Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Am J Public Health ; 112(6): 871-875, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1833861

ABSTRACT

Texas discontinued state-sponsored business restrictions and mask mandates on March 10, 2021, and mandated that no government officials, including public school officials, may implement mask requirements even in areas where COVID-19 hospitalizations comprised more than 15% of hospitalizations. Nonetheless, some public school districts began the 2021-2022 school year with mask mandates in place. We used quasi-experimental methods to analyze the impact of school mask mandates, which appear to have resulted in approximately 40 fewer student cases per week in the first eight weeks of school. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(6):871-875. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306769).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Policy , Schools , Texas/epidemiology
2.
Appl Clin Inform ; 12(5): 1074-1081, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1521908

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine administration has faced distribution barriers across the United States. We sought to delineate our vaccine delivery experience in the first week of vaccine availability, and our effort to prioritize employees based on risk with a goal of providing an efficient infrastructure to optimize speed and efficiency of vaccine delivery while minimizing risk of infection during the immunization process. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to evaluate an employee prioritization/invitation/scheduling system, leveraging an integrated electronic health record patient portal framework for employee COVID-19 immunizations at an academic medical center. METHODS: We conducted an observational cross-sectional study during January 2021 at a single urban academic center. All employees who met COVID-19 allocation vaccine criteria for phase 1a.1 to 1a.4 were included. We implemented a prioritization/invitation/scheduling framework and evaluated time from invitation to scheduling as a proxy for vaccine interest and arrival to vaccine administration to measure operational throughput. RESULTS: We allotted vaccines for 13,753 employees but only 10,662 employees with an active patient portal account received an invitation. Of those with an active account, 6,483 (61%) scheduled an appointment and 6,251 (59%) were immunized in the first 7 days. About 66% of invited providers were vaccinated in the first 7 days. In contrast, only 41% of invited facility/food service employees received the first dose of the vaccine in the first 7 days (p < 0.001). At the vaccination site, employees waited 5.6 minutes (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.9-8.3) from arrival to vaccination. CONCLUSION: We developed a system of early COVID-19 vaccine prioritization and administration in our health care system. We saw strong early acceptance in those with proximal exposure to COVID-19 but noticed significant difference in the willingness of different employee groups to receive the vaccine.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mass Vaccination , Academic Medical Centers , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
3.
Appl Clin Inform ; 12(4): 774-777, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1361659

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent emergency use authorization of two vaccines for the prevention of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) disease, vaccination rates are lower than expected. Vaccination efforts may be hampered by supply, delivery, storage, patient prioritization, administration infrastructure or logistics problems. To address the last issue, our institution is sharing publically a calculator to optimize the management of staffing and facility resources in an outpatient mass vaccination effort. OBJECTIVE: By sharing our calculator locally and through this paper, we aim to help health organizations administering vaccines optimize resource allocation while maximizing efficiency. METHODS: Our calculator determines the maximum number of vaccinations that can be administered per hour, the number of check-in staff (clerks) needed, the number of vaccination staff (nurses) needed, and the required room capacity needed for the vaccination and the mandatory 15-minute observation period after inoculation. RESULTS: We provide a functional version of the calculator, allowing users to replicate the calculation for their own vaccine events. CONCLUSION: An efficient and organized vaccination program is critical to halting the spread of COVID-19. By sharing this calculator, it is our hope that other organizations may use it to facilitate rapid and efficient vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mass Vaccination , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
4.
Yearb Med Inform ; 30(1): 17-25, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196868

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The novel COVID-19 pandemic struck the world unprepared. This keynote outlines challenges and successes using data to inform providers, government officials, hospitals, and patients in a pandemic. METHODS: The authors outline the data required to manage a novel pandemic including their potential uses by governments, public health organizations, and individuals. RESULTS: An extensive discussion on data quality and on obstacles to collecting data is followed by examples of successes in clinical care, contact tracing, and forecasting. Generic local forecast model development is reviewed followed by ethical consideration around pandemic data. We leave the reader with thoughts on the next inevitable outbreak and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 must be a lesson for the future to direct us to better planning and preparing to manage the next pandemic with health informatics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Data Collection , Medical Informatics , Artificial Intelligence , COVID-19/diagnosis , Contact Tracing , Data Collection/standards , Forecasting , Health Care Rationing , Health Workforce , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Telemedicine
6.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 42(2): 131-138, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1083743

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Social distancing policies are key in curtailing severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread, but their effectiveness is heavily contingent on public understanding and collective adherence. We studied public perception of social distancing through organic, large-scale discussion on Twitter. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Between March 27 and April 10, 2020, we retrieved English-only tweets matching two trending social distancing hashtags, #socialdistancing and #stayathome. We analyzed the tweets using natural language processing and machine-learning models, and we conducted a sentiment analysis to identify emotions and polarity. We evaluated the subjectivity of tweets and estimated the frequency of discussion of social distancing rules. We then identified clusters of discussion using topic modeling and associated sentiments. RESULTS: We studied a sample of 574,903 tweets. For both hashtags, polarity was positive (mean, 0.148; SD, 0.290); only 15% of tweets had negative polarity. Tweets were more likely to be objective (median, 0.40; IQR, 0-0.6) with ~30% of tweets labeled as completely objective (labeled as 0 in range from 0 to 1). Approximately half of tweets (50.4%) primarily expressed joy and one-fifth expressed fear and surprise. Each correlated well with topic clusters identified by frequency including leisure and community support (ie, joy), concerns about food insecurity and quarantine effects (ie, fear), and unpredictability of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its implications (ie, surprise). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the positive sentiment, preponderance of objective tweets, and topics supporting coping mechanisms, we concluded that Twitter users generally supported social distancing in the early stages of their implementation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Physical Distancing , Public Opinion , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Data Collection/methods , Emotions , Humans , Machine Learning , Retrospective Studies
7.
Acad Emerg Med ; 28(2): 206-214, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-947732

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed acute care providers in demanding situations in predicting disease given the clinical variability, desire to cohort patients, and high variance in testing availability. An approach to stratifying patients by likelihood of disease based on rapidly available emergency department (ED) clinical data would offer significant operational and clinical value. The purpose of this study was to develop and internally validate a predictive model to aid in the discrimination of patients undergoing investigation for COVID-19. METHODS: All patients greater than 18 years presenting to a single academic ED who were tested for COVID-19 during this index ED evaluation were included. Outcome was defined as the result of COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing during the index visit or any positive result within the following 7 days. Variables included chest radiograph interpretation, disease-specific screening questions, and laboratory data. Three models were developed with a split-sample approach to predict outcome of the PCR test utilizing logistic regression, random forest, and gradient-boosted decision tree methods. Model discrimination was evaluated comparing area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) and point statistics at a predefined threshold. RESULTS: A total of 1,026 patients were included in the study collected between March and April 2020. Overall, there was disease prevalence of 9.6% in the population under study during this time frame. The logistic regression model was found to have an AUC of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.84 to 0.94) when including four features: exposure history, temperature, white blood cell count (WBC), and chest radiograph result. Random forest method resulted in AUC of 0.86 (95% CI = 0.79 to 0.92) and gradient boosting had an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI = 0.79 to 0.91). With a consistently held negative predictive value, the logistic regression model had a positive predictive value of 0.29 (0.2-0.39) compared to 0.2 (0.14-0.28) for random forest and 0.22 (0.15-0.3) for the gradient-boosted method. CONCLUSION: The derived predictive models offer good discriminating capacity for COVID-19 disease and provide interpretable and usable methods for those providers caring for these patients at the important crossroads of the community and the health system. We found utilization of the logistic regression model utilizing exposure history, temperature, WBC, and chest X-ray result had the greatest discriminatory capacity with the most interpretable model. Integrating a predictive model-based approach to COVID-19 testing decisions and patient care pathways and locations could add efficiency and accuracy to decrease uncertainty.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Emergency Service, Hospital , Logistic Models , Predictive Value of Tests , Humans , Pandemics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL