RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Widespread vaccination is an essential component of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, yet vaccine hesitancy remains pervasive. This prospective survey investigation aimed to measure the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in a patient cohort at two urban emergency departments (EDs) and characterize underlying factors contributing to hesitancy. METHODS: Adult ED patients with stable clinical status (Emergency Severity Index 3-5) and without active COVID-19 disease or altered mental status were considered for participation. Demographic elements were collected as well as reported barriers/concerns related to vaccination and trusted sources of health information. Data were collected in person via a survey instrument proctored by trained research assistants. RESULTS: A total of 1,555 patients were approached, and 1,068 patients completed surveys (completion rate = 68.7%). Mean (±SD) age was 44.1 (±15.5) years (range = 18-93 years), 61% were female, and 70% were Black. A total of 31.6% of ED patients reported vaccine hesitancy. Of note, 19.7% of the hesitant cohort were health care workers. In multivariable regression analysis, Black race (odds ratio [OR] = 4.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.62 to 6.85) and younger age (age 18-24 years-OR = 4.57, 95% CI = 2.66 to 7.86; age 25-35 years-OR = 5.71, 95% CI = 3.71 to 8.81) were independently associated with hesitancy, to a greater degree than level of education (high school education or less-OR = 2.27, 95% CI = 1.23 to 4.19). Hesitant patients were significantly less likely to trust governmental sources of vaccine information than nonhesitant patients (39.6% vs. 78.9%, p < 0.001); less difference was noted in the domain of trust toward friends/family (51.1% vs. 61.0%, p = 0.004). Hesitant patients also reported perceived vaccine safety concerns and perceived insufficient research. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy is common among ED patients and more common among Black and younger patients, independent of education level. Hesitant patients report perceived safety concerns and low trust in government information sources but less so friends or family. This suggests that strategies to combat hesitancy may need tailoring to specific populations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Importance: Health care workers (HCWs) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Currently, to our knowledge, there is no effective pharmacologic prophylaxis for individuals at risk. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital-based HCWs with exposure to patients with COVID-19 using a pre-exposure prophylaxis strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 With Hydroxychloroquine Study) was conducted at 2 tertiary urban hospitals, with enrollment from April 9, 2020, to July 14, 2020; follow-up ended August 4, 2020. The trial randomized 132 full-time, hospital-based HCWs (physicians, nurses, certified nursing assistants, emergency technicians, and respiratory therapists), of whom 125 were initially asymptomatic and had negative results for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal swab. The trial was terminated early for futility before reaching a planned enrollment of 200 participants. Interventions: Hydroxychloroquine, 600 mg, daily, or size-matched placebo taken orally for 8 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as determined by a nasopharyngeal swab during the 8 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects, treatment discontinuation, presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, frequency of QTc prolongation, and clinical outcomes for SARS-CoV-2-positive participants. Results: Of the 132 randomized participants (median age, 33 years [range, 20-66 years]; 91 women [69%]), 125 (94.7%) were evaluable for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in infection rates in participants randomized to receive hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo (4 of 64 [6.3%] vs 4 of 61 [6.6%]; P > .99). Mild adverse events were more common in participants taking hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo (45% vs 26%; P = .04); rates of treatment discontinuation were similar in both arms (19% vs 16%; P = .81). The median change in QTc (baseline to 4-week evaluation) did not differ between arms (hydroxychloroquine: 4 milliseconds; 95% CI, -9 to 17; vs placebo: 3 milliseconds; 95% CI, -5 to 11; P = .98). Of the 8 participants with positive results for SARS-CoV-2 (6.4%), 6 developed viral symptoms; none required hospitalization, and all clinically recovered. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, although limited by early termination, there was no clinical benefit of hydroxychloroquine administered daily for 8 weeks as pre-exposure prophylaxis in hospital-based HCWs exposed to patients with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04329923.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has developed milestones including procedural skills under the core competency of patient care. Progress in training is expected to be monitored by residency programs. To our knowledge, there exists no tool to evaluate pediatric resident laceration repair performance. Methods The Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills was adapted to evaluate resident laceration repair performance using two components: a global rating scale (GRS) and a checklist. Pediatric and family medicine residents at a tertiary care children's hospital were filmed performing a simulated laceration repair. Videos were evaluated by at least five physicians trained in laceration repair. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were calculated for the GRS and checklist scores. Scores for each resident were compared across levels of training and procedural experience. Spearman's rank order correlations were calculated to compare the checklist and GRS. Results Thirty residents were filmed performing laceration repair procedures. The CCC showed fair concordance across reviewers for the checklist (0.55, 95% CI: 0.38-0.69) and the GRS (0.53, 95% CI: 0.36-0.67). There was no significant difference in scores by self-reported experience or training level. There was correlation between the median GRS and checklist scores (Spearman ρ = 0.730, p < .001). Conclusions A novel tool to evaluate resident laceration repair performance in a pediatric emergency department showed fair agreement across reviewers. The study tool is not precise enough for summative evaluation; however, it can be used to distinguish between trainees who have and have not attained competence in laceration repair for formative feedback.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) discharge requires conveying critical information in a time-limited and distracting setting. Limited health literacy may put patients at risk of incomplete comprehension, but the relationship between discharge communication needs and health literacy has not been well defined. The goal of this study was to characterize the variation in needs and preferences regarding the ED discharge process by health literacy and identify novel ideas for process improvement from parents and patients. METHODS: This was an in-depth qualitative interview study in two EDs using asthma as a model system for health communication. Adult patients and parents of pediatric patients with an asthma exacerbation and planned discharge were enrolled using purposive sampling to balance across literacy groups at each site. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, coded independently by two team members, and analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached in both literacy groups at each site. RESULTS: In-depth interviews were completed with 51 participants: 20 adult patients and 31 pediatric parents. The majority of participants identified barriers related to ED providers, such as use of medical terminology, and systems of care, such as absence of protected time for discharge communication. Patients with limited health literacy, but not those with adequate literacy, identified conflicting information between health care sources as a barrier to successful ED discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Participants across literacy groups and settings identified multiple actionable areas for improvement in the ED discharge process. These included the use of simplified/lay language, increased visual learning and demonstration, and the desire for complete information. Individuals with limited literacy may particularly benefit from increased attention to consistency.

Asunto(s)