Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is considered a reference standard for diagnosing hypertension and is recommended for out-of-office blood pressure assessment, yet internal medicine residents receive limited training in its interpretation. We conducted a needs assessment to identify gaps in hypertension and ABPM education and developed an asynchronous e-learning module to address these deficiencies. We then evaluated its impact on residents’ self-reported confidence and preparedness in outpatient hypertension management. We conducted a single-center quality improvement study among internal medicine residents (PGY1-4) at the University of Toronto between July 2024 and January 2026. A baseline needs assessment evaluated prior exposure to ABPM, confidence in interpretation, and preparedness to diagnose hypertension. An e-learning module was developed, consisting of a structured “Five Steps of ABPM Interpretation” framework and case-based learning. A post-intervention survey assessed self-reported confidence, preparedness, and educational value. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize outcomes. Between-group comparisons of categorical outcomes were performed using chi-square tests. Sixty-two residents completed the baseline survey, and 26 completed the module and post-intervention survey [1]. At baseline, 56.5

Integrated care programs (ICPs) are associated with positive patient experiences, but provider experiences remain understudied. We examined burnout in healthcare providers working in an ICP that facilitates hospital-to-home care transitions for patients. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation comprising a cross-sectional survey of burnout and provider experience using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, open-ended questions, and semi-structured interviews. Twenty-eight participants completed the surveys (31% response rate). Respondents were 75% female, and, on average, were 42 ± 10 years old, had spent 19 ± 11 months as providers in the ICP and had cared for a median of 170 (IQR = 245) patients. Twenty staff, who were 38 ± 8 years old on average and 95% women, were interviewed. Emotional exhaustion was low (average total score = 14 ± 7 out of 42), depersonalization was moderate (9 ± 6 out of 42), and personal achievement was high (40 ± 5 out of 48), corresponding to low-to-moderate burnout. Respondents cited teamwork as the leading protective factor against emotional exhaustion and positive impact on patients as the leading factor underlying high personal achievement. Perceived under-appreciation was the leading factor for depersonalization, likely moderated by team support and rapport. Burnout was low to moderate in our sample of ICP healthcare providers, who cited several important contextual factors requiring further study.

RATIONALE:Patients with skin and soft tissue infection are often admitted to hospital despite compelling evidence that many can be managed safely as outpatients. This quality improvement study reports the outcomes of an outpatient skin and soft tissue infection programme implemented at an academic acute-care hospital in Toronto, Canada. METHODS:The intervention was an outpatient care pathway for patients with suspected skin and soft tissue infection who may otherwise have required admission to hospital. The programme was implemented within the existing general internal medicine outpatient clinic and primarily involved the addition of part-time advanced practice wound care nurses. The main outcome was the number of hospital inpatient days for skin and soft tissue infection. Data were analysed for 4 years pre-intervention (June 2016-May 2020) and 2 years post-intervention (June 2020-May 2022). Another acute-care hospital in the same network which did not undergo the intervention was included as a control. RESULTS:During the 2-year post-intervention period there were 465 clinic visits with the programme (mean of 19/month). The median number of inpatient days for skin and soft tissue infection decreased from 224 per month before the intervention to 148 per month after the intervention (a reduction of 34%). There was no reduction in inpatient days for skin and soft tissue infection at the control site or among all diagnoses at the intervention site. CONCLUSIONS:The implementation of an outpatient skin and soft tissue infection programme was associated with a sustained 34% reduction in inpatient days for skin and soft tissue infection. This study demonstrates the benefits of enhancing an existing outpatient internal medicine clinic through the creation of a streamlined care pathway and adding interdisciplinary expertise.

BACKGROUND: Few GIM-specific heart failure transition of care (TOC) programs exist. We thus piloted a TOC program for heart failure patients discharged from GIM that incorporates a remote patient management program, Medly. METHODS: This single-centre, prospective proof-of-concept study described sociodemographic and medical characteristics of included patients, and computed summary statistics to describe clinical and workload outcomes. RESULTS: Ten patients (median age: 85) enrolled. There were no heart failure-related deaths, re-hospitalizations, or ED visits within 90 days of hospital discharge. One urgent GIM clinic visit was needed. CONCLUSION: This post-GIM TOC pathway appears to effectively support heart failure patients. Further studies should assess this innovation's scalability. (c) 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. center dot The American Journal of Medicine (2025) 138:901-905

Patients in the hospital frequently have multiple chronic conditions in addition to their acute illnesses. Inpatient providers may feel pressured to adjust outpatient medication regimens in response to acute variations in labs or vital signs during hospitalization, or in an attempt to optimize long-term disease control. However, this practice should generally be deferred to the outpatient setting, as the effective management of chronic conditions requires longitudinal care and should take place during periods of homeostasis. In select circumstances and for certain high-risk patients, stepwise modifications to chronic disease medications may be considered during hospitalization, but this should always be coordinated with the primary care provider.

Background Reducing laboratory test overuse is important for high quality, patient-centred care. Identifying priorities to reduce low value testing remains a challenge.Objective To develop a simple, data-driven approach to identify potential sources of laboratory overuse by combining the total cost, proportion of abnormal results and physician-level variation in use of laboratory tests.Design, setting and participants A multicentre, retrospective study at three academic hospitals in Toronto, Canada. All general internal medicine (GIM) hospitalisations between 1 April 2010 and 31 October 2017.Results There were 106 813 GIM hospitalisations during the study period, with median hospital length-of-stay of 4.6 days (IQR: 2.33–9.19). There were 21 tests which had a cumulative cost >US$15 400 at all three sites. The costliest test was plasma electrolytes (US$4 907 775), the test with the lowest proportion of abnormal results was red cell folate (0.2%) and the test with the greatest physician-level variation in use was antiphospholipid antibodies (coefficient of variation 3.08). The five tests with the highest cumulative rank based on greatest cost, lowest proportion of abnormal results and highest physician-level variation were: (1) lactate, (2) antiphospholipid antibodies, (3) magnesium, (4) troponin and (5) partial thromboplastin time. In addition, this method identified unique tests that may be a potential source of laboratory overuse at each hospital.Conclusions A simple multidimensional, data-driven approach combining cost, proportion of abnormal results and physician-level variation can inform interventions to reduce laboratory test overuse. Reducing low value laboratory testing is important to promote high value, patient-centred care.

Background: The hypertension specialist often receives referrals of patients with young-onset, severe, difficult-to-control hypertension, patients with hypertensive emergencies, and patients with secondary causes of hypertension. Specialist hypertension care compliments primary care for these complex patients and contributes to an overall hypertension control strategy. The objective of this study was to characterize hypertension centres and the practice patterns of Cana-dian hypertension specialists. Methods: Adult hypertension specialists across Canada were surveyed to describe hypertension centres and specialist practice in Canada, including the following: the patient population managed by hyperten-sion specialists; details on how care is provided; practice pattern var-iations; and differences in access to specialized hypertension resources across the country. Results: The survey response rate was 73.5% from 25 hypertension centres. Most respondents were nephrologists and general internal medicine specialists. Hypertension centres saw between 50 and 2500 patients yearly. A mean of 17% (+/- 15%) of patients were referred from the emergency department and a mean of 52% (+/- 24%) were referred from primary care. Most centres had access to specialized testing (adrenal vein sampling, level 1 sleep studies, autonomic testing) and advanced therapies for resistant hypertension (renal denervation). Considerable heterogeneity was present in the target blood pressure in young people with low cardiovascular risk and in the diagnostic algo-rithms for investigating secondary causes of hypertension. Conclusions: These results summarize the current state of hyperten-sion specialist care and highlight opportunities for further collaboration among hypertension specialists, including standardization of the approach to specialist care for patients with hypertension.

In this narrative review, we describe what is known about non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments for insomnia in medical inpatients, with a focus on melatonin. Hospital-acquired insomnia is common, resulting in shortened total sleep time and more nighttime awakenings. Sleep disturbance has been shown to increase systemic inflammation, pain, and the likelihood of developing delirium in hospital. Treatment for insomnia includes both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, the latter of which requires careful consideration of risks and benefits given the known adverse effects. Though benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine benzodiazepine receptor agonists are commonly prescribed (i.e., sedative-hypnotics), they are relatively contraindicated for patients over the age of 65 due to the risk of increased falls, cognitive decline, and potential for withdrawal symptoms after long-term use. Exogenous melatonin has a comparatively low likelihood of adverse effects and drug–drug interactions and is at least as effective as other sedative-hypnotics. Though more research is needed on both its effectiveness and relative safety for inpatients, small doses of melatonin before bedtime may be an appropriate choice for inpatients when insomnia persists despite non-pharmacological interventions.

BackgroundImaging procedures are commonly performed on hospitalized patients and waiting for these could increase length-of-stay. The study objective was to quantify delays for imaging procedures in General Internal Medicine and identify contributing patient, physician, and system factors. MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of medical inpatients admitted to 5 hospitals in Toronto, Ontario (2010-2019), with at least one imaging procedure (CT, MRI, ultrasound, or peripherally-inserted central catheter [PICC] insertion). The primary outcome was time-to-test, and the secondary outcome was acute length-of-stay after test ordering. ResultsThe study cohort included 73,107 hospitalizations. Time-to-test was longest for MRI (median 22 hours) and shortest for CT (median 7 hours). The greatest contributors to time-to-test were system factors such as hospital site (up to 22 additional hours), location of test ordering (up to 10 additional hours), the timing of test ordering relative to admission (up to 13 additional hours), and ordering during weekends (up to 21 additional hours). Older patient age, having more comorbidities, and residence in a low-income neighborhood were also associated with testing delays. Each additional hour spent waiting for a test was associated with increased acute length-of-stay after test ordering, ranging from 0.4 additional hours for CT to 1.2 hours for MRI. ConclusionsThe greatest contributors to testing delays relate to when and where a test was ordered. Wait times affect length-of-stay and the quality of patient care. Hospitals can apply our novel approach to explore opportunities to decrease testing delays locally.

BackgroundOsmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS) is a rare but potentially devastating neurologic complication of hyponatremia. The primary objective of this study was to identify the proportion of patients who developed ODS in a large, contemporary, multicenter cohort of patients admitted to the hospital with hyponatremia. MethodsWe conducted a multicenter cohort study of patients admitted with hyponatremia at five academic hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020. All adult patients presenting with hyponatremia (serum sodium level <130 mmol/l) were identified. The primary outcome was the proportion with ODS as identified by neuroimaging results and medical record review. The secondary outcome was the rate of overly rapid correction of serum sodium (>8 mmol/l in any 24-hour period). ResultsOur cohort included 22,858 hospitalizations with hyponatremia. Approximately 50% were women, the average age was 68 years, and mean initial serum sodium was 125 mmol/l (standard deviation, 4.6), including 11.9% with serum sodium from 110 to 119 mmol/l and 1.2% with serum sodium less than 110 mmol/l. Overall, rapid correction of serum sodium occurred in 3632 (17.7%) admissions. Twelve patients developed ODS (0.05%). Seven (58%) patients who developed ODS did not have rapid correction of serum sodium. ConclusionsIn this large multicenter study of patients with hyponatremia, rapid correction of serum sodium was common (n=3632 [17.7%]), but ODS was rare (n=12 [0.05%]). Future studies with a higher number of patients with ODS are needed to better understand potential causal factors for ODS.

ABSTRACT Background Osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS) is a rare but devastating complication of rapid correction of hyponatremia. Current guidelines recommend limiting the sodium correction rate to no more than 8 mmol/L per 24 hours, but this is based on expert opinion and small observational studies. Methods We conducted a multicenter cohort study of patients admitted into hospital with hyponatremia at five academic hospitals in Toronto between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019. We identified all adult patients with hyponatremia (sodium <130 mmol/L) based on their initial serum sodium measured on presentation to the emergency department. The primary outcome was the rate of ODS. ODS cases were identified using medical record review and neuroimaging results. The secondary outcome was the rate of rapid correction of sodium (>8 mmol/L in any 24-hour period). Results Our cohort included 21182 hospitalizations with hyponatremia. Approximately 50% were women, the average age was 68 years, and mean initial sodium was 124.6 mmol/L (SD 4.6) including 13.1% with sodium <120 mmol/L. Overall, rapid correction of sodium occurred in 3438 (17.9%) admissions. Despite the fact that 3438 experienced rapid correction, there were only 12 cases of ODS among our 21182 hospitalizations with hyponatremia. Cases of ODS had a markedly lower initial serum sodium (110.7 vs. 124.6 mmol/L), were younger (50 years vs 68 years), were more likely to have alcohol use disorder, and were more likely to have hypokalemia (58% vs 14%) compared to those without ODS. Conclusions In the large multicenter study of patients with hyponatremia, “rapid” overcorrection was common (N=3438, 17.9%) but ODS was rare (N=12, 0.06%). The initial serum sodium was markedly lower for those with ODS compared to those without. Taken together, these results suggest that the severity of hyponatremia is a more important risk factor for ODS then the rate of correction.

BACKGROUND Admitting hospitalized patients to off-service wards ("bedspacing") is common and may affect quality of care and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE To compare in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission to general internal medicine (GIM), and hospital length-of-stay among GIM patients admitted to GIM wards or bedspaced to off-service wards. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASURES Retrospective cohort study including all emergency department admissions to GIM between 2015 and 2017 at six hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared patients admitted to GIM wards with those who were bedspaced, using multivariable regression models and propensity score matching to control for patient and situational factors. KEY RESULTS Among 40,440 GIM admissions, 10,745 (26.6%) were bedspaced to non-GIM wards and 29,695 (73.4%) were assigned to GIM wards. After multivariable adjustment, bedspacing was associated with no significant difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.05, p = .304), slightly shorter median hospital length-of-stay (-0.10 days, 95% CI:-0.20 to -0.001, p = .047) and lower 30-day readmission to GIM (adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83-0.95, p = .001). Results were consistent when examining each hospital individually and outcomes did not significantly differ between medical or surgical off-service wards. Sensitivity analyses focused on the highest risk patients did not exclude the possibility of harm associated with bedspacing, although adverse outcomes were not significantly greater. CONCLUSIONS Overall, bedspacing was associated with no significant difference in mortality, slightly shorter hospital length-of-stay, and fewer 30-day readmissions to GIM, although potential harms in high-risk patients remain uncertain. Given that hospital capacity issues are likely to persist, future research should aim to understand how bedspacing can be achieved safely at all hospitals, perhaps by strengthening the selection of low-risk patients.

Wearable devices for hospitalized patients could help improve care. The purpose of this study was to highlight key barriers and facilitators involved in adopting wearable technology in acute care settings using patient and clinician feedback. Hospitalized patients, 18 years or older, were recruited at the General Medicine inpatient units in Toronto, Ontario to wear the Fitbit® Charge 2 or Charge 3. Fifty General Medicine adult inpatients were recruited. Patients and nurses provided feedback on structured questionnaires. Key themes from open-ended questions were analyzed. Primary outcomes of interest included the exploring patient and nurse perceptions of their experiences with wearable devices as well as their feasibility in clinical settings. Overall, both patients (n = 39) and nurses (n = 28) valued the information provided by Fitbits and shared concerns about device functionality and wearable design. Specifically, patients were interested in using wearables to enhance their self-monitoring, while nurses questioned data validity, as well as ease of incorporating wearables into their workflow. We found that patients wanted improved device design and functionality and valued the opportunity to improve their self-efficacy and to work in partnership with the medical team using wearable technology. Nurses wanted more device functionality and validation and easier ways to incorporate them into their workflow. To achieve the potential benefits of using wearable devices for enhanced monitoring, this study identifies challenges that must first be addressed in order for this technology to be widely adopted in clinical settings.

Background: Wearable devices such as Fitbits may provide important insights about hospitalized patients that include data on low activity and poor sleep. Monitoring this information could spur interventions to improve mobility and sleep which may reduce the adverse effects associated with hospitalization. However, there is a lack of studies assessing the accuracy of wearables in hospitalized medical patients. The purpose of our study was to determine the accuracy of Fitbit heart rate, sleep and physical activity in hospitalized medical patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort feasibility study enrolling 50 medical inpatients at two hospitals providing them with a wrist-worn Fitbit Charge. Our main measures were Fitbit heart rate, sleep and activity data as well as nurse recorded heart rates, patient reported sleep, and nurse assessments of activity. Results: Of the 50 patients who consented to the study, 47 patients wore the devices. Comparing pairs of heart rate data from Fitbit and nurse recorded vital signs for the same minute, there were 261 pairs available for comparison. The mean difference was 0.45 bpm (SD: 13.0, Pearson correlation: 0.68 P <0.001) and the 95% limits of agreement were -25 to 26 bpm. The association between the patient-reported sleep score and Fitbit total sleep duration was 0.19 ( P =0.24) and between the self-reported hours of sleep and Fitbit total sleep duration was 0.21 ( P =0.21). The correlation between nurse-recorded activity and Fitbit daily steps was 0.06 ( P =0.52). Conclusions: Fitbit heart rates correlated well with nurse-recorded heart rate but did not correlate well with nurse assessments of activity nor with patient self-assessment of sleep. This study highlights limitations of the accuracy of current wearable wrist-worn device algorithms in activity and sleep detection in patients in hospital. The findings call into question the validity of Fitbits for assessment of patient activity and sleep in the hospital setting and suggest that they should not be routinely used without further validation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03646435

IMPORTANCE Scalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (>= 65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Personalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE). RESULTS A total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing.

Abstract Objectives To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. Design Multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial. Setting 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021. Participants Eligible patients had a laboratory confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of covid-19, needed supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen), and were able to independently lie prone with verbal instruction. Of the 570 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 257 were randomised and 248 were included in the analysis. Intervention Patients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning (that is, instructing a patient to lie on their stomach while they are in bed) or standard of care (that is, no instruction to adopt prone position). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as needing at least 60% fraction of inspired oxygen for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen. Results The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomisation was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 (interquartile range 45-65) years, 89 (36%) patients were female, and 222 (90%) were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomisation. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 (1.5-12.8) hours in total for the prone arm compared with 0 (0-2) hours in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 (14%) events) and the standard care group (17 (14%) events) (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen after 72 hours was similar for patients randomised to prone positioning and standard of care. Conclusion Among non-critically ill patients with hypoxaemia who were admitted to hospital with covid-19, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. However, wide confidence intervals preclude definitively ruling out benefit or harm. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts to increase it. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383613.

ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19DesignPragmatic randomized clinical trial of prone positioning of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021.SettingsPatients were eligible is they had a laboratory-confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of COVID-19, required supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2]), and were able to independently prone with verbal instruction. (NCT04383613).Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as requiring at least 60% FiO2 for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to FiO2 (S/F ratio).ResultsA total of 248 patients were included. The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomization was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 45,65), 36% were female, and 90% of patients were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomization. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 hours total (IQR 1.5,12.8) for the prone arm compared to 0 hours (0,2) in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 [14.3%] events) and the standard care group (17 [13.9%] events), odds ratio 0.92 (95% CI 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the S/F ratio after 72 hours was similar for patients randomized to prone compared to standard of care.ConclusionAmong hypoxic but not critically patients with COVID-19 in hospital, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning.What is already known on this topicProne positioning is considered standard of care for mechanically ventilated patients who have severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recent data suggest prone positioning is beneficial for patients with COVID-19 who are requiring high flow oxygen. It is unknown of prone positioning is beneficial for patients not on high flow oxygen.What this study addsProne positioning is generally not well tolerated and innovative approaches are needed to improve adherence. Clinical and physiologic outcomes were not improved with prone positioning among hypoxic but not critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

POINTS CLÉS Face à la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), les systèmes de santé ont jugé prioritaire de renforcer la capacité des unités de soins intensifs; or, dans la majorité des cas, la prise en charge du patient s'effectue hors de celles-ci[1][1],[2][2]. Dans bien

KEY POINTSHealth systems have responded to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by prioritizing critical care capacity; however, most patients with COVID-19 are cared for outside intensive care units (ICUs).[1][1],[2][2] In many jurisdictions, the first wave of cases is waning,[3][3]