As hospitalists and other physicians at the University of Texas at Austin considered how to treat COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic, one question they had to consider was: What about convalescent plasma?
All they had to go on were small case series in Ebola, SARS, and MERS and a few small, nonrandomized COVID-19 studies showing a possible benefit and minimal risk, but the evidence was only “toward the middle or bottom” of the evidence pyramid, said, of the department of internal medicine at Dell Medical Center at the university.
The center’s COVID-19 committee asked a few of its members – infectious disease and internal medicine physicians – to analyze the literature and other factors. In the end, the committee – which meets regularly and also includes pulmonology–critical care experts, nursing experts, and others – recommended using convalescent plasma because of the evidence and the available supply. But in subsequent meetings, as the pandemic surged in the South and the supply dwindled, the committee changed its recommendation for convalescent plasma to more limited use, she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
“It’s all about teamwork,” said, of the department of internal medicine at Dell. “The interprofessional team members know their roles and have shared expectations because they have a common understanding of the protocol.” It’s okay to deviate from the protocol, he said, as long as the language exists to communicate these deviations.
“Maybe the approach is more important than the actual content,” he said.
What Dr. Brode and Dr. Busch described was in large part a fine-tuning of communication – being available to communicate in real time and being aware of when certain specialists should be contacted – for instance, to determine at what oxygenation level internal medicine staff should get in touch with the pulmonary–critical care team.
Dr. Brode said that the groundwork is laid for productive meetings, with agendas announced ahead of time and readings assigned and presenters ready with near-finished products at meeting time, “with a clear path for operationalizing it.”
“We don’t want people kind of riffing off the top of their heads,” he said.
Committee members are encouraged to be as specific as possible when giving input into COVID-19 care decisions, he said.
“We’re so used to dealing with uncertainty, but that doesn’t really help when we’re trying to make tough decisions,” Dr. Brode said. They might be asked, “What are you going to write in your consult note template?” or “It’s 1:00 a.m. and your intern’s panicked and calling you – what are you going to tell them to do over the phone?”
The recommendations have to go into writing and are incorporated into the electronic medical record, a process that required some workarounds, he said. He also noted that the committee learned early on that they should assume that no one reads the e-mails – especially after being off for a period of time – so they likely won’t digest updates on an email-by-email basis.
“We quickly learned,” Dr. Brode said, “that this information needs to live on a Web site or [be] linked to the most up-to-date version in a cloud-sharing platform.”
In a question-and-answer discussion, session viewers expressed enthusiasm for the presenters’ one-page summary of protocols – much more, they said, and it could feel overwhelming.
Dr. Busch and Dr. Brode were asked how standardized order sets for COVID patients could be justified without comparison to a control group that didn’t use the standard order set.
Dr. Busch responded that, while there was no controlled trial, the order sets they use have evolved based on experience.
“At the beginning, we were following every inflammatory marker known to mankind, and then we realized as we gained more experience with COVID and COVID patients that some of those markers were not really informing any of our clinical decisions,” she said. “Obviously, as literature comes out we may reevaluate what goes into that standard order set and how frequently we follow labs.”
Dr. Brode said the context – a pandemic – has to be considered.
“In an ideal world, we could show that the intervention is superior through a randomized fashion with a control group, but really our thought process behind it is just, what is the default?” he said. “I looked at the order sets [as] not that they’re going to be dictating care, but it’s really like the guardrails of what’s reasonable. And when you’re in the middle of a surge, what is usually reasonable and easiest is what is going to be done.”
Dr. Busch and Dr. Brode reported no relevant financial relationships.