Let Us Just Ask People What They Think: Community Perceptions and Recommendations about Coronavirus Vaccination.

Introduction: Despite widespread efforts to promote coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination in the United States, a significant segment of the population is still unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated. Objective: The objective of this study was to understand attitudes toward the vaccine in patients presenting to an urban emergency department. Methods: We used a qualitative analysis and semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of patients presenting to an urban emergency department from January 18, 2021, to March 14, 2021. Our final sample consisted of 32 people. Results: We found that people trusted their own medical providers rather than popular or political figures. Critiques of the vaccination program highlighted difficulties in navigation and perceptions of inequity. Conclusions: Equitable distribution strategies and honest messaging may facilitate acceptance of the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Trustworthy sources for vaccine knowledge should be used to target populations in which vaccine hesitancy is a persistent concern.

Outcomes of CMS-mandated fluid administration among fluid-overloaded patients with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The outcomes of large-volume IVF administration to septic shock patients with comorbid congestive heart failure (CHF) and/or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are uncertain and widely debated in the existing literature. Despite this uncertainty, CMS continues to recommend that 30 ml/kg of an intravenous crystalloid solution be administered to patients in septic shock starting within 3 h of presentation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the relationship between adherence to this guideline and outcomes among patients whose underlying comorbidities present a risk of fluid overload. METHODS: Our search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus through November 5, 2021 to identify studies that evaluated clinical outcomes among septic patients with CHF/ESRD based on volume of fluid administered. The primary outcome measured was mortality at 30 days post-hospital discharge. Other outcomes included the rates of vasopressor requirements, invasive mechanical ventilation during hospitalization, as well as length of stay in the intensive care unit and/or hospital. We used random effects meta-analysis when two or more studies reported the same outcome. RESULTS: We included five studies in the final meta-analysis, which comprised 5804 patients, 5260 (91%) of whom received non-aggressive fluid resuscitation, as defined by the studies' authors. Random-effects meta-analysis for all-cause mortality showed that aggressive fluid resuscitation was associated with statistically non-significant increased odds of mortality (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.88-2.3, P = 0.15, I2 = 35%). There was no statistical association between volume of IVF administration and other outcomes evaluated. CONCLUSION: Among septic shock patients with CHF and/or ESRD, administration of greater than or equal to 30 ml/kg IVF was associated with a non-significant increase in odds of mortality. All other outcomes measured were found to be non-significant, although there was a trend toward better outcomes among patients in the restricted-volume compared to the standard-volume IVF groups. Since this meta-analysis only included five observational studies, more studies are needed to guide an optimal volume and rate of fluid administration in this patient population.

Video case review for quality improvement during cardiac arrest resuscitation in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are a leading global cause of mortality. The American Heart Association (AHA) promotes several important strategies associated with improved cardiac arrest (CA) outcomes, including decreasing pulse check time and maintaining a chest compression fraction (CCF) > 0.80. Video review is a potential tool to improve skills and analyse deficiencies in various situations; however, its use in improving medical resuscitation remains poorly studied in the emergency department (ED). We implemented a quality improvement initiative, which utilised video review of CA resuscitations in an effort to improve compliance with such AHA quality metrics. METHODS: A cardiopulmonary resuscitation video review team of emergency medicine residents were assembled to analyse CA resuscitations in our urban academic ED. Videos were reviewed by two residents, one of whom was a senior resident (Postgraduate Year 3 or 4), and analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for numerous quality improvement metrics, including pulse check time, CCF, time to intravenous access and time to patient attached to monitor. RESULTS: We collected data on 94 CA resuscitations between July 2017 and June 2020. Average pulse check time was 13.09 (SD ± 5.97) seconds, and 38% of pulse checks were <10 seconds. After the implementation of the video review process, there was a significant decrease in average pulse check time (P = .01) and a significant increase in CCF (P = .01) throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the video review and feedback process was significantly associated with improvements in AHA quality metrics for resuscitation in CA amongst patients presented to the ED.

Minimizing Pulse Check Duration Through Educational Video Review.

INTRODUCTION: The American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) recommend pulse checks of less than 10 seconds. We assessed the effect of video review-based educational feedback on pulse check duration with and without point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). METHODS: Cameras recorded cases of CPR in the emergency department (ED). Investigators reviewed resuscitation videos for ultrasound use during pulse check, pulse check duration, and compression-fraction ratio. Investigators reviewed health records for patient outcomes. Providers received written feedback regarding pulse check duration and compression-fraction ratio. Researchers reviewed selected videos in multidisciplinary grand round presentations, with research team members facilitating discussion. These presentations highlighted strategies that include the following: limit on pulse check duration; emphasis on compressions; and use of "record, then review" method for pulse checks with POCUS. The primary endpoint was pulse check duration with and without POCUS. RESULTS: Over 19 months, investigators reviewed 70 resuscitations with a total of 325 pulse checks. The mean pulse check duration was 11.5 ± 8.8 seconds (n = 224) and 13.8 ± 8.6 seconds (n = 101) without and with POCUS, respectively. POCUS pulse checks were significantly longer than those without POCUS (P = 0.001). Mean pulse check duration per three-month block decreased statistically significantly from study onset to the final study period (from 17.2 to 10 seconds [P<0.0001]) overall; decreased from 16.6 to 10.5 seconds (P<0.0001) without POCUS; and with POCUS from 19.8 to 9.88 seconds (P<0.0001) with POCUS. Pulse check times decreased significantly over the study period of educational interventions. The strongest effect size was found in POCUS pulse check duration (P = -0.3640, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous studies, POCUS prolonged pulse checks. Educational interventions were associated with significantly decreased overall pulse-check duration, with an enhanced effect on pulse checks involving POCUS. Performance feedback and video review-based education can improve CPR by increasing chest compression-fraction ratio.

Targeted Glycemic Control for Adult Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Acute Care Setting.

Diabetes mellitus and complications arising from the disease are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. With increasing prevalence over the past 50 years and an estimated 20% of health-care spending dedicated to the disease, diabetes is considered by many to be a true public health emergency. Several protocols and management options exist to maximize glycemic control in the ambulatory setting, but the optimal glucose level in critically and noncritically ill inpatients is still debated. This review examines the evidence behind differing degrees of glycemic control across a variety of hospital settings and clinical scenarios. Patients presenting to the emergency department who are found to be hyperglycemic pose additional management challenges for clinicians. In this setting, no consensus exists for optimal serum glucose level and safe discharge parameters.