RESUMEN
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Connecting resident physician work hours and sleep deprivation to adverse outcomes has been difficult. Our study explores clinical reasoning rather than outcomes. Diagnostic errors are a leading cause of medical error and may result from deficits in clinical reasoning. We used simulated cases to explore relationships between sleep duration and diagnostic reasoning. METHODS: Residents were recruited for a 2-month study (inpatient/outpatient). Each participant's sleep was tracked (sleep diary/actigraphy). At the end of each month, residents watched two brief simulated clinical encounters and performed "think alouds" of their clinical reasoning. In each session, one video was straightforward, and the other video contained distracting contextual factors. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and interpreted. We conducted a thematic analysis using a constant comparative approach. Themes were compared based on sleep duration and contextual factors. RESULTS: Residents (n=17) slept more during outpatient compared to inpatient months (450.5±7.13 v 425.6±10.78, p=0.02). We found the following diagnostic reasoning themes: uncertainty, disorganized knowledge, error, semantic incompetence, emotional content, and organized knowledge. Themes reflecting suboptimal clinical reasoning (disorganized knowledge, error, semantic incompetence, uncertainty) were observed more in cases with contextual factors (distractors). "Think alouds" from cases with contextual factors following sleep restriction had a greater number of themes concerning for problematic diagnostic reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Residents obtained significantly more sleep during outpatient compared to inpatient months. Several negative clinical reasoning themes emerged with less sleep combined with cases containing contextual distractors. Our findings reinforce the importance of adequate sleep and supervision in house officers, particularly in cases with distracting elements.
RESUMEN
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to generate estimates of mortality in patients with COVID-19 that required hospitalization, ICU admission, and organ support. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases was conducted up to December 31, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Previously peer-reviewed observational studies that reported ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-related mortality among greater than or equal to 100 individual patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate pooled estimates of case fatality rates (CFRs) for in-hospital, ICU, MV, RRT, and ECMO-related mortality. ICU-related mortality was additionally analyzed by the study country of origin. Sensitivity analyses of CFR were assessed based on completeness of follow-up data, by year, and when only studies judged to be of high quality were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: One hundred fifty-seven studies evaluating 948,309 patients were included. The CFR for in-hospital mortality, ICU mortality, MV, RRT, and ECMO were 25.9% (95% CI: 24.0-27.8%), 37.3% (95% CI: 34.6-40.1%), 51.6% (95% CI: 46.1-57.0%), 66.1% (95% CI: 59.7-72.2%), and 58.0% (95% CI: 46.9-68.9%), respectively. MV (52.7%, 95% CI: 47.5-58.0% vs 31.3%, 95% CI: 16.1-48.9%; p = 0.023) and RRT-related mortality (66.7%, 95% CI: 60.1-73.0% vs 50.3%, 95% CI: 42.4-58.2%; p = 0.003) decreased from 2020 to 2021. CONCLUSIONS: We present updated estimates of CFR for patients hospitalized and requiring intensive care for the management of COVID-19. Although mortality remain high and varies considerably worldwide, we found the CFR in patients supported with MV significantly improved since 2020.
