PurposeThis review will inform radiologists about the evidence base regarding radiographic imaging for transgender individuals and considerations for providing culturally sensitive care for this population.FindingsTransgender individuals are increasingly referred for both screening and diagnostic breast imaging. It is important that the clinic environment is welcoming, the medical staff utilize accepted terminology and patients are able to designate their gender and personal history to ensure appropriate care. Hormone and surgical treatments used for transition by many transgender women and men may change the approach to imaging.SummaryAlthough not yet evidence-based, screening mammography is currently suggested for transgender women with risk factors, including those receiving hormone treatment over 5 years. The risk for breast cancer in transgender individuals is still being defined.

PURPOSE Comprehensive medical care requires direct physician-patient contact, other offi ce-based medical activities, and medical care outside of the offi ce. This study was a systematic investigation of family physician offi ce-based activities outside of the examination room. METHODSIn the summer of 2000, 6 medical students directly observed and recorded the offi ce-based activities of 27 northeastern Ohio community-based family physicians during 1 practice day. A checklist was used to record physician activity every 20 seconds outside of the examination room. Observation excluded medical care provided at other sites. Physicians were also asked to estimate how they spent their time on average and on the observed day. RESULTSThe average offi ce day was 8 hours 8 minutes. On average, 20.1 patients were seen and physicians spent 17.5 minutes per patient in direct contact time. Offi ce-based time outside of the examination room averaged 3 hours 8 minutes or 39% of the offi ce practice day; 61% of that time was spent in activities related to medical care. Charting (32.9 minutes per day) and dictating (23.4 minutes per day) were the most common medical activities. Physicians overestimated the time they spent in direct patient care and medical activities. None of the participating practices had electronic medical records.CONCLUSIONS If offi ce-based, medically related activities were averaged over the number of patients seen in the offi ce that day, the average offi ce visit time per patient would increase by 7 minutes (40%). Care delivery extends beyond direct patient contact. Models of health care delivery need to recognize this component of care.

Background The incidence of cardiac arrests per year in the United States continues to increase, yet in-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates significantly vary between hospitals. Current methods of training are expensive, time consuming, and difficult to scale, which necessitates improvements in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training. Virtual reality (VR) has been proposed as an alternative or adjunct to high-fidelity simulation (HFS) in several environments. No evaluations to date have explored the ability of a VR program to examine both technical and behavioral skills and demonstrate a cost comparison. Objective This study aimed to explore the utility of a voice-based VR ACLS team leader refresher as compared with HFS. Methods This prospective observational study performed at an academic institution consisted of 25 postgraduate year 2 residents. Participants were randomized to HFS or VR training and then crossed groups after a 2-week washout. Participants were graded on technical and nontechnical skills. Participants also completed self-assessments about the modules. Proctors were assessed for fatigue and task saturation, and cost analysis based on local economic data was performed. Results A total of 23 of 25 participants were included in the scoring analysis. Fewer participants were familiar with VR compared with HFS (9/25, 36% vs 25/25, 100%; P<.001). Self-reported satisfaction and utilization scores were similar; however, significantly more participants felt HFS provided better feedback: 99 (IQR 89-100) vs 79 (IQR 71-88); P<.001. Technical scores were higher in the HFS group; however, nontechnical scores for decision making and communication were not significantly different between modalities. VR sessions were 21 (IQR 19-24) min shorter than HFS sessions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration task load index scores for proctors were lower in each category, and VR sessions were estimated to be US $103.68 less expensive in a single-learner, single-session model. Conclusions Utilization of a VR-based team leader refresher for ACLS skills is comparable with HFS in several areas, including learner satisfaction. The VR module was more cost-effective and was easier to proctor; however, HFS was better at delivering feedback to participants. Optimal education strategies likely contain elements of both modalities. Further studies are needed to examine the utility of VR-based environments at scale.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, ventilator sharing was suggested to increase availability of mechanical ventilation. The safety and feasibility of ventilator sharing is unknown. Methods A single ventilator in pressure control mode was used with flow control valves to simultaneously ventilate two patients with different lung compliances. The system was first evaluated using high-fidelity human patient simulator mannequins and then tested for 1 h in two pairs of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Patients were matched on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional inspired oxygen tension, and respiratory rate. Tidal volume and peak airway pressure (PMAX) were recorded from each patient using separate independent spirometers and arterial blood gas samples drawn at 0, 30, and 60 min. The authors assessed acid-base status, oxygenation, tidal volume, and PMAX for each patient. Stability was assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation. Results The valves performed as expected in simulation, providing a stable tidal volume of 400 ml each to two mannequins with compliance ratios varying from 20:20 to 20:90 ml/cm H2O. The system was then tested in two pairs of patients. Pair 1 was a 49-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, and a 55-yr-old man, ideal body weight 64 kg, with lung compliance 27 ml/cm H2O versus 35 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 0.2 to 1.7%, and for PMAX 0 to 1.1%. Pair 2 was a 32-yr-old man, ideal body weight 62 kg, and a 56-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, with lung compliance 12 ml/cm H2O versus 21 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 0.4 to 5.6%, and for PMAX 0 to 2.1%. Conclusions Differential ventilation using a single ventilator is feasible. Flow control valves enable delivery of stable tidal volume and PMAX similar to those provided by individual ventilators. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

BACKGROUND: Numerous barrier devices have recently been developed and rapidly deployed worldwide in an effort to protect health care workers (HCWs) from exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during high-risk procedures. However, only a few studies have examined their impact on the dispersion of droplets and aerosols, which are both thought to be significant contributors to the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: Two commonly used barrier devices, an intubation box and a clear plastic intubation sheet, were evaluated using a physiologically accurate cough simulator. Aerosols were modeled using a commercially available fog machine, and droplets were modeled with fluorescein dye. Both particles were propelled by the cough simulator in a simulated intubation environment. Data were captured by high-speed flash photography, and aerosol and droplet dispersion were assessed qualitatively with and without a barrier in place. RESULTS: Droplet contamination after a simulated cough was seemingly contained by both barrier devices. Simulated aerosol escaped the barriers and flowed toward the head of the bed. During barrier removal, simulated aerosol trapped underneath was released and propelled toward the HCW at the head of the bed. Usage of the intubation sheet concentrated droplets onto a smaller area. If no barrier was used, positioning the patient in slight reverse Trendelenburg directed aerosols away from the HCW located at the head of the bed. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations imply that intubation boxes and sheets may reduce HCW exposure to droplets, but they both may merely redirect aerosolized particles, potentially resulting in increased exposure to aerosols in certain circumstances. Aerosols may remain within the barrier device after a cough, and manipulation of the box may release them. Patients should be positioned to facilitate intubation, but slight reverse Trendelenburg may direct infectious aerosols away from the HCW. Novel barrier devices should be used with caution, and further validation studies are necessary.