief that COVID-19 vaccines are neither effective nor safe (64.5% were concerned to extremely concerned), and the risk of developing COVID-19 infection from the vaccine itself (38.8% were concerned to extremely concerned). This information was used to address these concerns directly with patients, answer questions, clarify information, and encourage patients to get vaccinated. Through this education program, vaccine hesitancy scores improved by an average of 29% indicating an increased likelihood of patients who would get vaccinated in the future. Of patients receiving education, 38% agreed to sign up for a vaccine appointment during the intervention. Conclusion The emergency department often serves vulnerable patient populations. As such, its role in public health in these communities cannot be underestimated. This quality improvement project is a novel method that can be used to develop and implement public health education programs to address specific community needs in the emergency department. These results show that a multidisciplinary healthcare team can provide a measurable change in attitudes about vaccine safety with directed education in the emergency department that can help address vaccine hesitancy in the future.

Quality and Impact of Survey Research Among Anesthesiologists: A Systematic Review.

New technology has facilitated survey research of anesthesia professional society members. We evaluated prevailing metrics of quality and impact of published research studies based on surveys of anesthesiologists. We hypothesized that adherence to recommended practices (such as use of reminders) would be associated with increased survey response rates, and that higher response rates would be associated with higher article impact. Using the MEDLINE database, we identified 45 English-language research articles published in 2010-2017 reporting original data from surveys of anesthesiologists. The median response rate was 37% (IQR: 25-46%). Recommended survey practices, including the use of reminders (p = 0.861) and validated questionnaires (p = 0.719), were not correlated with response rates. In turn, survey response rates were not associated with measures of article impact (p = 0.528). The impact of published research based on surveys of anesthesiologists, as measured by citation scores (p = 0.493) and Altmetrics (p = 0.826), may be driven primarily by the novel data or questions raised using survey methodology, but does not appear to be associated with response rates. Improving reporting of survey methodology and understanding possible sources of non-response bias are important for future studies in this area.

The Impact of Transport Modality on Efficiency of Simulated Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation.

INTRODUCTION: Although the transport of neonates is generally safe, adverse events can occur where equipment is a contributing factor. The aims of the study were to explore how the types of neonatal intensive care unit bed in use could impact a simulated emergency endotracheal intubation and to identify future areas for training and education. METHODS: The efficiency of endotracheal intubation performed during simulated neonatal transport using 3 different transport modalities (closed incubator bed, open incubator bed, and open radiant warmer bed) was assessed. Twenty participants were enrolled. Outcomes included time to intubation, intubation success, and ease of mannequin access and were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and McNemar exact tests. RESULT: Median times to intubation were 59, 44, and 37 seconds with the incubator top closed, with the top open, and with the open radiant warmer bed, respectively. Intubation was slowest and subjective ease of access was most difficult with the incubator top closed. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced anesthesia providers had significantly greater difficulty with simulated emergency endotracheal intubation when performing neonatal transport with the incubator top closed compared with available alternative modes.

Progress to publication of survey research presented at anesthesiology society meetings.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how survey methodology and quality measures are associated with progress from abstract presentation to manuscript publication can help optimize the design of survey research in anesthesiology, and enhance respondents' confidence in the value of survey participation. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine if adherence to survey method recommendations and attainment of high response rates are associated with faster progress to publication among abstracts initially presented at anesthesiology society meetings. METHODS: Abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) Annual Meeting, Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) Annual Congress, and the International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS) Annual Meeting from 2011-2014 were reviewed. Abstracts reporting original survey data collection were included in a systematic search for resulting publications in peer-reviewed academic journals. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyze progress to publication. RESULT: Ninety-nine ASA, 76 AAGBI, and 30 IARS abstracts met inclusion criteria. Among these abstracts, 43 (43%) from ASA, none from AAGBI, and 7 (23%) from IARS have been published as original research articles or brief reports. Surveying patients or caregivers, as opposed to medical professionals, was associated with increased likelihood of publication (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6, 12.4, P = 0.005) as was a larger sample size (eg, >500 vs <100; HR = 12.9, 95% CI: 3.8, 43.6, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While abstract presentation facilitates rapid dissemination of survey research findings, the impact and utility of such studies may be limited until a full manuscript is published. In our review, 25% of abstracts presenting survey data at major anesthesiology meetings were eventually published. Larger sample sizes and a target population of patients or caregivers increased the likelihood of survey research being published in full form.

Outcomes of domino liver transplantation compared to deceased donor liver transplantation: a propensity-matching approach.

Domino liver transplantation (DLT) utilizes the explanted liver of one liver transplant recipient as a donor graft in another patient. While there may be unique risks associated with DLT, it is unclear if DLT has less favorable long-term outcomes than deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We used a propensity score matching approach to compare the outcomes of DLT recipients to DDLT recipients. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry was queried for patients undergoing DLT or DDLT in 2002-2016. Each DLT recipient was matched to a unique DDLT recipient to compare mortality and graft failure. There were 126 DLT and 62 835 DDLT recipients meeting inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching on recipient pre-transplant characteristics, 123 DLT cases were matched to DDLT controls from the same UNOS region. On stratified Cox proportional hazards regression, DLT incurred no increase in the hazard of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.4; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8, 2.7; P = 0.265] or graft failure (HR = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7, 2.1; P = 0.556) compared to DDLT. Using a large national registry, a propensity-matched analysis found no increased risk of mortality or graft failure associated with DLT compared to DDLT.

Adaptation of Microelectrode Array Technology for the Study of Anesthesia-induced Neurotoxicity in the Intact Piglet Brain.

Every year, millions of children undergo anesthesia for a multitude of procedures. However, studies in both animals and humans have called into question the safety of anesthesia in children, implicating anesthetics as potentially toxic to the brain in development. To date, no studies have successfully elucidated the mechanism(s) by which anesthesia may be neurotoxic. Animal studies allow investigation of such mechanisms, and neonatal piglets represent an excellent model to study these effects due to their striking developmental similarities to the human brain. This protocol adapts the use of enzyme-based microelectrode array (MEA) technology as a novel way to study the mechanism(s) of anesthesia-induced neurotoxicity (AIN). MEAs enable real-time monitoring of in vivo neurotransmitter activity and offer exceptional temporal and spatial resolution. It is hypothesized that anesthetic neurotoxicity is caused in part by glutamate dysregulation and MEAs offer a method to measure glutamate. The novel implementation of MEA technology in a piglet model presents a unique opportunity for the study of AIN.