Background: Protection of healthcare providers (HCP) has been a serious challenge in the management of patients during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Additional physical barriers have been created to enhance personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, user acceptability of two novel barriers was evaluated and the performance of airway management using PPE alone versus PPE plus the additional barrier were compared. Methods: An open-label, double-armed simulation pilot study was conducted. Each participant performed bag-mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation using a GlideScope in two scenarios: 1) PPE donned, followed by 2) PPE donned plus the addition of either the isolation chamber (IC) or aerosol box (AB). Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy was timed. Participants completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires. Results: Twenty-nine participants from the Department of Anesthesia were included in the study. Pre- and post-simulation questionnaire responses supported the acceptance of additional barriers. There was no significant difference in intubating times across all groups (PPE vs. IC 95% CI, 26.3–35.1; PPE vs. AB 95% CI, 25.9–35.5; IC vs. AB 95% CI, 23.6–39.1). Comparison of post-simulation questionnaire responses between IC and AB showed no significant difference. Participants did not find the additional barriers negatively affected communication, visualization, or maneuverability. Conclusions Overall, the IC and AB were comparable, and there was no negative impact on performance under testing conditions. Our study suggests the positive acceptance of additional patient protection barriers by anesthesia providers during airway management.

Background: Protection of healthcare providers (HCP) has been a serious challenge in the management of patients during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Additional physical barriers have been created to enhance personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, user acceptability of two novel barriers was evaluated and the performance of airway management using PPE alone versus PPE plus the additional barrier were compared. Methods: An open-label, double-armed simulation pilot study was conducted. Each participant performed bag-mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation using a GlideScope in two scenarios: 1) PPE donned, followed by 2) PPE donned plus the addition of either the isolation chamber (IC) or aerosol box (AB). Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy was timed. Participants completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires. Results: Twenty-nine participants from the Department of Anesthesia were included in the study. Pre- and post-simulation questionnaire responses supported the acceptance of additional barriers. There was no significant difference in intubating times across all groups (PPE vs. IC 95% CI, 26.3–35.1; PPE vs. AB 95% CI, 25.9–35.5; IC vs. AB 95% CI, 23.6–39.1). Comparison of post-simulation questionnaire responses between IC and AB showed no significant difference. Participants did not find the additional barriers negatively affected communication, visualization, or maneuverability. Conclusions Overall, the IC and AB were comparable, and there was no negative impact on performance under testing conditions. Our study suggests the positive acceptance of additional patient protection barriers by anesthesia providers during airway management.

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening can lead to potential over-diagnosis/over-treatment of indolent cancers. There is a need to optimize practices to better risk-stratify patients. We examined initial longitudinal outcomes of mid-life men with an elevated baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) following initiation of a novel screening program within a system-wide network. Materials and Methods: We assessed our primary care network patients ages 40 to 49 years with a PSA measured following implementation of an electronic health record screening algorithm from 2/2/2017–2/21/2018. The multidisciplinary algorithm was developed taking factors including age, race, family history, and PSA into consideration to provide a personalized approach to urology referral to be used with shared decision-making. Outcomes of men with PSA ≥1.5 ng/mL were evaluated through 7/2021. Statistical analyses identified factors associated with PCa detection. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as Gleason Grade Group (GGG) ≥2 or GGG1 with PSA ≥10 ng/mL. Results: The study cohort contained 564 patients, with 330 (58.5%) referred to urology for elevated PSA. Forty-nine (8.7%) underwent biopsy; of these, 20 (40.8%) returned with PCa. Eleven (2.0% of total cohort and 55% of PCa diagnoses) had csPCa. Early referral timing (odds ratio [OR], 4.58) and higher PSA (OR, 1.07) were significantly associated with PCa at biopsy on multivariable analysis (both p<0.05), while other risk factors were not. Referred patients had higher mean PSAs (2.97 vs. 1.98, p=0.001). Conclusions Preliminary outcomes following implementation of a multidisciplinary screening algorithm identified PCa in a small, important percentage of men in their forties. These results provide insight into baseline PSA measurement to provide early risk stratification and detection of csPCa in patients with otherwise extended life expectancy. Further follow-up is needed to possibly determine the prognostic significance of such mid-life screening and optimize primary care physician-urologist coordination.