Objective Recent cohort studies have identified obesity as a risk factor for poor outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). To further explore the relationship between obesity and critical illness in COVID‐19, the association of BMI with baseline demographic and intensive care unit (ICU) parameters, laboratory values, and outcomes in a critically ill patient cohort was examined. Methods In this retrospective study, the first 277 consecutive patients admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital ICUs with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 were examined. BMI class, initial ICU laboratory values, physiologic characteristics including gas exchange and ventilatory mechanics, and ICU interventions as clinically available were measured. Mortality, length of ICU admission, and duration of mechanical ventilation were also measured. Results There was no difference found in respiratory system compliance or oxygenation between patients with and without obesity. Patients without obesity had higher initial ferritin and D‐dimer levels than patients with obesity. Standard acute respiratory distress syndrome management, including prone ventilation, was equally distributed between BMI groups. There was no difference found in outcomes between BMI groups, including 30‐ and 60‐day mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation. Conclusions In this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID‐19, obesity was not associated with meaningful differences in respiratory physiology, inflammatory profile, or clinical outcomes.

Problem Gun violence results in approximately 40,000 deaths in the United States each year, yet physicians rarely discuss gun access and firearm safety with patients. Lack of education about how to have these conversations is an important barrier, particularly among trainees. Approach A 2-part training curriculum was developed for first-year residents. It included (1) a didactic presentation outlining a framework to understand types of firearm-related violence, describing institutional resources, and reviewing strategies for approaching discussions about firearms with patients, and (2) interactive case scenarios, adjusted for clinical disciplines, with standardized patients. Before and after the training, participants completed surveys on the training’s relevance, efficacy, and benefit. Standardized patients provided real-time feedback to participants and completed assessments based on prespecified learning objectives. Outcomes In June–August 2019, 148 first-year residents in internal medicine (n = 74), general surgery (n = 12), emergency medicine (n = 15), pediatrics (n = 22), psychiatry (n = 16), and OB/GYN (n = 9) completed the training. Most (70%, n = 104) reported having no prior exposure to gun violence prevention education. Knowledge about available resources increased among participants from 3% (n = 5) pretraining to 97% (n = 143) post-training. Awareness about relevant laws, such as Extreme Risk Protection Orders, and their appropriate use increased from 3% (n = 4) pretraining to 98% (n = 145) post-training. Comfort discussing access to guns and gun safety with patients increased from a median of 5 pretraining to 8 post-training (on a scale of 1–10, with higher scores indicating more comfort). Next Steps Delivery of a case-based gun violence prevention training program was effective and feasible in a single institution. Next steps include expanding the training to other learners (across undergraduate and graduate medical education) and institutions and assessing how the program changes practice over time.

Proning awake patients with COVID-19 is associated with lower mortality and intubation rates. However, these studies also demonstrate low participation rates and tolerance of awake proning. In this study, we attempt to understand barriers to proning. Medical and dental students surveyed nonintubated patients to understand factors affecting adherence to a proning protocol. Only patients who discussed proning with their medical team attempted the practice. Eight of nine patients who were informed about benefits of proning attempted the maneuver. Discomfort was the primary reason patients stopped proning. Addressing discomfort and implementing systematic patient education may increase adherence to proning.