Evaluation of an Intrahospital Telemedicine Program for Patients Admitted With COVID-19: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing incidence of COVID-19 infection has challenged health care systems to increase capacity while conserving personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies and minimizing nosocomial spread. Telemedicine shows promise to address these challenges but lacks comprehensive evaluation in the inpatient environment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate an intrahospital telemedicine program (virtual care), along with its impact on exposure risk and communication. METHODS: We conducted a natural experiment of virtual care on patients admitted for COVID-19. The primary exposure variable was documented use of virtual care. Patient characteristics, PPE use rates, and their association with virtual care use were assessed. In parallel, we conducted surveys with patients and clinicians to capture satisfaction with virtual care along the domains of communication, medical treatment, and exposure risk. RESULTS: Of 137 total patients in our primary analysis, 43 patients used virtual care. In total, there were 82 inpatient days of use and 401 inpatient days without use. Hospital utilization and illness severity were similar in patients who opted in versus opted out. Virtual care was associated with a significant reduction in PPE use and physical exam rate. Surveys of 41 patients and clinicians showed high rates of recommendation for further use, and subjective improvements in communication. However, providers and patients expressed limitations in usability, medical assessment, and empathetic communication. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot natural experiment, only a subset of patients used inpatient virtual care. When used, virtual care was associated with reductions in PPE use, reductions in exposure risk, and patient and provider satisfaction.

Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support Tool to Guide Adoption of the American Heart Association Telemetry Monitoring Practice Standards.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate telemetry use pre- and postimplementation of clinical decision support tools to support American Heart Association practice standards for telemetry monitoring and (2) understand the factors that may contribute to variation of telemetry monitoring in practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: First, we captured overall variability in telemetry use pre- and postimplementation of the clinical decision support intervention. We then conducted semistructured interviews with telemetry-ordering providers to identify key barriers and facilitators to adoption. During the study period, 399 physicians met criteria for inclusion and were divided into excessive and nonexcessive orderers. Distribution of telemetry use was bimodal. Among nonexcessive users, 24.4% of patient days were with telemetry compared with 51.6% among excessive users. On average, both excessive (6.1% reduction) and nonexcessive users (2.8% reduction) decreased telemetry use postimplementation, and these reductions were sustained over a 16-month period. Sixteen interviews were conducted. Physicians believed that the tool was successful because it caused them to more closely consider if telemetry was indicated for each patient. Physicians also voiced frustration with interruptions to their workflow, and some noted that they commonly use telemetry outside of practice standards to monitor patients who were acutely but not critically ill. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding telemetry practice standards into the electronic health record in the form of clinical decision support is effective at reducing excess telemetry use. Although the intervention was well received, there are persistent barriers, such as preexisting views on telemetry and existing workflow habits, that may inhibit higher adoption of standards.

Rapid implementation of a medical student rotation in health systems operations and remote patient care in response to COVID-19.

Medical schools initially removed students from clinical rotations at the outset of COVID-19 for safety reasons when students were eager to help and health systems needed personnel. In response, we rapidly implemented an innovative 2-week rotation for medical students to participate in health systems operations and care through remote efforts including triage and resource allocation. The curriculum also contained online self-paced educational modules covering topics including ethics, crisis standards of care, and modeling. As the health system needs shifted, so too did learners' work. One hundred and twenty-five 3rd and 4th-year students completed the experience over 10 months. Learner satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge assessed through pre- and post-rotation surveys showed statistically significant and educationally meaningful improvement. A near uniform change greater than 1 point (on a 5-point scale) was demonstrated upon rotation completion. Blending health systems and educational structures to meet the needs of both creates unique opportunities to educate students in new ways.

Responding to COVID-19 Through Interhospital Resource Coordination: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic stressed hospital operations, requiring rapid innovations to address rise in demand and specialized COVID-19 services while maintaining access to hospital-based care and facilitating expertise. We aimed to describe a novel hospital system approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic, including multihospital coordination capability and transfer of COVID-19 patients to a single, dedicated hospital. METHODS: We included patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction admitted to a 12-hospital network including a dedicated COVID-19 hospital. Our primary outcome was adherence to local guidelines, including admission risk stratification, anticoagulation, and dexamethasone treatment assessed by differences-in-differences analysis after guideline dissemination. We evaluated outcomes and health care worker satisfaction. Finally, we assessed barriers to safe transfer including transfer across different electronic health record systems. RESULTS: During the study, the system admitted a total of 1209 patients. Of these, 56.3% underwent transfer, supported by a physician-led System Operations Center. Patients who were transferred were older (P = 0.001) and had similar risk-adjusted mortality rates. Guideline adherence after dissemination was higher among patients who underwent transfer: admission risk stratification (P < 0.001), anticoagulation (P < 0.001), and dexamethasone administration (P = 0.003). Transfer across electronic health record systems was a perceived barrier to safety and reduced quality. Providers positively viewed our transfer approach. CONCLUSIONS: With standardized communication, interhospital transfers can be a safe and effective method of cohorting COVID-19 patients, are well received by health care providers, and have the potential to improve care quality.

Venlafaxine-induced encephalopathy in term newborn.

The use of venlafaxine, a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, for the management of depression in women of childbearing age has been on the rise, and there have been multiple case reports in the literature tying venlafaxine in-utero exposure to a form of neonatal encephalopathy presenting as neonatal abstinence syndrome. We present the case of a 5-day-old term infant whose mother was on venlafaxine throughout her pregnancy and presented with hypothermia, poor feeding, and decreased activity level. She subsequently had a negative sepsis workup and required nasogastric tube feedings for 2 weeks with spontaneous recovery and no clinical sequelae post-discharge. This case highlights the non-trivial potential risk of venlafaxine withdrawal in exposed newborns and the need for close observation. We propose a management framework for such situations in affected infants.