Background There is no proven antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy for COVID-19. The disease progression associated with the pro-inflammatory host response prompted us to examine the role of early corticosteroid therapy in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Methods We conducted a single pre-test, single post-test quasi-experiment in a multi-center health system in Michigan from March 12 to March 27, 2020. Adult patients with confirmed moderate to severe COVID were included. A protocol was implemented on March 20, 2020 using early, short-course, methylprednisolone 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/day divided in 2 intravenous doses for 3 days. Outcomes of standard of care (SOC) and early corticosteroid groups were evaluated, with a primary composite endpoint of escalation of care from ward to ICU, new requirement for mechanical ventilation, and mortality. All patients had at least 14 days of follow-up. Results We analyzed 213 eligible subjects, 81 (38%) and 132 (62%) in SOC and early corticosteroid groups, respectively.The composite endpoint occurred at a significantly lower rate in the early corticosteroid group (34.9% vs. 54.3%, p=0.005). This treatment effect was observed within each individual component of the composite endpoint. Significant reduction in median hospital length of stay was also observed in the early corticosteroid group (8 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated an independent reduction in the composite endpoint at 14-days controlling for other factors (aOR: 0.41; 95% CI [0.22 – 0.77]). Conclusion An early short course of methylprednisolone in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 reduced escalation of care and improved clinical outcomes.

Background This study examined the psychometric properties of the Kalamazoo Essential Elements Communication Checklist (Adapted) (KEECC-A), which addresses 7 key elements of physician communication identified in the Kalamazoo Consensus Statement, in a sample of 135 residents in multiple specialties at a large urban medical center in 2008–2009. The KEECC-A was used by residents, standardized patients, and faculty as the assessment tool in a broader institutional curriculum initiative. Methods Three separate KEECC-A scores (self-ratings, faculty ratings, and standardized patient ratings) were calculated for each resident to assess the internal consistency and factor structure of the checklist. In addition, we analyzed KEECC-A ratings by gender and US versus international medical graduates, and collected American Board of Internal Medicine Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) scores for a subsample of internal medicine residents (n  =  28) to examine the relationship between this measure and the KEECC-A ratings to provide evidence of convergent validity. Results The KEECC-A ratings generated by faculty, standardized patients, and the residents themselves demonstrated a high degree of internal consistency. Factor analyses of the 3 different sets of KEECC-A ratings produced a consistent single-factor structure. We could not examine the relationship between KEECC-A and the PSQ because of substantial range restriction in PSQ scores. No differences were seen in the communication scores of men versus women. Faculty rated US graduates significantly higher than international medical graduates. Conclusion Our study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the KEECC-A as a measure of physician communication skills. The KEECC-A appears to be a psychometrically sound, user-friendly communication tool, linked to an expert consensus statement, that can be quickly and accurately completed by multiple raters across diverse specialties.

Objective We describe a collaboration between the graduate medical education office and the Henry Ford Health System's Office of Clinical Quality and Safety to create an institution-wide communication skills curriculum pertinent to the institution's safety and patient- and family-centered care initiatives. Methods A multidisciplinary committee provided oversight for the curriculum design and used sentinel event and other quality and safety data to identify specific target areas. The curriculum consisted of 3 courses: “Informed Consent,” “Sharing Bad News,” and “Disclosure of Unanticipated Events.” Each course included 3 components: a multimedia online module; small group discussions led by the program director that focused on the use of communication scripts; and 2 objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) requiring residents to demonstrate use of the communication scripts. All first-year residents (N  =  145) and faculty (N  =  30) from 20 residency programs participated in this initiative. Evaluation of the residents consisted of a self-assessment; the standardized patients' assessment of the residents' performance; and faculty assessment of resident performance with verbal feedback. Results Survey data showed that residents found the courses valuable, with residents identifying communication scripts they would use in clinical settings. Focus groups with faculty highlighted that the resident debriefing sessions provided them with insight into a resident's communication skills early in their training. Conclusion Our institutional curriculum was developed in a collaborative manner, and used an evidence-based approach to teach communication skills relevant to institutional safety and quality initiatives. Other institutions may wish to adopt our strategy of departmental collaboration and alignment of resident education with institutional initiatives.

No abstract

No abstract