The Impact Grit and Achievement Goal Orientation have on Athletic Training Students\u27 Persistence

Purpose: Athletic training education continues to evolve thereby increasing the importance of student retention. Understanding student motivation through achievement goal orientation and grit scores may help support student’s persistence in an athletic training program. The purpose was to determine if a relationship exists between achievement goal orientation and grit to help provide educators a better understanding of their students’ reasons for persisting to help improve retention. Methods: An achievement goal orientation survey and grit scale were administered, and quantitative data was analyzed statistically from Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education- accredited programs in good standing for the 2018-2019 academic year. Results: A total of 520 professional athletic training students participated. There was a significant main effect (F(1,3)=690.0, pConclusions: Athletic training students have similar grit scores across all cohorts and classify higher with mastery goal orientation compared to performance-approach, performance-avoidant, and work-avoidant orientations. Educators should understand students’ motivation to provide support and challenging tasks for their passion and perseverance for athletic training. Key Words: grit, mastery, performance-approach, performance-avoidant, work-avoidant

Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rapid Sequence Intubation in the Critically Ill Adult Patient

RATIONALE: Controversies and practice variations exist related to the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management of the airway during rapid sequence intubation (RSI). OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations on pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic topics related to RSI. DESIGN: A guideline panel of 20 Society of Critical Care Medicine members with experience with RSI and emergency airway management met virtually at least monthly from the panel\u27s inception in 2018 through 2020 and face-to-face at the 2020 Critical Care Congress. The guideline panel included pharmacists, physicians, a nurse practitioner, and a respiratory therapist with experience in emergency medicine, critical care medicine, anesthesiology, and prehospital medicine; consultation with a methodologist and librarian was available. A formal conflict of interest policy was followed and enforced throughout the guidelines-development process. METHODS: Panelists created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions and voted to select the most clinically relevant questions for inclusion in the guideline. Each question was assigned to a pair of panelists, who refined the PICO wording and reviewed the best available evidence using predetermined search terms. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework was used throughout and recommendations of strong or conditional were made for each PICO question based on quality of evidence and panel consensus. Recommendations were provided when evidence was actionable; suggestions, when evidence was equivocal; and best practice statements, when the benefits of the intervention outweighed the risks, but direct evidence to support the intervention did not exist. RESULTS: From the original 35 proposed PICO questions, 10 were selected. The RSI guideline panel issued one recommendation (strong, low-quality evidence), seven suggestions (all conditional recommendations with moderate-, low-, or very low-quality evidence), and two best practice statements. The panel made two suggestions for a single PICO question and did not make any suggestions for one PICO question due to lack of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Using GRADE principles, the interdisciplinary panel found substantial agreement with respect to the evidence supporting recommendations for RSI. The panel also identified literature gaps that might be addressed by future research

Global Impact of COVID-19 on Stroke Care and IV Thrombolysis

OBJECTIVE: To measure the global impact of COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of IV thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with 2 control 4-month periods. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes or classifications in stroke databases. RESULTS: There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] -11.7 to -11.3, p < 0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95% CI -13.8 to -12.7, p < 0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95% CI -13.7 to -10.3, p = 0.001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95% CI 9.2-9.8, p < 0.0001) was noted over the 2 later (May, June) vs the 2 earlier (March, April) pandemic months. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID-19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months. © 2021 American Academy of Neurology

Global Impact of COVID-19 on Stroke Care and IV Thrombolysis

Objective To measure the global impact of COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of IV thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with 2 control 4-month periods. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes or classifications in stroke databases. Results. There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] −11.7 to −11.3, p \u3c 0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95% CI −13.8 to −12.7, p \u3c 0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95% CI −13.7 to −10.3, p = 0.001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95% CI 9.2–9.8, p \u3c 0.0001) was noted over the 2 later (May, June) vs the 2 earlier (March, April) pandemic months. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions. Conclusions. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID-19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months