Infectious Diseases

COVID-19 is less severe in children, compared with adults, early data suggest. “Yet many questions remain, especially regarding the effects on children with special health care needs,” according to a viewpoint recently published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The COVID-19 pandemic also raises questions about clinic visits for healthy children in communities with widespread transmission and about the unintended effects of school closures and other measures aimed at slowing the spread of the disease, wrote Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, and Lindsay A. Thompson, MD, both of the University of Florida, Gainesville.

In communities with widespread outbreaks, telephone triage and expanded use of telehealth may be needed to limit nonurgent clinic visits, they suggested.

“Community mitigation interventions, such as school closures, cancellation of mass gatherings, and closure of public places are appropriate” in places with widespread transmission, Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Thompson wrote. “If these measures are required, pediatricians need to advocate to alleviate unintended consequences or inadvertent expansion of health disparities on children, such as by finding ways to maintain nutrition for those who depend on school lunches and provide online mental health services for stress management for families whose routines might be severely interrupted for an extended period of time.”

Continued preventive care for infants and vaccinations for younger children may be warranted, they wrote.
 

Clinical course

Overall, children have experienced lower-than-expected rates of COVID-19 disease, and deaths in this population appear to be rare, Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Thompson wrote.

Common symptoms of COVID-19 in adults include fever, cough, myalgia, shortness of breath, headache, and diarrhea, and children have similar manifestations. In adults, older age and underlying illness increase the risk of severe disease. There has not been convincing evidence of intrauterine transmission of COVID-19, and whether breastfeeding can transmit the virus is unknown, they noted.

An analysis of more than 72,000 cases from China found that 1.2% were in patients aged 10-19 years, and 0.9% were in patients younger than 10 years. One death occurred in the adolescent age range. A separate analysis of 2,143 confirmed and suspected pediatric cases in China indicated that infants were at higher risk of severe disease (11%), compared with older children – 4% for those aged 11-15 years, and 3% in those 16 years and older.

There is less data available about the clinical course of COVID-19 in children in the United States, the authors noted. But among more than 4,000 patients with COVID-19 in the United States through March 16, no ICU admissions or deaths were reported for patients aged younger than 19 years (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 26;69[12]:343-6).

Still, researchers have suggested that children with underlying illness may be at greater risk of COVID-19. In a study of 20 children with COVID-19 in China, 7 of the patients had a history of congenital or acquired disease, potentially indicating that they were more susceptible to the virus (Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24718). Chest CT consolidations with surrounding halo sign was evident in half of the patients, and procalcitonin elevation was seen in 80% of the children; these were signs common in children, but not in adults with COVID-19.

“About 10% of children in the U.S. have asthma; many children live with other pulmonary, cardiac, neuromuscular, or genetic diseases that affect their ability to handle respiratory disease, and other children are immunosuppressed because of illness or its treatment,” Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Thompson wrote. “It is possible that these children will experience COVID-19 differently than counterparts of the same ages who are healthy.”

The authors reported that they had no financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rasmussen SA, Thompson LA. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Apr 3. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1224.

COVID-19 is less severe in children, compared with adults, early data suggest. “Yet many questions remain, especially regarding the effects on children with special health care needs,” according to a viewpoint recently published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The COVID-19 pandemic also raises questions about clinic visits for healthy children in communities with widespread transmission and about the unintended effects of school closures and other measures aimed at slowing the spread of the disease, wrote Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, and Lindsay A. Thompson, MD, both of the University of Florida, Gainesville.

In communities with widespread outbreaks, telephone triage and expanded use of telehealth may be needed to limit nonurgent clinic visits, they suggested.

“Community mitigation interventions, such as school closures, cancellation of mass gatherings, and closure of public places are appropriate” in places with widespread transmission, Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Thompson wrote. “If these measures are required, pediatricians need to advocate to alleviate unintended consequences or inadvertent expansion of health disparities on children, such as by finding ways to maintain nutrition for those who depend on school lunches and provide online mental health services for stress management for families whose routines might be severely interrupted for an extended period of time.”

Continued preventive care for infants and vaccinations for younger children may be warranted, they wrote.
 

Clinical course

Overall, children have experienced lower-than-expected rates of COVID-19 disease, and deaths in this population appear to be rare, Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Thompson wrote.

Common symptoms of COVID-19 in adults include fever, cough, myalgia, shortness of breath, headache, and diarrhea, and children have similar manifestations. In adults, older age and underlying illness increase the risk of severe disease. There has not been convincing evidence of intrauterine transmission of COVID-19, and whether breastfeeding can transmit the virus is unknown, they noted.

An analysis of more than 72,000 cases from China found that 1.2% were in patients aged 10-19 years, and 0.9% were in patients younger than 10 years. One death occurred in the adolescent age range. A separate analysis of 2,143 confirmed and suspected pediatric cases in China indicated that infants were at higher risk of severe disease (11%), compared with older children – 4% for those aged 11-15 years, and 3% in those 16 years and older.

There is less data available about the clinical course of COVID-19 in children in the United States, the authors noted. But among more than 4,000 patients with COVID-19 in the United States through March 16, no ICU admissions or deaths were reported for patients aged younger than 19 years (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 26;69[12]:343-6).

Still, researchers have suggested that children with underlying illness may be at greater risk of COVID-19. In a study of 20 children with COVID-19 in China, 7 of the patients had a history of congenital or acquired disease, potentially indicating that they were more susceptible to the virus (Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24718). Chest CT consolidations with surrounding halo sign was evident in half of the patients, and procalcitonin elevation was seen in 80% of the children; these were signs common in children, but not in adults with COVID-19.

“About 10% of children in the U.S. have asthma; many children live with other pulmonary, cardiac, neuromuscular, or genetic diseases that affect their ability to handle respiratory disease, and other children are immunosuppressed because of illness or its treatment,” Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Thompson wrote. “It is possible that these children will experience COVID-19 differently than counterparts of the same ages who are healthy.”

The authors reported that they had no financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rasmussen SA, Thompson LA. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Apr 3. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1224.

COVID-19 is less severe in children, compared with adults, early data suggest. “Yet many questions remain, especially regarding the effects on children with special health care needs,” according to a viewpoint recently published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The COVID-19 pandemic also raises questions about clinic visits for healthy children in communities with widespread transmission and about the unintended effects of school closures and other measures aimed at slowing the spread of the disease, wrote Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, and Lindsay A. Thompson, MD, both of the University of Florida, Gainesville.

In communities with widespread outbreaks, telephone triage and expanded use of telehealth may be needed to limit nonurgent clinic visits, they suggested.

“Community mitigation interventions, such as school closures, cancellation of mass gatherings, and closure of public places are appropriate” in places with widespread transmission, Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Thompson wrote. “If these measures are required, pediatricians need to advocate to alleviate unintended consequences or inadvertent expansion of health disparities on children, such as by finding ways to maintain nutrition for those who depend on school lunches and provide online mental health services for stress management for families whose routines might be severely interrupted for an extended period of time.”

Continued preventive care for infants and vaccinations for younger children may be warranted, they wrote.
 

Clinical course

Overall, children have experienced lower-than-expected rates of COVID-19 disease, and deaths in this population appear to be rare, Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Thompson wrote.

Common symptoms of COVID-19 in adults include fever, cough, myalgia, shortness of breath, headache, and diarrhea, and children have similar manifestations. In adults, older age and underlying illness increase the risk of severe disease. There has not been convincing evidence of intrauterine transmission of COVID-19, and whether breastfeeding can transmit the virus is unknown, they noted.

An analysis of more than 72,000 cases from China found that 1.2% were in patients aged 10-19 years, and 0.9% were in patients younger than 10 years. One death occurred in the adolescent age range. A separate analysis of 2,143 confirmed and suspected pediatric cases in China indicated that infants were at higher risk of severe disease (11%), compared with older children – 4% for those aged 11-15 years, and 3% in those 16 years and older.

There is less data available about the clinical course of COVID-19 in children in the United States, the authors noted. But among more than 4,000 patients with COVID-19 in the United States through March 16, no ICU admissions or deaths were reported for patients aged younger than 19 years (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 26;69[12]:343-6).

Still, researchers have suggested that children with underlying illness may be at greater risk of COVID-19. In a study of 20 children with COVID-19 in China, 7 of the patients had a history of congenital or acquired disease, potentially indicating that they were more susceptible to the virus (Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24718). Chest CT consolidations with surrounding halo sign was evident in half of the patients, and procalcitonin elevation was seen in 80% of the children; these were signs common in children, but not in adults with COVID-19.

“About 10% of children in the U.S. have asthma; many children live with other pulmonary, cardiac, neuromuscular, or genetic diseases that affect their ability to handle respiratory disease, and other children are immunosuppressed because of illness or its treatment,” Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Thompson wrote. “It is possible that these children will experience COVID-19 differently than counterparts of the same ages who are healthy.”

The authors reported that they had no financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rasmussen SA, Thompson LA. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Apr 3. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1224.

Influenza activity measures dropped during the week ending March 28, but the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) has risen into epidemic territory, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This influenza news, however, needs to be viewed through a COVID-19 lens.

The P&I mortality data are reported together and are always a week behind the other measures, in this case covering the week ending March 21, but they show influenza deaths dropping to 0.8% as the overall P&I rate rose from 7.4% to 8.2%, a pneumonia-fueled increase that was “likely associated with COVID-19 rather than influenza,” the CDC’s influenza division noted.

The two main activity measures, at least, are on the same page for the first time since the end of February.

The rate of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) had been dropping up to that point but then rose for an unprecedented third time this season, a change probably brought about by COVID-related health care–seeking behavior, the influenza division reported in its weekly FluView report.

This corresponding third drop in ILI activity brought the rate down to 5.4% this week from 6.2% the previous week, the CDC reported. The two previous high points occurred during the weeks ending Dec. 28 (7.0%) and Feb. 8 (6.7%)

The COVID-related changes, such as increased use of telemedicine and social distancing, “impact data from [the Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network] in ways that are difficult to differentiate from changes in illness levels and should be interpreted with caution,” the CDC investigators noted.

The other activity measure, positive tests of respiratory specimens for influenza at clinical laboratories, continued the decline that started in mid-February by falling from 7.3% to 2.1%, its lowest rate since October, CDC data show.

Overall flu-related deaths may be down, but mortality in children continued at a near-record level. Seven such deaths were reported this past week, which brings the total for the 2019-2020 season to 162. “This number is higher than recorded at the same time in every season since reporting began in 2004-05, except for the 2009 pandemic,” the CDC noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Influenza activity measures dropped during the week ending March 28, but the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) has risen into epidemic territory, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This influenza news, however, needs to be viewed through a COVID-19 lens.

The P&I mortality data are reported together and are always a week behind the other measures, in this case covering the week ending March 21, but they show influenza deaths dropping to 0.8% as the overall P&I rate rose from 7.4% to 8.2%, a pneumonia-fueled increase that was “likely associated with COVID-19 rather than influenza,” the CDC’s influenza division noted.

The two main activity measures, at least, are on the same page for the first time since the end of February.

The rate of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) had been dropping up to that point but then rose for an unprecedented third time this season, a change probably brought about by COVID-related health care–seeking behavior, the influenza division reported in its weekly FluView report.

This corresponding third drop in ILI activity brought the rate down to 5.4% this week from 6.2% the previous week, the CDC reported. The two previous high points occurred during the weeks ending Dec. 28 (7.0%) and Feb. 8 (6.7%)

The COVID-related changes, such as increased use of telemedicine and social distancing, “impact data from [the Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network] in ways that are difficult to differentiate from changes in illness levels and should be interpreted with caution,” the CDC investigators noted.

The other activity measure, positive tests of respiratory specimens for influenza at clinical laboratories, continued the decline that started in mid-February by falling from 7.3% to 2.1%, its lowest rate since October, CDC data show.

Overall flu-related deaths may be down, but mortality in children continued at a near-record level. Seven such deaths were reported this past week, which brings the total for the 2019-2020 season to 162. “This number is higher than recorded at the same time in every season since reporting began in 2004-05, except for the 2009 pandemic,” the CDC noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Influenza activity measures dropped during the week ending March 28, but the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) has risen into epidemic territory, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This influenza news, however, needs to be viewed through a COVID-19 lens.

The P&I mortality data are reported together and are always a week behind the other measures, in this case covering the week ending March 21, but they show influenza deaths dropping to 0.8% as the overall P&I rate rose from 7.4% to 8.2%, a pneumonia-fueled increase that was “likely associated with COVID-19 rather than influenza,” the CDC’s influenza division noted.

The two main activity measures, at least, are on the same page for the first time since the end of February.

The rate of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) had been dropping up to that point but then rose for an unprecedented third time this season, a change probably brought about by COVID-related health care–seeking behavior, the influenza division reported in its weekly FluView report.

This corresponding third drop in ILI activity brought the rate down to 5.4% this week from 6.2% the previous week, the CDC reported. The two previous high points occurred during the weeks ending Dec. 28 (7.0%) and Feb. 8 (6.7%)

The COVID-related changes, such as increased use of telemedicine and social distancing, “impact data from [the Outpatient Influenza-Like Illness Surveillance Network] in ways that are difficult to differentiate from changes in illness levels and should be interpreted with caution,” the CDC investigators noted.

The other activity measure, positive tests of respiratory specimens for influenza at clinical laboratories, continued the decline that started in mid-February by falling from 7.3% to 2.1%, its lowest rate since October, CDC data show.

Overall flu-related deaths may be down, but mortality in children continued at a near-record level. Seven such deaths were reported this past week, which brings the total for the 2019-2020 season to 162. “This number is higher than recorded at the same time in every season since reporting began in 2004-05, except for the 2009 pandemic,” the CDC noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Cellex an emergency use authorization to market a rapid antibody test for COVID-19, the first antibody test released amidst the pandemic.

“It is reasonable to believe that your product may be effective in diagnosing COVID-19,” and “there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative,” the agency said in a letter to Cellex.

A drop of serum, plasma, or whole blood is placed into a well on a small cartridge, and the results are read 15-20 minutes later; lines indicate the presence of IgM, IgG, or both antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Of 128 samples confirmed positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in premarket testing, 120 tested positive by IgG, IgM, or both. Of 250 confirmed negative, 239 were negative by the rapid test.

The numbers translated to a positive percent agreement with RT-PCR of 93.8% (95% CI: 88.06-97.26%) and a negative percent agreement of 96.4% (95% CI: 92.26-97.78%), according to labeling.

“Results from antibody testing should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the labeling states.

Negative results do not rule out infection; antibodies might not have had enough time to form or the virus could have had a minor amino acid mutation in the epitope recognized by the antibodies screened for in the test. False positives can occur due to cross-reactivity with antibodies from previous infections, such as from other coronaviruses.

Labeling suggests that people who test negative should be checked again in a few days, and positive results should be confirmed by other methods. Also, the intensity of the test lines do not necessarily correlate with SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers.

As part of its authorization, the FDA waived good manufacturing practice requirements, but stipulated that advertising must state that the test has not been formally approved by the agency.

Testing is limited to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified labs. Positive results are required to be reported to public health authorities. The test can be ordered through Cellex distributors or directly from the company.

IgM antibodies are generally detectable several days after the initial infection, while IgG antibodies take longer. It’s not known how long COVID-19 antibodies persist after the infection has cleared, the agency said.

aotto@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Cellex an emergency use authorization to market a rapid antibody test for COVID-19, the first antibody test released amidst the pandemic.

“It is reasonable to believe that your product may be effective in diagnosing COVID-19,” and “there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative,” the agency said in a letter to Cellex.

A drop of serum, plasma, or whole blood is placed into a well on a small cartridge, and the results are read 15-20 minutes later; lines indicate the presence of IgM, IgG, or both antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Of 128 samples confirmed positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in premarket testing, 120 tested positive by IgG, IgM, or both. Of 250 confirmed negative, 239 were negative by the rapid test.

The numbers translated to a positive percent agreement with RT-PCR of 93.8% (95% CI: 88.06-97.26%) and a negative percent agreement of 96.4% (95% CI: 92.26-97.78%), according to labeling.

“Results from antibody testing should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the labeling states.

Negative results do not rule out infection; antibodies might not have had enough time to form or the virus could have had a minor amino acid mutation in the epitope recognized by the antibodies screened for in the test. False positives can occur due to cross-reactivity with antibodies from previous infections, such as from other coronaviruses.

Labeling suggests that people who test negative should be checked again in a few days, and positive results should be confirmed by other methods. Also, the intensity of the test lines do not necessarily correlate with SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers.

As part of its authorization, the FDA waived good manufacturing practice requirements, but stipulated that advertising must state that the test has not been formally approved by the agency.

Testing is limited to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified labs. Positive results are required to be reported to public health authorities. The test can be ordered through Cellex distributors or directly from the company.

IgM antibodies are generally detectable several days after the initial infection, while IgG antibodies take longer. It’s not known how long COVID-19 antibodies persist after the infection has cleared, the agency said.

aotto@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Cellex an emergency use authorization to market a rapid antibody test for COVID-19, the first antibody test released amidst the pandemic.

“It is reasonable to believe that your product may be effective in diagnosing COVID-19,” and “there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative,” the agency said in a letter to Cellex.

A drop of serum, plasma, or whole blood is placed into a well on a small cartridge, and the results are read 15-20 minutes later; lines indicate the presence of IgM, IgG, or both antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Of 128 samples confirmed positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in premarket testing, 120 tested positive by IgG, IgM, or both. Of 250 confirmed negative, 239 were negative by the rapid test.

The numbers translated to a positive percent agreement with RT-PCR of 93.8% (95% CI: 88.06-97.26%) and a negative percent agreement of 96.4% (95% CI: 92.26-97.78%), according to labeling.

“Results from antibody testing should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the labeling states.

Negative results do not rule out infection; antibodies might not have had enough time to form or the virus could have had a minor amino acid mutation in the epitope recognized by the antibodies screened for in the test. False positives can occur due to cross-reactivity with antibodies from previous infections, such as from other coronaviruses.

Labeling suggests that people who test negative should be checked again in a few days, and positive results should be confirmed by other methods. Also, the intensity of the test lines do not necessarily correlate with SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers.

As part of its authorization, the FDA waived good manufacturing practice requirements, but stipulated that advertising must state that the test has not been formally approved by the agency.

Testing is limited to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified labs. Positive results are required to be reported to public health authorities. The test can be ordered through Cellex distributors or directly from the company.

IgM antibodies are generally detectable several days after the initial infection, while IgG antibodies take longer. It’s not known how long COVID-19 antibodies persist after the infection has cleared, the agency said.

aotto@mdedge.com

The growing threat of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), now commonly known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has forced Americans to stay home due to quarantine, especially older individuals and those who are immunocompromised or have an underlying health problem such as pulmonary or cardiac disease. The federal government’s estimated $2 trillion CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act)¹ will provide a much-needed boost to health care and the economy; prior recent legislation approved an $8.6 billion emergency relief bill,² HR 6074 (Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020), which expands Medicare coverage of telehealth to patients in their home rather than having them travel to a designated site, covers both established and new patients, allows physicians to waive or reduce co-payments and cost-sharing requirements, and reimburses the same as an in-person visit.

Federal emergency legislation temporarily relaxed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),^3,4 allowing physicians to use Facetime and Skype for Medicare patients. In addition, Medicare will reimburse telehealth services for out-of-state-providers; however, cross-state licensure is governed by the patient’s home state.⁵ As of March 25, 2020, emergency legislation to temporarily allow out-of-state physicians to provide care, whether or not it relates to COVID-19, was enacted in 13 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and North Dakota.⁶ Ongoing legislation is rapidly changing; for daily updates on licensing laws, refer to the Federation of State Medical Boards website. Check your own institutional policies and malpractice provider prior to offering telehealth, as local laws and regulations may vary. Herein, we offer suggestions for using teledermatology.

Reimbursement

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia—had true payment parity laws,⁷ which reimbursed telehealth as a regular office visit using modifier -95. Several states have enacted emergency telehealth expansion laws to discourage COVID-19 spread⁸; some states such as New Jersey now prohibit co-payments or out-of-pocket deductibles from all in-network insurance plans (commercial Medicare and Medicaid).^9,10 Updated legislation about COVID-19 and telemedicine can be found on the Center for Connected Health Policy website. An interactive map of laws and reimbursement policies also is available on the websites of the American Telehealth Association and the American Academy of Dermatology. The ability to charge a patient directly for telehealth services depends on the insurance provider agreement. If telehealth is a covered service, you cannot charge these patients out-of-pocket.

Teledermatology Options

For many conditions, the effectiveness and quality of teledermatology is comparable to a conventional face-to-face visit.¹¹ There are 3 types of telehealth visits:

• Store and forward: The clinician reviews images or videos and responds asynchronously,¹² similar to an email chain.
• Live interactive: The clinician uses 2-way video synchronously.¹² In states with parity laws, this method is reimbursed equally to an in-person visit.
• Remote patient monitoring: Health-related data are collected and transmitted to a remote clinician, similar to remote intensive care unit management.¹² Dermatologists are unlikely to utilize this modality.

The Virtual Visit

Follow these guidelines for practicing teledermatology: (1) ensure that the image or video is clear and that there is proper lighting, a monochromatic background, and a clear view of the anatomy necessary to evaluate; (2) dress in appropriate attire as if you were in clinic, such as scrubs, a white coat, or other professional attire; (3) begin the telehealth encounter by obtaining informed consent,¹³ according to state¹⁴ or Medicare guidelines; (4) document the location of the patient and provider; (5) for live virtual visits, document similarly to an in-person visit⁵; (6) for all other virtual care, document minutes spent on each task; and (7) select only 1 billing code per visit.

In some states, regulations for commercial and/or Medicaid plans require that other modifiers be added to billing codes, which vary plan-by-plan:

• Modifier GQ: For asynchronous care (store and forward).
• Modifier GT: For synchronous live telehealth visits.
• Modifier -95: In states where there are equal parity laws or if you are billing a commercial insurance payer (may vary by plan).

Medicare does not require any additional modifiers.¹⁵ If the plan reimburses telemedicine equally to a face-to-face visit, use regular office visit codes. The eTable¹⁶ lists billing codes and Medicare reimbursement rates.

Secure Software

Several electronic medical record systems already include secure patient communication. Other HIPAA-compliant communication options with a variety of features are available to clinicians:

• Klara allows for HIPAA-secure texting, group messaging, photograph uploads, and telephone calls.
• Doximity offers free calling and faxes.
• G Suite for health care offers HIPAA-compliant texting, emailing, and video calls through Google Voice and Google Hangouts Meet.
• Secure video chat is available on Zoom for Healthcare, VSee, Doxy.me, and other platforms.
• Multiservice platforms such as DermEngine include billing, payments, teledermatology, and teledermoscopy and allow for interprofessional consultation.

The Bottom Line

Telehealth readiness is playing a key role in containing the spread of COVID-19. In-person dermatology visits are now being limited to urgent conditions only, as per institutional guidelines.⁴



Acknowledgment
We thank Garfunkel Wild, P.C. (Great Neck, New York), for their expertise and assistance.

The growing threat of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), now commonly known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has forced Americans to stay home due to quarantine, especially older individuals and those who are immunocompromised or have an underlying health problem such as pulmonary or cardiac disease. The federal government’s estimated $2 trillion CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act)¹ will provide a much-needed boost to health care and the economy; prior recent legislation approved an $8.6 billion emergency relief bill,² HR 6074 (Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020), which expands Medicare coverage of telehealth to patients in their home rather than having them travel to a designated site, covers both established and new patients, allows physicians to waive or reduce co-payments and cost-sharing requirements, and reimburses the same as an in-person visit.

Federal emergency legislation temporarily relaxed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),^3,4 allowing physicians to use Facetime and Skype for Medicare patients. In addition, Medicare will reimburse telehealth services for out-of-state-providers; however, cross-state licensure is governed by the patient’s home state.⁵ As of March 25, 2020, emergency legislation to temporarily allow out-of-state physicians to provide care, whether or not it relates to COVID-19, was enacted in 13 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and North Dakota.⁶ Ongoing legislation is rapidly changing; for daily updates on licensing laws, refer to the Federation of State Medical Boards website. Check your own institutional policies and malpractice provider prior to offering telehealth, as local laws and regulations may vary. Herein, we offer suggestions for using teledermatology.

Reimbursement

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia—had true payment parity laws,⁷ which reimbursed telehealth as a regular office visit using modifier -95. Several states have enacted emergency telehealth expansion laws to discourage COVID-19 spread⁸; some states such as New Jersey now prohibit co-payments or out-of-pocket deductibles from all in-network insurance plans (commercial Medicare and Medicaid).^9,10 Updated legislation about COVID-19 and telemedicine can be found on the Center for Connected Health Policy website. An interactive map of laws and reimbursement policies also is available on the websites of the American Telehealth Association and the American Academy of Dermatology. The ability to charge a patient directly for telehealth services depends on the insurance provider agreement. If telehealth is a covered service, you cannot charge these patients out-of-pocket.

Teledermatology Options

For many conditions, the effectiveness and quality of teledermatology is comparable to a conventional face-to-face visit.¹¹ There are 3 types of telehealth visits:

• Store and forward: The clinician reviews images or videos and responds asynchronously,¹² similar to an email chain.
• Live interactive: The clinician uses 2-way video synchronously.¹² In states with parity laws, this method is reimbursed equally to an in-person visit.
• Remote patient monitoring: Health-related data are collected and transmitted to a remote clinician, similar to remote intensive care unit management.¹² Dermatologists are unlikely to utilize this modality.

The Virtual Visit

Follow these guidelines for practicing teledermatology: (1) ensure that the image or video is clear and that there is proper lighting, a monochromatic background, and a clear view of the anatomy necessary to evaluate; (2) dress in appropriate attire as if you were in clinic, such as scrubs, a white coat, or other professional attire; (3) begin the telehealth encounter by obtaining informed consent,¹³ according to state¹⁴ or Medicare guidelines; (4) document the location of the patient and provider; (5) for live virtual visits, document similarly to an in-person visit⁵; (6) for all other virtual care, document minutes spent on each task; and (7) select only 1 billing code per visit.

In some states, regulations for commercial and/or Medicaid plans require that other modifiers be added to billing codes, which vary plan-by-plan:

• Modifier GQ: For asynchronous care (store and forward).
• Modifier GT: For synchronous live telehealth visits.
• Modifier -95: In states where there are equal parity laws or if you are billing a commercial insurance payer (may vary by plan).

Medicare does not require any additional modifiers.¹⁵ If the plan reimburses telemedicine equally to a face-to-face visit, use regular office visit codes. The eTable¹⁶ lists billing codes and Medicare reimbursement rates.

Secure Software

Several electronic medical record systems already include secure patient communication. Other HIPAA-compliant communication options with a variety of features are available to clinicians:

• Klara allows for HIPAA-secure texting, group messaging, photograph uploads, and telephone calls.
• Doximity offers free calling and faxes.
• G Suite for health care offers HIPAA-compliant texting, emailing, and video calls through Google Voice and Google Hangouts Meet.
• Secure video chat is available on Zoom for Healthcare, VSee, Doxy.me, and other platforms.
• Multiservice platforms such as DermEngine include billing, payments, teledermatology, and teledermoscopy and allow for interprofessional consultation.

The Bottom Line

Telehealth readiness is playing a key role in containing the spread of COVID-19. In-person dermatology visits are now being limited to urgent conditions only, as per institutional guidelines.⁴



Acknowledgment
We thank Garfunkel Wild, P.C. (Great Neck, New York), for their expertise and assistance.

The growing threat of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), now commonly known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has forced Americans to stay home due to quarantine, especially older individuals and those who are immunocompromised or have an underlying health problem such as pulmonary or cardiac disease. The federal government’s estimated $2 trillion CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act)¹ will provide a much-needed boost to health care and the economy; prior recent legislation approved an $8.6 billion emergency relief bill,² HR 6074 (Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020), which expands Medicare coverage of telehealth to patients in their home rather than having them travel to a designated site, covers both established and new patients, allows physicians to waive or reduce co-payments and cost-sharing requirements, and reimburses the same as an in-person visit.

Federal emergency legislation temporarily relaxed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),^3,4 allowing physicians to use Facetime and Skype for Medicare patients. In addition, Medicare will reimburse telehealth services for out-of-state-providers; however, cross-state licensure is governed by the patient’s home state.⁵ As of March 25, 2020, emergency legislation to temporarily allow out-of-state physicians to provide care, whether or not it relates to COVID-19, was enacted in 13 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and North Dakota.⁶ Ongoing legislation is rapidly changing; for daily updates on licensing laws, refer to the Federation of State Medical Boards website. Check your own institutional policies and malpractice provider prior to offering telehealth, as local laws and regulations may vary. Herein, we offer suggestions for using teledermatology.

Reimbursement

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia—had true payment parity laws,⁷ which reimbursed telehealth as a regular office visit using modifier -95. Several states have enacted emergency telehealth expansion laws to discourage COVID-19 spread⁸; some states such as New Jersey now prohibit co-payments or out-of-pocket deductibles from all in-network insurance plans (commercial Medicare and Medicaid).^9,10 Updated legislation about COVID-19 and telemedicine can be found on the Center for Connected Health Policy website. An interactive map of laws and reimbursement policies also is available on the websites of the American Telehealth Association and the American Academy of Dermatology. The ability to charge a patient directly for telehealth services depends on the insurance provider agreement. If telehealth is a covered service, you cannot charge these patients out-of-pocket.

Teledermatology Options

For many conditions, the effectiveness and quality of teledermatology is comparable to a conventional face-to-face visit.¹¹ There are 3 types of telehealth visits:

• Store and forward: The clinician reviews images or videos and responds asynchronously,¹² similar to an email chain.
• Live interactive: The clinician uses 2-way video synchronously.¹² In states with parity laws, this method is reimbursed equally to an in-person visit.
• Remote patient monitoring: Health-related data are collected and transmitted to a remote clinician, similar to remote intensive care unit management.¹² Dermatologists are unlikely to utilize this modality.

The Virtual Visit

Follow these guidelines for practicing teledermatology: (1) ensure that the image or video is clear and that there is proper lighting, a monochromatic background, and a clear view of the anatomy necessary to evaluate; (2) dress in appropriate attire as if you were in clinic, such as scrubs, a white coat, or other professional attire; (3) begin the telehealth encounter by obtaining informed consent,¹³ according to state¹⁴ or Medicare guidelines; (4) document the location of the patient and provider; (5) for live virtual visits, document similarly to an in-person visit⁵; (6) for all other virtual care, document minutes spent on each task; and (7) select only 1 billing code per visit.

In some states, regulations for commercial and/or Medicaid plans require that other modifiers be added to billing codes, which vary plan-by-plan:

• Modifier GQ: For asynchronous care (store and forward).
• Modifier GT: For synchronous live telehealth visits.
• Modifier -95: In states where there are equal parity laws or if you are billing a commercial insurance payer (may vary by plan).

Medicare does not require any additional modifiers.¹⁵ If the plan reimburses telemedicine equally to a face-to-face visit, use regular office visit codes. The eTable¹⁶ lists billing codes and Medicare reimbursement rates.

Secure Software

Several electronic medical record systems already include secure patient communication. Other HIPAA-compliant communication options with a variety of features are available to clinicians:

• Klara allows for HIPAA-secure texting, group messaging, photograph uploads, and telephone calls.
• Doximity offers free calling and faxes.
• G Suite for health care offers HIPAA-compliant texting, emailing, and video calls through Google Voice and Google Hangouts Meet.
• Secure video chat is available on Zoom for Healthcare, VSee, Doxy.me, and other platforms.
• Multiservice platforms such as DermEngine include billing, payments, teledermatology, and teledermoscopy and allow for interprofessional consultation.

The Bottom Line

Telehealth readiness is playing a key role in containing the spread of COVID-19. In-person dermatology visits are now being limited to urgent conditions only, as per institutional guidelines.⁴



Acknowledgment
We thank Garfunkel Wild, P.C. (Great Neck, New York), for their expertise and assistance.

Clinicians from Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, have reported the first presumptive case of acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy associated with COVID-19.

“As the number of patients with COVID-19 increases worldwide, clinicians and radiologists should be watching for this presentation among patients presenting with COVID-19 and altered mental status,” the clinicians advise in a report published online March 31 in Radiology.

“This is significant for all providers to be aware of and looking out for in [COVID-19] patients who present with an altered level of consciousness. This complication is as devastating as severe lung disease,” Elissa Fory, MD, a neurologist with Henry Ford who was part of the team of medical experts that made the diagnosis, said in a statement.

“We need to be thinking of how we’re going to incorporate patients with severe neurological disease into our treatment paradigm,” Fory added.

Brent Griffith, MD, radiologist with Henry Ford and senior author of the case report, said the case shows “the important role that imaging can play in COVID-19 cases.”

Diagnosed via neuroimaging

The 58-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of fever, cough, and muscle aches ― symptoms consistent with COVID-19. She was transported by ambulance to the emergency department and showed signs of confusion, lethargy, and disorientation.

The woman tested negative for influenza, but a rapid COVID-19 test confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. She was later diagnosed with acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.

“The team had suspected encephalitis at the outset, but then back-to-back CT and MRI scans made the diagnosis,” Fory said in the statement.

Noncontrast head CT revealed “symmetric hypoattenuation within the bilateral medial thalami with a normal CT angiogram and CT venogram,” the team reports in their article. Brain MRI showed “hemorrhagic rim enhancing lesions within the bilateral thalami, medial temporal lobes, and subinsular regions.”

The patient was started on intravenous immunoglobulin but not high-dose steroids, because of concern for respiratory compromise. As of April 1, the patient was hospitalized in serious condition. Henry Ford Hospital has not provided an update.

Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare complication of viral infections, but until now, it has not been known to have occurred as a result of COVID-19 infection. ANE has been associated with intracranial “cytokine storms,” and a recent report in the Lancet suggested that a subgroup of patients with severe COVID-19 might develop a cytokine storm syndrome.

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “Since this is just one report of one patient, the findings are the most preliminary we can conceive, and more research is needed to determine the extent to which COVID-19 may affect the central nervous system.”

Fory, Griffith, and Raji have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.






 

Clinicians from Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, have reported the first presumptive case of acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy associated with COVID-19.

“As the number of patients with COVID-19 increases worldwide, clinicians and radiologists should be watching for this presentation among patients presenting with COVID-19 and altered mental status,” the clinicians advise in a report published online March 31 in Radiology.

“This is significant for all providers to be aware of and looking out for in [COVID-19] patients who present with an altered level of consciousness. This complication is as devastating as severe lung disease,” Elissa Fory, MD, a neurologist with Henry Ford who was part of the team of medical experts that made the diagnosis, said in a statement.

“We need to be thinking of how we’re going to incorporate patients with severe neurological disease into our treatment paradigm,” Fory added.

Brent Griffith, MD, radiologist with Henry Ford and senior author of the case report, said the case shows “the important role that imaging can play in COVID-19 cases.”

Diagnosed via neuroimaging

The 58-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of fever, cough, and muscle aches ― symptoms consistent with COVID-19. She was transported by ambulance to the emergency department and showed signs of confusion, lethargy, and disorientation.

The woman tested negative for influenza, but a rapid COVID-19 test confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. She was later diagnosed with acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.

“The team had suspected encephalitis at the outset, but then back-to-back CT and MRI scans made the diagnosis,” Fory said in the statement.

Noncontrast head CT revealed “symmetric hypoattenuation within the bilateral medial thalami with a normal CT angiogram and CT venogram,” the team reports in their article. Brain MRI showed “hemorrhagic rim enhancing lesions within the bilateral thalami, medial temporal lobes, and subinsular regions.”

The patient was started on intravenous immunoglobulin but not high-dose steroids, because of concern for respiratory compromise. As of April 1, the patient was hospitalized in serious condition. Henry Ford Hospital has not provided an update.

Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare complication of viral infections, but until now, it has not been known to have occurred as a result of COVID-19 infection. ANE has been associated with intracranial “cytokine storms,” and a recent report in the Lancet suggested that a subgroup of patients with severe COVID-19 might develop a cytokine storm syndrome.

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “Since this is just one report of one patient, the findings are the most preliminary we can conceive, and more research is needed to determine the extent to which COVID-19 may affect the central nervous system.”

Fory, Griffith, and Raji have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.






 

Clinicians from Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan, have reported the first presumptive case of acute necrotizing hemorrhagic encephalopathy associated with COVID-19.

“As the number of patients with COVID-19 increases worldwide, clinicians and radiologists should be watching for this presentation among patients presenting with COVID-19 and altered mental status,” the clinicians advise in a report published online March 31 in Radiology.

“This is significant for all providers to be aware of and looking out for in [COVID-19] patients who present with an altered level of consciousness. This complication is as devastating as severe lung disease,” Elissa Fory, MD, a neurologist with Henry Ford who was part of the team of medical experts that made the diagnosis, said in a statement.

“We need to be thinking of how we’re going to incorporate patients with severe neurological disease into our treatment paradigm,” Fory added.

Brent Griffith, MD, radiologist with Henry Ford and senior author of the case report, said the case shows “the important role that imaging can play in COVID-19 cases.”

Diagnosed via neuroimaging

The 58-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of fever, cough, and muscle aches ― symptoms consistent with COVID-19. She was transported by ambulance to the emergency department and showed signs of confusion, lethargy, and disorientation.

The woman tested negative for influenza, but a rapid COVID-19 test confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. She was later diagnosed with acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy.

“The team had suspected encephalitis at the outset, but then back-to-back CT and MRI scans made the diagnosis,” Fory said in the statement.

Noncontrast head CT revealed “symmetric hypoattenuation within the bilateral medial thalami with a normal CT angiogram and CT venogram,” the team reports in their article. Brain MRI showed “hemorrhagic rim enhancing lesions within the bilateral thalami, medial temporal lobes, and subinsular regions.”

The patient was started on intravenous immunoglobulin but not high-dose steroids, because of concern for respiratory compromise. As of April 1, the patient was hospitalized in serious condition. Henry Ford Hospital has not provided an update.

Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare complication of viral infections, but until now, it has not been known to have occurred as a result of COVID-19 infection. ANE has been associated with intracranial “cytokine storms,” and a recent report in the Lancet suggested that a subgroup of patients with severe COVID-19 might develop a cytokine storm syndrome.

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “Since this is just one report of one patient, the findings are the most preliminary we can conceive, and more research is needed to determine the extent to which COVID-19 may affect the central nervous system.”

Fory, Griffith, and Raji have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.






 

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads over the country, nearly half (48%) of US healthcare facilities — of various types and sizes — are already or almost out of respirators for treating patients, according to the results of a national online survey of infection prevention professionals.

Conducted during March 23-25 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the survey asked APIC’s 11,922 US-based infection preventionist members to rank their facilities’ supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and key items, such as hand sanitizer and cleaning products, on a 5-point scale from having “plenty” to “none.”

Overall, 1,140 (9.6%) infection preventionists responded. Almost 70% of respondents represented a healthcare system rather than a single facility, and facilities ranged from hospitals (42.7%) to ambulatory care (17.4%) and dialysis (2.7%). The centers, from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., ranged in size from those with 1 to 50 beds to those with more than 300 beds.

Of the respondents, 233 (20.4%) reported their facilities have no protective respirators and 317 (27.8%) said they were almost out of the devices, which are needed to protect healthcare workers managing patients with COVID-19 and different infectious diseases.

The survey was posted Friday on the APIC website.

Other findings from the survey include:

• Nearly half of respondents (49.2%) said their centers lack sufficient enough face shields, with 36.5% reporting being almost out and 12.6% reporting being completely out.
• Approximately one third (31.7%) of respondents reported being completely or nearly out of face masks.
• Even simple hand sanitizer is in short supply at more than 1 in 4 facilities surveyed; 25.6% of respondents said they are almost out and 2.6% are completely out.
• Nearly 30% of respondents reported accessing supplemental PPE through state or local resources, while 24.6% said they accepted private donations of supplies.
• Fewer than one-third (31.5%) said they had sufficient gowns.
• About 28% said they were almost out of protective respirators, while 20.5% said they have none.
• Only 12.3% said they have received supplies from federal resources, including the Strategic National Stockpile, which is controlled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
• 17.2% of respondents reported resorting to DIY measures such as sewing their own masks.

In terms of staffing resources, 67% of respondents said their center has only one (or fewer) full-time–equivalent infection preventionist on staff to develop protocols for managing COVID-19. That is not surprising given the general underresourcing of infection control programs, the survey compilers said.

“Hospitals and health facilities with fewer than one full-time person on staff to direct infection prevention activities may have been disadvantaged even before the COVID-19 pandemic,” said APIC president Connie Steed, MSN, RN, in a related news release.

On a more positive note, about two thirds of facilities said they have sufficient supplies of gloves (63.4%) and hand washing soap (67.1%).

“I am concerned that many facilities will not be able to protect healthcare workers and patients from not only COVID-19, but also MRSA, C diff., and other antibiotic-resistant infections,” Steed said.

At some centers, however, the situation is not so grim — yet. The large Harris Health System in Houston has enough PPE on hand to support all infection prevention protocols in place, according to Bryan McLeod, director of corporate communications. “The PPE inventory varies from a few weeks to well over a month depending on the specific item,” McLeod told Medscape Medical News. “But everything is dependent on the utilization rate, which can vary with patient volume. Our concern is long-term resupply while demand is peaking around the world, and we continue to pursue all avenues to secure resupply.”

Above all, Steed emphasizes healthcare workers’ need for clarity. “They need to know when exactly they can expect desperately needed supplies to arrive so they don’t have to turn to unproven crisis methods for PPE,” she said. “There have been grim reports from health officials about the supply shortage for weeks and we’re not getting any answers. This is unacceptable.”

APIC is urging the federal government for immediate activation of the Cold War–era Defense Production Act and any other available means to quickly manufacture vital supplies to protect healthcare workers treating the escalating numbers of COVID-19 patients.

In the meantime, frontline healthcare workers are scouring the Internet for suppliers and begging online for donations of masks.

APIC notes that the COVID-19 pandemic is compounded by this year’s particularly severe influenza season, which had already led overcrowded healthcare facilities.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads over the country, nearly half (48%) of US healthcare facilities — of various types and sizes — are already or almost out of respirators for treating patients, according to the results of a national online survey of infection prevention professionals.

Conducted during March 23-25 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the survey asked APIC’s 11,922 US-based infection preventionist members to rank their facilities’ supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and key items, such as hand sanitizer and cleaning products, on a 5-point scale from having “plenty” to “none.”

Overall, 1,140 (9.6%) infection preventionists responded. Almost 70% of respondents represented a healthcare system rather than a single facility, and facilities ranged from hospitals (42.7%) to ambulatory care (17.4%) and dialysis (2.7%). The centers, from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., ranged in size from those with 1 to 50 beds to those with more than 300 beds.

Of the respondents, 233 (20.4%) reported their facilities have no protective respirators and 317 (27.8%) said they were almost out of the devices, which are needed to protect healthcare workers managing patients with COVID-19 and different infectious diseases.

The survey was posted Friday on the APIC website.

Other findings from the survey include:

• Nearly half of respondents (49.2%) said their centers lack sufficient enough face shields, with 36.5% reporting being almost out and 12.6% reporting being completely out.
• Approximately one third (31.7%) of respondents reported being completely or nearly out of face masks.
• Even simple hand sanitizer is in short supply at more than 1 in 4 facilities surveyed; 25.6% of respondents said they are almost out and 2.6% are completely out.
• Nearly 30% of respondents reported accessing supplemental PPE through state or local resources, while 24.6% said they accepted private donations of supplies.
• Fewer than one-third (31.5%) said they had sufficient gowns.
• About 28% said they were almost out of protective respirators, while 20.5% said they have none.
• Only 12.3% said they have received supplies from federal resources, including the Strategic National Stockpile, which is controlled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
• 17.2% of respondents reported resorting to DIY measures such as sewing their own masks.

In terms of staffing resources, 67% of respondents said their center has only one (or fewer) full-time–equivalent infection preventionist on staff to develop protocols for managing COVID-19. That is not surprising given the general underresourcing of infection control programs, the survey compilers said.

“Hospitals and health facilities with fewer than one full-time person on staff to direct infection prevention activities may have been disadvantaged even before the COVID-19 pandemic,” said APIC president Connie Steed, MSN, RN, in a related news release.

On a more positive note, about two thirds of facilities said they have sufficient supplies of gloves (63.4%) and hand washing soap (67.1%).

“I am concerned that many facilities will not be able to protect healthcare workers and patients from not only COVID-19, but also MRSA, C diff., and other antibiotic-resistant infections,” Steed said.

At some centers, however, the situation is not so grim — yet. The large Harris Health System in Houston has enough PPE on hand to support all infection prevention protocols in place, according to Bryan McLeod, director of corporate communications. “The PPE inventory varies from a few weeks to well over a month depending on the specific item,” McLeod told Medscape Medical News. “But everything is dependent on the utilization rate, which can vary with patient volume. Our concern is long-term resupply while demand is peaking around the world, and we continue to pursue all avenues to secure resupply.”

Above all, Steed emphasizes healthcare workers’ need for clarity. “They need to know when exactly they can expect desperately needed supplies to arrive so they don’t have to turn to unproven crisis methods for PPE,” she said. “There have been grim reports from health officials about the supply shortage for weeks and we’re not getting any answers. This is unacceptable.”

APIC is urging the federal government for immediate activation of the Cold War–era Defense Production Act and any other available means to quickly manufacture vital supplies to protect healthcare workers treating the escalating numbers of COVID-19 patients.

In the meantime, frontline healthcare workers are scouring the Internet for suppliers and begging online for donations of masks.

APIC notes that the COVID-19 pandemic is compounded by this year’s particularly severe influenza season, which had already led overcrowded healthcare facilities.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads over the country, nearly half (48%) of US healthcare facilities — of various types and sizes — are already or almost out of respirators for treating patients, according to the results of a national online survey of infection prevention professionals.

Conducted during March 23-25 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the survey asked APIC’s 11,922 US-based infection preventionist members to rank their facilities’ supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and key items, such as hand sanitizer and cleaning products, on a 5-point scale from having “plenty” to “none.”

Overall, 1,140 (9.6%) infection preventionists responded. Almost 70% of respondents represented a healthcare system rather than a single facility, and facilities ranged from hospitals (42.7%) to ambulatory care (17.4%) and dialysis (2.7%). The centers, from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., ranged in size from those with 1 to 50 beds to those with more than 300 beds.

Of the respondents, 233 (20.4%) reported their facilities have no protective respirators and 317 (27.8%) said they were almost out of the devices, which are needed to protect healthcare workers managing patients with COVID-19 and different infectious diseases.

The survey was posted Friday on the APIC website.

Other findings from the survey include:

• Nearly half of respondents (49.2%) said their centers lack sufficient enough face shields, with 36.5% reporting being almost out and 12.6% reporting being completely out.
• Approximately one third (31.7%) of respondents reported being completely or nearly out of face masks.
• Even simple hand sanitizer is in short supply at more than 1 in 4 facilities surveyed; 25.6% of respondents said they are almost out and 2.6% are completely out.
• Nearly 30% of respondents reported accessing supplemental PPE through state or local resources, while 24.6% said they accepted private donations of supplies.
• Fewer than one-third (31.5%) said they had sufficient gowns.
• About 28% said they were almost out of protective respirators, while 20.5% said they have none.
• Only 12.3% said they have received supplies from federal resources, including the Strategic National Stockpile, which is controlled by the Department of Health and Human Services.
• 17.2% of respondents reported resorting to DIY measures such as sewing their own masks.

In terms of staffing resources, 67% of respondents said their center has only one (or fewer) full-time–equivalent infection preventionist on staff to develop protocols for managing COVID-19. That is not surprising given the general underresourcing of infection control programs, the survey compilers said.

“Hospitals and health facilities with fewer than one full-time person on staff to direct infection prevention activities may have been disadvantaged even before the COVID-19 pandemic,” said APIC president Connie Steed, MSN, RN, in a related news release.

On a more positive note, about two thirds of facilities said they have sufficient supplies of gloves (63.4%) and hand washing soap (67.1%).

“I am concerned that many facilities will not be able to protect healthcare workers and patients from not only COVID-19, but also MRSA, C diff., and other antibiotic-resistant infections,” Steed said.

At some centers, however, the situation is not so grim — yet. The large Harris Health System in Houston has enough PPE on hand to support all infection prevention protocols in place, according to Bryan McLeod, director of corporate communications. “The PPE inventory varies from a few weeks to well over a month depending on the specific item,” McLeod told Medscape Medical News. “But everything is dependent on the utilization rate, which can vary with patient volume. Our concern is long-term resupply while demand is peaking around the world, and we continue to pursue all avenues to secure resupply.”

Above all, Steed emphasizes healthcare workers’ need for clarity. “They need to know when exactly they can expect desperately needed supplies to arrive so they don’t have to turn to unproven crisis methods for PPE,” she said. “There have been grim reports from health officials about the supply shortage for weeks and we’re not getting any answers. This is unacceptable.”

APIC is urging the federal government for immediate activation of the Cold War–era Defense Production Act and any other available means to quickly manufacture vital supplies to protect healthcare workers treating the escalating numbers of COVID-19 patients.

In the meantime, frontline healthcare workers are scouring the Internet for suppliers and begging online for donations of masks.

APIC notes that the COVID-19 pandemic is compounded by this year’s particularly severe influenza season, which had already led overcrowded healthcare facilities.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Skin manifestations were observed in about one-fifth of a group of patients with COVID-19 in the Alessandro Manzoni Hospital in Lecco, in northern Italy.

Courtesy of Dr. Randy Jacobs

Dermatologists there were pulled from their usual duty to help with the pandemic and looked at what was going on with the skin in 148 COVID-19 inpatients. They excluded 60 who had started new drugs within 15 days to rule out acute drug reactions, then reported what they saw (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16387).

Of the 88 COVID-19 patients, 20.5% developed skin manifestations. Eight of the 18 (44%) had skin eruptions at symptom onset, and the rest after hospitalization. Fourteen (78%) had red rashes, three had widespread urticaria, and one had chickenpox-like vesicles. The most commonly affected area was the trunk. Itching was mild or absent, and lesions usually healed up in a few days. Most importantly, skin manifestations did not correlate with disease severity.

These skin manifestations “are similar to cutaneous involvement occurring during common viral infections,” said the author of the report, Sebastiano Recalcati, MD, a dermatologist at Alessandro Manzoni Hospital.

COVID-19 skin manifestations can cloud the diagnosis, according to the authors of another report from Thailand, where the first case of COVID-19 outside of China was reported.

They described a case of a COVID-19 infection in a Bangkok hospital that masqueraded as dengue fever. A person there presented with only a skin rash, petechiae, and a low platelet count, and was diagnosed with Dengue because that’s exactly what it looked like, the authors wrote (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Mar 22. pii: S0190-9622[20]30454-0. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.036).

The correct diagnosis, COVID-19, was made at a tertiary care center after the patient was admitted with respiratory problems.

“There is a possibility that a COVID-19 patient might initially present with a skin rash that can be misdiagnosed as another common disease. ... The practitioner should recognize the possibility that the patient might have only a skin rash” at first, said the lead author of that report, Beuy Joob, PhD, of the Sanitation1 Medical Academic Center, Bangkok, and a coauthor.

There are similar reports in the United States, too. “Many have wondered if COVID-19 presents with any particular skin changes. The answer is yes,” said Randy Jacobs, MD, an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, Riverside, who also has a private practice in southern California.

“COVID-19 can feature signs of small blood vessel occlusion. These can be petechiae or tiny bruises, and transient livedoid eruptions,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Jacobs had a 67-year-old patient who presented with a low fever, nasal congestion, postnasal drip, and a wet cough but no shortness of breath. It looked like a common cold. But a week later, the man had a nonpruritic blanching livedoid vascular eruption on his right anterior thigh, and blood in his urine, and he felt weak. The vascular eruption and bloody urine resolved in 24 hours, but the COVID-19 test came back positive and his cough became dry and hacking, and the weakness persisted. He’s in a hospital now and on oxygen, but not ventilated so far.

“Another dermatologist friend of mine also reported a similar transient COVID-19 unilateral livedoid eruption,” Dr. Jacobs said.

It suggests vaso-occlusion. Whether it’s neurogenic, microthrombotic, or immune complex mediated is unknown, but it’s “a skin finding that can help clinicians as they work up their patients with COVID-19 symptoms,” he noted.

Dr. Jacobs and the authors of the studies had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Skin manifestations were observed in about one-fifth of a group of patients with COVID-19 in the Alessandro Manzoni Hospital in Lecco, in northern Italy.

Courtesy of Dr. Randy Jacobs

Dermatologists there were pulled from their usual duty to help with the pandemic and looked at what was going on with the skin in 148 COVID-19 inpatients. They excluded 60 who had started new drugs within 15 days to rule out acute drug reactions, then reported what they saw (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16387).

Of the 88 COVID-19 patients, 20.5% developed skin manifestations. Eight of the 18 (44%) had skin eruptions at symptom onset, and the rest after hospitalization. Fourteen (78%) had red rashes, three had widespread urticaria, and one had chickenpox-like vesicles. The most commonly affected area was the trunk. Itching was mild or absent, and lesions usually healed up in a few days. Most importantly, skin manifestations did not correlate with disease severity.

These skin manifestations “are similar to cutaneous involvement occurring during common viral infections,” said the author of the report, Sebastiano Recalcati, MD, a dermatologist at Alessandro Manzoni Hospital.

COVID-19 skin manifestations can cloud the diagnosis, according to the authors of another report from Thailand, where the first case of COVID-19 outside of China was reported.

They described a case of a COVID-19 infection in a Bangkok hospital that masqueraded as dengue fever. A person there presented with only a skin rash, petechiae, and a low platelet count, and was diagnosed with Dengue because that’s exactly what it looked like, the authors wrote (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Mar 22. pii: S0190-9622[20]30454-0. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.036).

The correct diagnosis, COVID-19, was made at a tertiary care center after the patient was admitted with respiratory problems.

“There is a possibility that a COVID-19 patient might initially present with a skin rash that can be misdiagnosed as another common disease. ... The practitioner should recognize the possibility that the patient might have only a skin rash” at first, said the lead author of that report, Beuy Joob, PhD, of the Sanitation1 Medical Academic Center, Bangkok, and a coauthor.

There are similar reports in the United States, too. “Many have wondered if COVID-19 presents with any particular skin changes. The answer is yes,” said Randy Jacobs, MD, an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, Riverside, who also has a private practice in southern California.

“COVID-19 can feature signs of small blood vessel occlusion. These can be petechiae or tiny bruises, and transient livedoid eruptions,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Jacobs had a 67-year-old patient who presented with a low fever, nasal congestion, postnasal drip, and a wet cough but no shortness of breath. It looked like a common cold. But a week later, the man had a nonpruritic blanching livedoid vascular eruption on his right anterior thigh, and blood in his urine, and he felt weak. The vascular eruption and bloody urine resolved in 24 hours, but the COVID-19 test came back positive and his cough became dry and hacking, and the weakness persisted. He’s in a hospital now and on oxygen, but not ventilated so far.

“Another dermatologist friend of mine also reported a similar transient COVID-19 unilateral livedoid eruption,” Dr. Jacobs said.

It suggests vaso-occlusion. Whether it’s neurogenic, microthrombotic, or immune complex mediated is unknown, but it’s “a skin finding that can help clinicians as they work up their patients with COVID-19 symptoms,” he noted.

Dr. Jacobs and the authors of the studies had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Skin manifestations were observed in about one-fifth of a group of patients with COVID-19 in the Alessandro Manzoni Hospital in Lecco, in northern Italy.

Courtesy of Dr. Randy Jacobs

Dermatologists there were pulled from their usual duty to help with the pandemic and looked at what was going on with the skin in 148 COVID-19 inpatients. They excluded 60 who had started new drugs within 15 days to rule out acute drug reactions, then reported what they saw (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16387).

Of the 88 COVID-19 patients, 20.5% developed skin manifestations. Eight of the 18 (44%) had skin eruptions at symptom onset, and the rest after hospitalization. Fourteen (78%) had red rashes, three had widespread urticaria, and one had chickenpox-like vesicles. The most commonly affected area was the trunk. Itching was mild or absent, and lesions usually healed up in a few days. Most importantly, skin manifestations did not correlate with disease severity.

These skin manifestations “are similar to cutaneous involvement occurring during common viral infections,” said the author of the report, Sebastiano Recalcati, MD, a dermatologist at Alessandro Manzoni Hospital.

COVID-19 skin manifestations can cloud the diagnosis, according to the authors of another report from Thailand, where the first case of COVID-19 outside of China was reported.

They described a case of a COVID-19 infection in a Bangkok hospital that masqueraded as dengue fever. A person there presented with only a skin rash, petechiae, and a low platelet count, and was diagnosed with Dengue because that’s exactly what it looked like, the authors wrote (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Mar 22. pii: S0190-9622[20]30454-0. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.036).

The correct diagnosis, COVID-19, was made at a tertiary care center after the patient was admitted with respiratory problems.

“There is a possibility that a COVID-19 patient might initially present with a skin rash that can be misdiagnosed as another common disease. ... The practitioner should recognize the possibility that the patient might have only a skin rash” at first, said the lead author of that report, Beuy Joob, PhD, of the Sanitation1 Medical Academic Center, Bangkok, and a coauthor.

There are similar reports in the United States, too. “Many have wondered if COVID-19 presents with any particular skin changes. The answer is yes,” said Randy Jacobs, MD, an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, Riverside, who also has a private practice in southern California.

“COVID-19 can feature signs of small blood vessel occlusion. These can be petechiae or tiny bruises, and transient livedoid eruptions,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Jacobs had a 67-year-old patient who presented with a low fever, nasal congestion, postnasal drip, and a wet cough but no shortness of breath. It looked like a common cold. But a week later, the man had a nonpruritic blanching livedoid vascular eruption on his right anterior thigh, and blood in his urine, and he felt weak. The vascular eruption and bloody urine resolved in 24 hours, but the COVID-19 test came back positive and his cough became dry and hacking, and the weakness persisted. He’s in a hospital now and on oxygen, but not ventilated so far.

“Another dermatologist friend of mine also reported a similar transient COVID-19 unilateral livedoid eruption,” Dr. Jacobs said.

It suggests vaso-occlusion. Whether it’s neurogenic, microthrombotic, or immune complex mediated is unknown, but it’s “a skin finding that can help clinicians as they work up their patients with COVID-19 symptoms,” he noted.

Dr. Jacobs and the authors of the studies had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

Asymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for 6.4% of the locally acquired COVID-19 infections in Singapore, based on clinical and epidemiologic data for all cases reported in the country by March 16.

As of that date, there had been 243 cases of COVID-19, of which 157 were locally acquired. Among those 157 were 10 cases (6.4%) that involved probable presymptomatic transmission, Wycliffe E. Wei, MPH, and associates said April 1 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

They defined presymptomatic transmission “as the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from an infected person (source patient) to a secondary patient before the source patient developed symptoms, as ascertained by exposure and symptom onset dates, with no evidence that the secondary patient had been exposed to anyone else with COVID-19.”

Investigation of all 243 cases in Singapore identified seven clusters, each involving two to five patients, as sources of presymptomatic transmission. In four of the clusters, the “exposure occurred 1-3 days before the source patient developed symptoms,” said Mr. Wei of the Singapore Ministry of Health and associates.

These findings, along with evidence from Chinese studies – one of which reported presymptomatic transmission in 12.6% of cases – support “the likelihood that viral shedding can occur in the absence of symptoms and before symptom onset,” they said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei WE et al. MMWR. 2020 Apr 1;69(ePub):1-5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6914e1.

Asymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for 6.4% of the locally acquired COVID-19 infections in Singapore, based on clinical and epidemiologic data for all cases reported in the country by March 16.

As of that date, there had been 243 cases of COVID-19, of which 157 were locally acquired. Among those 157 were 10 cases (6.4%) that involved probable presymptomatic transmission, Wycliffe E. Wei, MPH, and associates said April 1 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

They defined presymptomatic transmission “as the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from an infected person (source patient) to a secondary patient before the source patient developed symptoms, as ascertained by exposure and symptom onset dates, with no evidence that the secondary patient had been exposed to anyone else with COVID-19.”

Investigation of all 243 cases in Singapore identified seven clusters, each involving two to five patients, as sources of presymptomatic transmission. In four of the clusters, the “exposure occurred 1-3 days before the source patient developed symptoms,” said Mr. Wei of the Singapore Ministry of Health and associates.

These findings, along with evidence from Chinese studies – one of which reported presymptomatic transmission in 12.6% of cases – support “the likelihood that viral shedding can occur in the absence of symptoms and before symptom onset,” they said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei WE et al. MMWR. 2020 Apr 1;69(ePub):1-5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6914e1.

Asymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for 6.4% of the locally acquired COVID-19 infections in Singapore, based on clinical and epidemiologic data for all cases reported in the country by March 16.

As of that date, there had been 243 cases of COVID-19, of which 157 were locally acquired. Among those 157 were 10 cases (6.4%) that involved probable presymptomatic transmission, Wycliffe E. Wei, MPH, and associates said April 1 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

They defined presymptomatic transmission “as the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from an infected person (source patient) to a secondary patient before the source patient developed symptoms, as ascertained by exposure and symptom onset dates, with no evidence that the secondary patient had been exposed to anyone else with COVID-19.”

Investigation of all 243 cases in Singapore identified seven clusters, each involving two to five patients, as sources of presymptomatic transmission. In four of the clusters, the “exposure occurred 1-3 days before the source patient developed symptoms,” said Mr. Wei of the Singapore Ministry of Health and associates.

These findings, along with evidence from Chinese studies – one of which reported presymptomatic transmission in 12.6% of cases – support “the likelihood that viral shedding can occur in the absence of symptoms and before symptom onset,” they said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei WE et al. MMWR. 2020 Apr 1;69(ePub):1-5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6914e1.

In the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, in Newtown, Conn., after 20 children and seven adults were murdered, American gun sales surged on fears of new restrictions.

Bytmonas/ThinkStock

In the ensuing months, 20 more children and 40 more adults died from unintentional shootings believed to be tied to that surge in gun purchases.¹ More recently, American gun sales surged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with heated legal battles brewing over whether gun sales are essential.^2,3 The results of this surge in sales are yet to fully manifest, but I would like to discuss several risks.

The public health risks of firearm access are well established: Nearly every measure of harm, from suicide to negligent injury and death to homicide to shootings of police, increase along with access to firearms.⁴ That firearms in the home are associated with greater likelihoods of suicide, negligent injury and death, and intrafamilial homicide has been recognized for decades as has the substantially heightened risk in the immediate period after a firearm is brought into the home.^5,6 Defensive gun use is rare despite this being the nominal reason for firearm ownership among many.⁷ Even prior to recent events, there had been concerns of increased unsafe carrying and handling of firearms.⁸ It seems reasonable to expect such trends not to be diminished by recent events.

Added to this are several stressors, which one can reasonably expect to be associated with increased risks for unsafe use. There are new, broad social stressors from fear and uncertainty about COVID-19. Unemployment rates have skyrocketed, clinical care has been disrupted, and basic necessities have become scant. Children are home from school, unable to play with friends and unable to access mental health services as easily as before; risks of negligent and suicidal injuries and death may ensue. Couples and families are isolated in homes together for longer periods and with fewer avenues for relief; previously peaceful homes may see conflicts increase and homes with abuse have now trapped victims with their assailants. Social isolation is difficult for any person and may be even more traumatic for people with underlying vulnerabilities, including mental illness. The risks of being isolated in a home – struggling with worsening symptoms – with ready access to a firearm are self-evident.

For mental health professionals in our current situation, I would like to offer several practical ways we can intervene with patients and clients who might own firearms.

• Consider reassessing for firearm access. Patients may be in new homes, or there may be new firearms in their homes. Use gentle assumptions and focus on home access over personal access to elicit the most true, positive answers, for example: “I understand there have been a lot of changes recently; how many guns are in the home now?”
• Reinforce safer storage practices. Simple measures, such as storing ammunition separately and using trigger locks or safes, can make a substantial difference in injury risks.
• Do not forget aging clients; suicide risk increases with age, and there may be substantial risks among the geriatric population for suicide and murder-suicide. If using telepsychiatry, realize that the abuser might be in the home or within earshot of any clinical encounter, and this might put the client at heightened risk, during and after telesessions.
• Highlight access to local and national resources, including the Disaster Distress Hotline (800-985-5990) and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (800-273-TALK). Promote both numbers, and note that some people may be more comfortable reaching out for help for “distress” than for “suicide.”

References

1. Levine PB and McKnight R. Science. 2017 Dec 8;358(6368):1324-8.

2. Levin D. “Coronavirus and firearms: Are gun shops essential businesses?” The New York Times. 2020 Mar 25.

3. Robertson L. “Neither hurricanes nor 9/11 caused as big a surge in gun sales as coronavirus.” Miami Herald. 2020 Mar 25.

4. Moyer MW. Scientific American. 2017 Oct;317(4):54-63.

5. Kellermann AL et al. J Trauma. 1998 Aug;45(2):263-7.

6. Wintemute GJ et al. New Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 18;341(21):1583-9.

7. Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use: An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data. Washington: Violence Policy Center; 2019 Jul.

8. Towers S et al. bioRxiv. 2019 Apr 18;613687.
 

Dr. Rozel is the medical director of resolve Crisis Services at UPMC Western Psychiatric Hospital and president of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry. He also is associate professor of psychiatry and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. He has no conflicts of interest but has worked for a gun dealer to teach sales staff how to recognize people in crisis (rather than sell a gun).

In the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, in Newtown, Conn., after 20 children and seven adults were murdered, American gun sales surged on fears of new restrictions.

Bytmonas/ThinkStock

In the ensuing months, 20 more children and 40 more adults died from unintentional shootings believed to be tied to that surge in gun purchases.¹ More recently, American gun sales surged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with heated legal battles brewing over whether gun sales are essential.^2,3 The results of this surge in sales are yet to fully manifest, but I would like to discuss several risks.

The public health risks of firearm access are well established: Nearly every measure of harm, from suicide to negligent injury and death to homicide to shootings of police, increase along with access to firearms.⁴ That firearms in the home are associated with greater likelihoods of suicide, negligent injury and death, and intrafamilial homicide has been recognized for decades as has the substantially heightened risk in the immediate period after a firearm is brought into the home.^5,6 Defensive gun use is rare despite this being the nominal reason for firearm ownership among many.⁷ Even prior to recent events, there had been concerns of increased unsafe carrying and handling of firearms.⁸ It seems reasonable to expect such trends not to be diminished by recent events.

Added to this are several stressors, which one can reasonably expect to be associated with increased risks for unsafe use. There are new, broad social stressors from fear and uncertainty about COVID-19. Unemployment rates have skyrocketed, clinical care has been disrupted, and basic necessities have become scant. Children are home from school, unable to play with friends and unable to access mental health services as easily as before; risks of negligent and suicidal injuries and death may ensue. Couples and families are isolated in homes together for longer periods and with fewer avenues for relief; previously peaceful homes may see conflicts increase and homes with abuse have now trapped victims with their assailants. Social isolation is difficult for any person and may be even more traumatic for people with underlying vulnerabilities, including mental illness. The risks of being isolated in a home – struggling with worsening symptoms – with ready access to a firearm are self-evident.

For mental health professionals in our current situation, I would like to offer several practical ways we can intervene with patients and clients who might own firearms.

• Consider reassessing for firearm access. Patients may be in new homes, or there may be new firearms in their homes. Use gentle assumptions and focus on home access over personal access to elicit the most true, positive answers, for example: “I understand there have been a lot of changes recently; how many guns are in the home now?”
• Reinforce safer storage practices. Simple measures, such as storing ammunition separately and using trigger locks or safes, can make a substantial difference in injury risks.
• Do not forget aging clients; suicide risk increases with age, and there may be substantial risks among the geriatric population for suicide and murder-suicide. If using telepsychiatry, realize that the abuser might be in the home or within earshot of any clinical encounter, and this might put the client at heightened risk, during and after telesessions.
• Highlight access to local and national resources, including the Disaster Distress Hotline (800-985-5990) and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (800-273-TALK). Promote both numbers, and note that some people may be more comfortable reaching out for help for “distress” than for “suicide.”

References

1. Levine PB and McKnight R. Science. 2017 Dec 8;358(6368):1324-8.

2. Levin D. “Coronavirus and firearms: Are gun shops essential businesses?” The New York Times. 2020 Mar 25.

3. Robertson L. “Neither hurricanes nor 9/11 caused as big a surge in gun sales as coronavirus.” Miami Herald. 2020 Mar 25.

4. Moyer MW. Scientific American. 2017 Oct;317(4):54-63.

5. Kellermann AL et al. J Trauma. 1998 Aug;45(2):263-7.

6. Wintemute GJ et al. New Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 18;341(21):1583-9.

7. Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use: An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data. Washington: Violence Policy Center; 2019 Jul.

8. Towers S et al. bioRxiv. 2019 Apr 18;613687.
 

Dr. Rozel is the medical director of resolve Crisis Services at UPMC Western Psychiatric Hospital and president of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry. He also is associate professor of psychiatry and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. He has no conflicts of interest but has worked for a gun dealer to teach sales staff how to recognize people in crisis (rather than sell a gun).

In the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, in Newtown, Conn., after 20 children and seven adults were murdered, American gun sales surged on fears of new restrictions.

Bytmonas/ThinkStock

In the ensuing months, 20 more children and 40 more adults died from unintentional shootings believed to be tied to that surge in gun purchases.¹ More recently, American gun sales surged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with heated legal battles brewing over whether gun sales are essential.^2,3 The results of this surge in sales are yet to fully manifest, but I would like to discuss several risks.

The public health risks of firearm access are well established: Nearly every measure of harm, from suicide to negligent injury and death to homicide to shootings of police, increase along with access to firearms.⁴ That firearms in the home are associated with greater likelihoods of suicide, negligent injury and death, and intrafamilial homicide has been recognized for decades as has the substantially heightened risk in the immediate period after a firearm is brought into the home.^5,6 Defensive gun use is rare despite this being the nominal reason for firearm ownership among many.⁷ Even prior to recent events, there had been concerns of increased unsafe carrying and handling of firearms.⁸ It seems reasonable to expect such trends not to be diminished by recent events.

Added to this are several stressors, which one can reasonably expect to be associated with increased risks for unsafe use. There are new, broad social stressors from fear and uncertainty about COVID-19. Unemployment rates have skyrocketed, clinical care has been disrupted, and basic necessities have become scant. Children are home from school, unable to play with friends and unable to access mental health services as easily as before; risks of negligent and suicidal injuries and death may ensue. Couples and families are isolated in homes together for longer periods and with fewer avenues for relief; previously peaceful homes may see conflicts increase and homes with abuse have now trapped victims with their assailants. Social isolation is difficult for any person and may be even more traumatic for people with underlying vulnerabilities, including mental illness. The risks of being isolated in a home – struggling with worsening symptoms – with ready access to a firearm are self-evident.

For mental health professionals in our current situation, I would like to offer several practical ways we can intervene with patients and clients who might own firearms.

• Consider reassessing for firearm access. Patients may be in new homes, or there may be new firearms in their homes. Use gentle assumptions and focus on home access over personal access to elicit the most true, positive answers, for example: “I understand there have been a lot of changes recently; how many guns are in the home now?”
• Reinforce safer storage practices. Simple measures, such as storing ammunition separately and using trigger locks or safes, can make a substantial difference in injury risks.
• Do not forget aging clients; suicide risk increases with age, and there may be substantial risks among the geriatric population for suicide and murder-suicide. If using telepsychiatry, realize that the abuser might be in the home or within earshot of any clinical encounter, and this might put the client at heightened risk, during and after telesessions.
• Highlight access to local and national resources, including the Disaster Distress Hotline (800-985-5990) and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (800-273-TALK). Promote both numbers, and note that some people may be more comfortable reaching out for help for “distress” than for “suicide.”

References

1. Levine PB and McKnight R. Science. 2017 Dec 8;358(6368):1324-8.

2. Levin D. “Coronavirus and firearms: Are gun shops essential businesses?” The New York Times. 2020 Mar 25.

3. Robertson L. “Neither hurricanes nor 9/11 caused as big a surge in gun sales as coronavirus.” Miami Herald. 2020 Mar 25.

4. Moyer MW. Scientific American. 2017 Oct;317(4):54-63.

5. Kellermann AL et al. J Trauma. 1998 Aug;45(2):263-7.

6. Wintemute GJ et al. New Engl J Med. 1999 Nov 18;341(21):1583-9.

7. Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use: An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data. Washington: Violence Policy Center; 2019 Jul.

8. Towers S et al. bioRxiv. 2019 Apr 18;613687.
 

Dr. Rozel is the medical director of resolve Crisis Services at UPMC Western Psychiatric Hospital and president of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry. He also is associate professor of psychiatry and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh. He has no conflicts of interest but has worked for a gun dealer to teach sales staff how to recognize people in crisis (rather than sell a gun).

Updated April 2, 2020.

The commander of a US Navy aircraft carrier in the midst of a COVID-19 outbreak was swiftly fired by Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly following media coverage of the plight of more than 200 COVID-19 positive sailors on the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

In a statement released April 2, Modly announced the removal of Capt. Brett Crozier for writing a memo that was later leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. According to Acting Secretary Modly, the memo was sent “outside the chain of command” and his action “made his Sailors, their families, and many in the public believe that his letter was the only reason help from our larger Navy family was forthcoming, which was hardly the case.”

On Monday, March 30, Capt. Crozier, commanding officer of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, sent an urgent request for assistance to senior Navy officials: “[I]n combat we are willing to take certain risks that are not acceptable in peacetime. However, we are not at war, and therefore cannot allow a single Sailor to perish as a result of this pandemic unnecessarily. Decisive action is required now in order to comply with CDC and NAVADMIN 083/20 guidance and prevent tragic outcomes.”

Even as a number of cruise ships with ill and dying passengers were—are—waiting to be allowed to dock in Florida and elsewhere, the USS Theodore Roosevelt was also dealing with a COVID-19 outbreak onboard—and awaiting permission to let the crew of more than 4,000 on shore so they could quarantine safely.

Crozier pointed to “lessons learned” from the Diamond Princess—the only comparable situation at the time. He quoted from the abstract to an epidemiological research study: An index case on board the cruise ship was reported in late January; a month later, 619 of 3,700 passengers and crew had tested positive. Without any interventions, the abstract noted, between January 21st and February 19th an estimated 2,920 of the passengers would have been infected. Isolation and quarantine, it concluded, prevented 2,307 cases. Further, an early evacuation would have been associated with 76 infected persons.

The Diamond Princess, Crozier wrote, was able to more effectively isolate people due to a higher percentage of individual and compartmentalized accommodations. However, due to a warship’s “inherent limitations of space,” his crew could not comply with orders to practice social distancing. “With the exceptions of a handful of senior officer staterooms,” he wrote, “none of the berthing onboard a warship is appropriate for quarantine or isolation.” He also pointed to other obstacles: shared bathrooms, shared sleeping quarters, group mealtimes, and ladders and other surfaces touched and possibly contaminated as crew move around the ship.

Moreover, Crozier wrote, “The spread of the disease is ongoing and accelerating.” By Tuesday March 31st, nearly 1,300 sailors had been tested, and hundreds were testing negative, but 243 sailors had tested positive and 87 more were showing symptoms, according to the latest reports. So far, none are showing serious symptoms.

“If we do not act now, we are failing to take care of our most trusted asset—our sailors,” Capt Crozier wrote. At first, no one seemed to be listening, but after the Chronicle broke the story and it began circulating in the media—things changed. “I heard about the letter from Capt. Crozier [Tuesday] morning,” said Acting Secretary Modly in an interview with the Chronicle. “I know that our command organization has been aware of this for about 24 hours and we have been working actually the last 7 days to move those sailors off the ship and get them into accommodations in Guam. The problem is that Guam doesn’t have enough beds right now and we’re having to talk to the government there to see if we can get some hotel space, create tent-type facilities.”

He noted that the situation for the USS Theodore Roosevelt is “a little bit different and unique” in that it has aircraft and armaments on it, fire hazards, and “we have to run a nuclear power plant.” Crozier had proposed that approximately 10% of the crew remain on board to take care of the duties such as tending to the nuclear reactor.

As of April 1, the Navy plans to remove some 2,700 sailors to the hotel rooms government officials on Guam have secured for them. Secretary Modly made no mention of the care or treatment of infected sailors in his April 2nd statement, but offered this reassurance: "You can offer comfort to your fellow citizens who are struggling and fearful here at home by standing the watch, and working your way through this pandemic with courage and optimism and set the example for the nation. We have an obligation to ensure you have everything you need as fast as we can get it there, and you have my commitment that we will not let you down."

Updated April 2, 2020.

The commander of a US Navy aircraft carrier in the midst of a COVID-19 outbreak was swiftly fired by Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly following media coverage of the plight of more than 200 COVID-19 positive sailors on the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

In a statement released April 2, Modly announced the removal of Capt. Brett Crozier for writing a memo that was later leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. According to Acting Secretary Modly, the memo was sent “outside the chain of command” and his action “made his Sailors, their families, and many in the public believe that his letter was the only reason help from our larger Navy family was forthcoming, which was hardly the case.”

On Monday, March 30, Capt. Crozier, commanding officer of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, sent an urgent request for assistance to senior Navy officials: “[I]n combat we are willing to take certain risks that are not acceptable in peacetime. However, we are not at war, and therefore cannot allow a single Sailor to perish as a result of this pandemic unnecessarily. Decisive action is required now in order to comply with CDC and NAVADMIN 083/20 guidance and prevent tragic outcomes.”

Even as a number of cruise ships with ill and dying passengers were—are—waiting to be allowed to dock in Florida and elsewhere, the USS Theodore Roosevelt was also dealing with a COVID-19 outbreak onboard—and awaiting permission to let the crew of more than 4,000 on shore so they could quarantine safely.

Crozier pointed to “lessons learned” from the Diamond Princess—the only comparable situation at the time. He quoted from the abstract to an epidemiological research study: An index case on board the cruise ship was reported in late January; a month later, 619 of 3,700 passengers and crew had tested positive. Without any interventions, the abstract noted, between January 21st and February 19th an estimated 2,920 of the passengers would have been infected. Isolation and quarantine, it concluded, prevented 2,307 cases. Further, an early evacuation would have been associated with 76 infected persons.

The Diamond Princess, Crozier wrote, was able to more effectively isolate people due to a higher percentage of individual and compartmentalized accommodations. However, due to a warship’s “inherent limitations of space,” his crew could not comply with orders to practice social distancing. “With the exceptions of a handful of senior officer staterooms,” he wrote, “none of the berthing onboard a warship is appropriate for quarantine or isolation.” He also pointed to other obstacles: shared bathrooms, shared sleeping quarters, group mealtimes, and ladders and other surfaces touched and possibly contaminated as crew move around the ship.

Moreover, Crozier wrote, “The spread of the disease is ongoing and accelerating.” By Tuesday March 31st, nearly 1,300 sailors had been tested, and hundreds were testing negative, but 243 sailors had tested positive and 87 more were showing symptoms, according to the latest reports. So far, none are showing serious symptoms.

“If we do not act now, we are failing to take care of our most trusted asset—our sailors,” Capt Crozier wrote. At first, no one seemed to be listening, but after the Chronicle broke the story and it began circulating in the media—things changed. “I heard about the letter from Capt. Crozier [Tuesday] morning,” said Acting Secretary Modly in an interview with the Chronicle. “I know that our command organization has been aware of this for about 24 hours and we have been working actually the last 7 days to move those sailors off the ship and get them into accommodations in Guam. The problem is that Guam doesn’t have enough beds right now and we’re having to talk to the government there to see if we can get some hotel space, create tent-type facilities.”

He noted that the situation for the USS Theodore Roosevelt is “a little bit different and unique” in that it has aircraft and armaments on it, fire hazards, and “we have to run a nuclear power plant.” Crozier had proposed that approximately 10% of the crew remain on board to take care of the duties such as tending to the nuclear reactor.

As of April 1, the Navy plans to remove some 2,700 sailors to the hotel rooms government officials on Guam have secured for them. Secretary Modly made no mention of the care or treatment of infected sailors in his April 2nd statement, but offered this reassurance: "You can offer comfort to your fellow citizens who are struggling and fearful here at home by standing the watch, and working your way through this pandemic with courage and optimism and set the example for the nation. We have an obligation to ensure you have everything you need as fast as we can get it there, and you have my commitment that we will not let you down."

Updated April 2, 2020.

The commander of a US Navy aircraft carrier in the midst of a COVID-19 outbreak was swiftly fired by Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly following media coverage of the plight of more than 200 COVID-19 positive sailors on the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

In a statement released April 2, Modly announced the removal of Capt. Brett Crozier for writing a memo that was later leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. According to Acting Secretary Modly, the memo was sent “outside the chain of command” and his action “made his Sailors, their families, and many in the public believe that his letter was the only reason help from our larger Navy family was forthcoming, which was hardly the case.”

On Monday, March 30, Capt. Crozier, commanding officer of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, sent an urgent request for assistance to senior Navy officials: “[I]n combat we are willing to take certain risks that are not acceptable in peacetime. However, we are not at war, and therefore cannot allow a single Sailor to perish as a result of this pandemic unnecessarily. Decisive action is required now in order to comply with CDC and NAVADMIN 083/20 guidance and prevent tragic outcomes.”

Even as a number of cruise ships with ill and dying passengers were—are—waiting to be allowed to dock in Florida and elsewhere, the USS Theodore Roosevelt was also dealing with a COVID-19 outbreak onboard—and awaiting permission to let the crew of more than 4,000 on shore so they could quarantine safely.

Crozier pointed to “lessons learned” from the Diamond Princess—the only comparable situation at the time. He quoted from the abstract to an epidemiological research study: An index case on board the cruise ship was reported in late January; a month later, 619 of 3,700 passengers and crew had tested positive. Without any interventions, the abstract noted, between January 21st and February 19th an estimated 2,920 of the passengers would have been infected. Isolation and quarantine, it concluded, prevented 2,307 cases. Further, an early evacuation would have been associated with 76 infected persons.

The Diamond Princess, Crozier wrote, was able to more effectively isolate people due to a higher percentage of individual and compartmentalized accommodations. However, due to a warship’s “inherent limitations of space,” his crew could not comply with orders to practice social distancing. “With the exceptions of a handful of senior officer staterooms,” he wrote, “none of the berthing onboard a warship is appropriate for quarantine or isolation.” He also pointed to other obstacles: shared bathrooms, shared sleeping quarters, group mealtimes, and ladders and other surfaces touched and possibly contaminated as crew move around the ship.

Moreover, Crozier wrote, “The spread of the disease is ongoing and accelerating.” By Tuesday March 31st, nearly 1,300 sailors had been tested, and hundreds were testing negative, but 243 sailors had tested positive and 87 more were showing symptoms, according to the latest reports. So far, none are showing serious symptoms.

“If we do not act now, we are failing to take care of our most trusted asset—our sailors,” Capt Crozier wrote. At first, no one seemed to be listening, but after the Chronicle broke the story and it began circulating in the media—things changed. “I heard about the letter from Capt. Crozier [Tuesday] morning,” said Acting Secretary Modly in an interview with the Chronicle. “I know that our command organization has been aware of this for about 24 hours and we have been working actually the last 7 days to move those sailors off the ship and get them into accommodations in Guam. The problem is that Guam doesn’t have enough beds right now and we’re having to talk to the government there to see if we can get some hotel space, create tent-type facilities.”

He noted that the situation for the USS Theodore Roosevelt is “a little bit different and unique” in that it has aircraft and armaments on it, fire hazards, and “we have to run a nuclear power plant.” Crozier had proposed that approximately 10% of the crew remain on board to take care of the duties such as tending to the nuclear reactor.

As of April 1, the Navy plans to remove some 2,700 sailors to the hotel rooms government officials on Guam have secured for them. Secretary Modly made no mention of the care or treatment of infected sailors in his April 2nd statement, but offered this reassurance: "You can offer comfort to your fellow citizens who are struggling and fearful here at home by standing the watch, and working your way through this pandemic with courage and optimism and set the example for the nation. We have an obligation to ensure you have everything you need as fast as we can get it there, and you have my commitment that we will not let you down."