Adoption of Multi-society Guidelines Facilitates Value-Based Reduction in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy Volume During COVID-19 Pandemic

Digestive Diseases and Sciences - COVID-19 has caused a backlog of endoscopic procedures; colonoscopy must now be prioritized to those who would benefit most. We determined the proportion of...     

Guidelines for Balancing Priorities in Structural Heart Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many hospitals have been asked to postpone elective and surgical cases. This begs the question, “What is elective in structural heart disease intervention?” The recently proposed Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions/American College of Cardiology consensus statement is, unfortunately, non-specific and insufficient in its scope and scale of response to the COVID-19 pandemic.We propose guidelines that are practical, multidisciplinary, implementable, and urgent. We believe that this will provide a helpful framework for our colleagues to manage their practices during the surge and peak phases of the pandemic.General principles that apply across structural heart disease interventions include tracking and reporting cardiovascular outcomes, “healthcare distancing,” preserving vital resources and personnel, shared decision-making between the heart team and hospital administration on resource-intensive cases, and considering delaying research cases.Specific guidance for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and MitraClip procedures varies according to pandemic phase. During the surge phase, treatment should broadly be limited to those at increased risk of complications in the near term. During the peak phase, treatment should be limited to inpatients for whom it may facilitate discharge.Keeping our patients and ourselves safe is paramount, as well as justly rationing resources.     

Differences in US Regional Healthcare Allocation Guidelines During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BackgroundHospitals faced unprecedented scarcity of resources without parallel in modern times during the COVID-19 pandemic. This scarcity led healthcare systems and states to develop or modify scarce resource allocation guidelines that could be implemented during “crisis standards of care” (CSC). CSC describes a significant change in healthcare operations and the level of care provided during a public health emergency.ObjectiveOur study provides a comprehensive examination of the latest CSC guidelines in the western region of the USA, where Alaska and Idaho declared CSC, focusing on ethical issues and health disparities.DesignMixed-methods survey study of physicians and/or ethicists and review of healthcare system and state allocation guidelines.ParticipantsTen physicians and/or ethicists who participated in scarce resource allocation guideline development from seven healthcare systems or three state-appointed committees from the western region of the USA including Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and California.ResultsAll sites surveyed developed allocation guidelines, but only four (40%) were operationalized either statewide or for specific scarce resources. Most guidelines included comorbidities (70%), and half included adjustments for socioeconomic disadvantage (50%), while only one included specific priority groups (10%). Allocation tiebreakers included the life cycle principle and random number generators. Six guidelines evolved over time, removing restrictions such as age, severity of illness, and comorbidities. Additional palliative care (20%) and ethics (50%) resources were planned by some guidelines.ConclusionsAllocation guidelines are essential to support clinicians during public health emergencies; however, significant deficits and differences in guidelines were identified that may perpetuate structural inequities and racism. While a universal triage protocol that is equally accepted by all communities is unlikely, the lack of regional agreement on standards with justification and transparency has the potential to erode public trust and perpetuate inequity.KEY WORDS: equity, health disparities, ethics, discrimination, crisis guidelines, racism     

Israel Ad Hoc COVID-19 Committee: Guidelines for Care of Older Persons During a Pandemic

Early on, geriatricians in Israel viewed with increasing alarm the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It was clear that this viral disease exhibited a clear predilection for and danger to older persons. Informal contacts began with senior officials from the country's Ministry of Health, the Israel Medical Association, and the country's largest health fund; this was done to plan an approach to the possible coming storm. A group was formed, comprising three senior geriatricians, a former dean, a palliative care specialist, and a lawyer/ethicist. The members made every effort to ensure that their recommendations would be practical while at the same time taking into account the tenets of medical ethics. The committee's main task was to think through a workable approach because intensive care unit/ventilator resources may be far outstripped by those requiring such care. Recommendations included the approach to older persons both in the community and in long-term care institutions, a triage instrument, and palliative care. Patient autonomy was emphasized, with a strong recommendation for people of all ages to update their advance directives or, if they did not have any, to quickly draw them up. Considering the value of distributive justice, with respect to triage, a “soft utilitarian” approach was advocated with the main criteria being function and comorbidity. Although chronological age was rejected as a sole criterion, in the case of an overwhelming crisis, “biological age” would enter into the triage considerations, but only in the case of distinguishing between people with equal non–age-related deficits. The guideline emphasized that no matter what, in the spirit of beneficence, anyone who fell ill must receive active palliative care throughout the course of a COVD-19 infection but especially at the end of life. Furthermore, in the spirit of nonmaleficence, the frail, very old, and severely demented would be actively protected from dying on ventilation. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1370-1375, 2020.     

Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients make good decisions about preventive health interventions such as cancer screening. We illustrate the use of SDM in the case of a 53-year-old man who had a new patient visit with a primary care physician and had never been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The patient had recently recovered from a serious COVID-19 infection requiring weeks of mechanical ventilation. When the primary care physician initially offered a screening colonoscopy, the man expressed great reluctance to return to the hospital for the exam. The PCP then offered a stool test, which could be completed at home, but emphasized that if it were positive, a colonoscopy would be required. He agreed to complete the stool test, and unfortunately, it was positive. He then agreed to undergo colonoscopy, which uncovered a large rectal cancer. The carcinoma had invaded the mesorectal fat but there were no metastases. After undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a low anterior resection of the tumor, he has no evidence of recurrence so far. Many clinicians favor colonoscopy for CRC screening, but evidence suggests that patients who are offered more than one reasonable option are more likely to undergo screening. If screening had been delayed in this patient until he was willing to accept a screening colonoscopy, there was the potential the cancer may have been more advanced when diagnosed, with a worse outcome. Shared decision-making was a key approach to understanding the patient’s feelings related to this screening decision and making a decision consistent with his preferences.     

Cough in the Elderly During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction

The prevalence of chronic cough increases with age. However, data on the prevalence and background disorders of cough subtypes in the elderly are scarce. The objective of this study was to identify the point prevalence and risk factors of acute, subacute, and chronic cough in an elderly community-based population.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional email survey amongst 26,205 members of the Finnish Pensioners’ Federation during the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2021.

Results

The response rate was 23.6% (6189). 5983 subjects aged at least 64 years were included in the analyses (mean 72.6 years, 66.3% female). The point prevalence of daily acute, subacute, and chronic cough were 1.4%, 0.7%, and 9.6%, respectively. Only 0.4% of the subjects had a COVID-19 infection. In the multivariate analyses, chronic rhinosinusitis, and obstructive sleep apnoea were common risk factors for all cough subtypes. Chronic cough had several risk factors; Bronchiectasis (OR 5.79 (CI95% 2.70–12.41)), current asthma (2.67 (2.02–3.54)), chronic rhinosinusitis (2.51 (1.94–3.24)), somatic symptom score (1.13 per symptom (1.07–1.19)), family history of chronic cough (1.88 (1.54–2.30)), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1.86 (1.50–2.32)), advanced age (1.20 per decade (1.02–1.40)), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.74 (0.99–3.05)), dog ownership (1.42 (1.07–1.89)), and obstructive sleep apnoea (1.41 (1.16–1.73)).

Conclusion

Acute and subacute cough, as well as previous COVID-19 infection, were uncommon in this Finnish elderly population. The prevalence of chronic cough was higher than that previously found in younger adults. Chronic cough is a multifactorial disorder in the elderly.

     

Guiding Cardiac Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: How Ethics Shapes Our Health System Response

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised ethical questions for the cardiovascular leader and practitioner. Attention has been redirected from a system that focuses on individual patient benefit toward one that focuses on protecting society as a whole. Challenging resource allocation questions highlight the need for a clearly articulated ethics framework that integrates principled decision making into how different cardiovascular care services are prioritized. A practical application of the principles of harm minimisation, fairness, proportionality, respect, reciprocity, flexibility, and procedural justice is provided, and a model for prioritisation of the restoration of cardiovascular services is outlined. The prioritisation model may be used to determine how and when cardiovascular services should be continued or restored. There should be a focus on an iterative and responsive approach to broader health care system needs, such as other disease groups and local outbreaks.     

How Vitamin D Levels of Children Changed During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Pre-pandemic and Pandemic Periods

Objective:The synthesis of vitamin D is related to sun exposure, thus the restrictions during the Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have affected the levels of vitamin D in all age groups. The aim of this study was to evaluate vitamin D levels of healthy children and adolescents during the first year of the pandemic.Methods:The study group included healthy children and adolescents who were admitted for general check-ups and evaluated with 25(OH)D levels. Then, it was divided into two groups: Group 1 “pre-pandemic”, and Group 2 “pandemic”. Vitamin D levels were recorded from the hospital database and were compared according to age groups, gender, and the season, retrospectively.Results:The study group [mean age=90.29±59.45 median age=79 interquartile range (IQR): 102 months, male/female: 1409/1624] included 3033 children and adolescents (Group 1/Group 2 n=1864/1169). Although the mean 25(OH)D levels among preschool children did not differ between groups, the vitamin D levels of school-aged children and adolescents were significantly lower in the pandemic period than in the pre-pandemic period [Group 1 median=16.50 (IQR: 10.5) vs Group 2 median=15.9 (IQR: 11.3) in 6-12 age group (p=0.026); Group 1 median=13.30 (IQR: 10.2) vs Group 2 median=11.20 (IQR: 9.7) in 12-18 age group (p=0.003)]. Moreover, the 25(OH)D levels of adolescents showed seasonal variance with lower levels in winter, and unexpectedly, in summer.Conclusion:Pandemic-related restrictions have caused significant decreases in vitamin D levels of school-aged children and adolescents. We suggest that children and adolescents should be given vitamin D supplementation in order to maintain sufficient levels of vitamin D during the pandemic.