Patient concerns and physician strategies for addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 vaccination is critical for reducing serious illness and hospitalizations, yet many remain hesitant. We conducted a survey of frontline physicians to identify patient concerns and physician strategies to address COVID-19 vaccine-hesitancy. METHODS: A national random sample of physicians in frontline specialties selected from a comprehensive list of practicing physicians in the U.S. were emailed a survey in August 2021. Multiple choice and open-ended questions inquired about patient concerns related to the COVID-19 vaccines and strategies used by physicians to counter vaccine misinformation and encourage vaccine-hesitant patients. Weighting was applied to achieve representativeness and reduce non-response bias. Network analysis examined co-occurring patient concerns. Open-ended responses on communication strategies were coded via thematic analysis. Multi-variable logistic regression examined associations between physician and pandemic characteristics with patient concerns and use of communication strategies. RESULTS: 531 physicians responded: primary care (241); emergency medicine (142); critical care (84); hospitalists (34); and infectious disease (30). Weighted response balance statistics showed excellent balance between respondents and nonrespondents. On average, physicians reported four patient vaccine concerns. Safety, side effects, vaccine misinformation, and mistrust in government were most common, and often co-occurring. 297 physicians described communication strategies: 180 (61 %) provided vaccine education and 94 (32 %) created a safe space for vaccine discussion. Narrative responses from physicians provided compelling examples of both successes and communication challenges arising from misinformation. Compared with emergency medicine, critical care (OR 2.45, 95 % CI 1.14, 5.24), infectious disease (OR 2.45, 95 % CI 1.00, 6.02), and primary care physicians (OR 1.66, 95 % CI 1.02, 2.70) were more likely to provide communication strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians engage with vaccine hesitant patients using a variety of strategies. Dissemination of effective system and physician-level communication interventions could enhance physician success.

Protocol-Driven Initiation and Weaning of High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Patients With Bronchiolitis: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Bronchiolitis is the most common cause for nonelective infant hospitalization in the United States with increasing utilization of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). We standardized initiation and weaning of HFNC for bronchiolitis and quantified the impact on outcomes. Our specific aim was to reduce hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS) by 10% between two bronchiolitis seasons after implementation. DESIGN: A quality improvement (QI) project using statistical process control methodology. SETTING: Tertiary-care children's hospital with 24 PICU and 48 acute care pediatric beds. PATIENTS: Children less than 24 months old with bronchiolitis without other respiratory diagnoses or underlying cardiac, respiratory, or neuromuscular disorders between December 2017 and November 2018 (baseline), and December 2018 and February 2020 (postintervention). INTERVENTIONS: Interventions included development of an HFNC protocol with initiation and weaning guidelines, modification of protocol and respiratory assessment classification, education, and QI rounds with a focus on efficient HFNC weaning, transfer, and/or discharge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 223 children were included (96 baseline and 127 postintervention). The primary outcome metric, average LOS per patient, decreased from 4.0 to 2.8 days, and the average ICU LOS per patient decreased from 2.8 to 1.9 days. The secondary outcome metric, average HFNC treatment hours per patient, decreased from 44.0 to 36.3 hours. The primary and secondary outcomes met criteria for special cause variation. Balancing measures included ICU readmission rates, 30-day readmission rates, and adverse events, which were not different between the two periods. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized protocol for HFNC management for patients with bronchiolitis was associated with decreased hospital and ICU LOS, less time on HFNC, and no difference in readmissions or adverse events.

Case-control study exploring the short-term association of bronchiolitis with high blood pressure and hypertension in hospitalized children.

BACKGROUND: Unlike in adults, there are limited pediatric data exploring the association between acute respiratory illnesses and blood pressure abnormalities. The aim of our study was to explore the association of bronchiolitis, a common respiratory illness, with elevated blood pressure in hospitalized children. METHODS: In this single center retrospective case-control study, we evaluated the association between bronchiolitis and elevated blood pressure and hypertension in hospitalized children, compared to a control group admitted with nonrespiratory conditions, using multivariate regression analyses. Standard published normative data on pediatric blood pressure were used to classify children in various blood pressure categories. RESULTS: A high prevalence of elevated blood pressure (16%) and hypertension (60%) was noted among children with bronchiolitis; this was not statistically different from the control group (18% for elevated blood pressure; 57% for hypertension; P-values, 0.71 and 0.53, respectively). On multivariate regression analyses, only length of stay was associated with hypertension. No patient with blood pressure abnormalities received antihypertensives nor were any nephrology consults documented. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of blood pressure abnormalities, without documentation of their recognition, was noted in hospitalized children regardless of diagnosis, pointing to the need for more data on outcomes-driven significance of pediatric inpatient blood pressure measurements.

Frontline physician burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic: national survey findings.

BACKGROUND: Physician burnout and wellbeing are an ongoing concern. Limited research has reported on the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic on burnout over time among U.S. physicians. METHODS: We surveyed U.S. frontline physicians at two time points (wave one in May-June 2020 and wave two in Dec 2020-Jan 2021) using a validated burnout measure. The survey was emailed to a national stratified random sample of family physicians, internists, hospitalists, intensivists, emergency medicine physicians, and infectious disease physicians. Burnout was assessed with the Professional Fulfillment Index Burnout Composite scale (PFI-BC). Responses were weighted to account for sample design and non-response bias. Random effects and quantile regression analyses were used to estimate change in conditional mean and median PFI-BC scores, adjusting for physician, geographic, and pandemic covariates. RESULTS: In the random effects regression, conditional mean burnout scores increased in the second wave among all respondents (difference 0.15 (CI: 0.24, 0.57)) and among respondents to both waves (balanced panel) (difference 0.21 (CI: - 0.42, 0.84)). Conditional burnout scores increased in wave 2 among all specialties except for Emergency medicine, with the largest increases among Hospitalists, 0.28 points (CI: - 0.19,0.76) among all respondents and 0.36 (CI: - 0.39,1.11) in the balanced panel, and primary care physicians, 0.21 (CI: - 0.23,0.66) among all respondents and 0.31 (CI: - 0.38,1.00) in the balanced panel. The conditional mean PFI-BC score among hospitalists increased from 1.10 (CI: 0.73,1.46) to 1.38 (CI: 1.02,1.74) in wave 2 in all respondents and from 1.49 (CI: 0.69,2.29) to 1.85 (CI: 1.24,2.46) in the balanced panel, near or above the 1.4 threshold indicating burnout. Findings from quantile regression were consistent with those from random effects. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of physician burnout during the first year of the pandemic increased over time among four of five frontline specialties, with greatest increases among hospitalist and primary care respondents. Our findings, while not statistically significant, were consistent with worsening burnout; both the random effects and quantile regressions produced similar point estimates. Impacts of the ongoing pandemic on physician burnout warrant further research.

Lung Ultrasound Findings Compared with Chest X-Ray Findings in Known Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Lima, Peru.

Lung ultrasound (LUS) is highly portable and has excellent diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia compared with conventional radiography, but the literature on its use in pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is limited. This study characterized LUS lesions in patients with PTB and compared them with chest X-ray (CXR) findings. Adult patients in Lima, Peru, with PTB were recruited within 1 week of starting antituberculosis treatment. Comprehensive LUS was performed in all patients at enrollment and assessed for consolidation, small subpleural consolidation (SPC, hypothesized to be a marker of CXR consolidation), cavity, pleural effusion, pathologic B-lines, and miliary pattern. Patient CXRs were digitized and interpreted by a board-certified radiologist. Fifty-one patients were included in the final analysis. Lung ultrasound detected either consolidation or SPC in 96.1% of participants. No significant difference was found between the LUS detection of a composite of consolidation or SPC, and CXR detection of consolidation (96.1% versus 98%, P > 0.99). The proportion of patients with cavity detected by LUS was significantly lower than that detected by CXR (5.9% versus 51%, P < 0.001). Overall, LUS detection of consolidation or SPC may be a sensitive marker for diagnosis of PTB. Lung ultrasound demonstrated poor ability to detect radiographically identified cavity, although previous studies suggest SPC could add specificity for the diagnosis of PTB. Based on its portability and evidence base for diagnosing other pulmonary diseases, LUS may have a role in screening and diagnosis of PTB in areas without ready access to CXR. Further studies should evaluate its diagnostic accuracy in patients with and without PTB.

The care and keeping of clinicians in quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Although frontline clinicians are crucial in implementing and spreading innovations, their engagement in quality improvement remains suboptimal. Our goal was to identify facilitators and barriers to the development and engagement of clinicians in quality improvement. DESIGN: A 25-item questionnaire informed by theoretical frameworks was developed, tested and disseminated by email. SETTINGS: Members and fellows of the International Society for Quality in Healthcare. PARTICIPANTS: 1010 eligible participants (380 fellows and 647 members). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-efficacy and effectiveness in conducting and leading quality improvement activities. RESULTS: We received 212 responses from 50 countries, a response rate of 21%. Dedicated time for quality improvement, mentorship and coaching and a professional quality improvement network were significantly related to higher self-efficacy. Factors enhancing effectiveness were dedicated time for quality improvement, multidisciplinary improvement teams, professional development in quality improvement, ability to select areas for improvement and organizational values and culture. Inadequate time, mentorship, organizational support and access to professional development resources were key barriers. Personal strengths contributing to effectiveness were the ability to identify problems that need to be fixed, reflecting on and learning from experiences and facilitating sharing of ideas. Key quality improvement implementation challenges were adopting new payment models, demonstrating the business case for quality and safety and building a culture of accountability and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight areas that organizations and professional development programs should focus on to promote clinician development and engagement in quality improvement. Barriers related to training, time, mentorship, organizational support and implementation must be concurrently addressed to augment the effectiveness of other approaches.