COVID-19 Seroprevalence in ED Health Care Professionals Study: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: ED health care professionals are at the frontline of evaluation and management of patients with acute, and often undifferentiated, illness. During the initial phase of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, there were concerns that ED health care professionals may have been at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to difficulty in early identification of patients. This study assessed the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among ED health care professionals without confirmed history of COVID-19 infection at a quaternary academic medical center. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional design. An ED health care professional was deemed eligible if they had worked at least 4 shifts in the adult emergency department from April 1, 2020, through May 31, 2020, were asymptomatic on the day of blood draw, and were not known to have had prior documented COVID-19 infection. The study period was December 17, 2020, to January 27, 2021. Eligible participants completed a questionnaire and had a blood sample drawn. Samples were run on the Roche Cobas Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay. RESULTS: Of 103 health care professionals (16 attending physicians, 4 emergency residents, 16 advanced practice professionals, and 67 full-time emergency nurses), only 3 (2.9%; exact 95% CI, 0.6%-8.3%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. DISCUSSION: At this quaternary academic medical center, among those who volunteered to take an antibody test, there was a low seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among ED clinicians who were asymptomatic at the time of blood draw and not known to have had prior COVID-19 infection.

Neighborhood Disadvantage Measures and COVID-19 Cases in Boston, 2020.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the pattern of population risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critically important for health systems and policy makers. The objective of this study was to describe the association between neighborhood factors and number of COVID-19 cases. We hypothesized an association between disadvantaged neighborhoods and clusters of COVID-19 cases. METHODS: We analyzed data on patients presenting to a large health care system in Boston during February 5-May 4, 2020. We used a bivariate local join-count procedure to determine colocation between census tracts with high rates of neighborhood demographic characteristics (eg, Hispanic race/ethnicity) and measures of disadvantage (eg, health insurance status) and COVID-19 cases. We used negative binomial models to assess independent associations between neighborhood factors and the incidence of COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 9898 COVID-19 patients were in the cohort. The overall crude incidence in the study area was 32 cases per 10 000 population, and the adjusted incidence per census tract ranged from 2 to 405 per 10 000 population. We found significant colocation of several neighborhood factors and the top quintile of cases: percentage of population that was Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, without health insurance, receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, and living in poverty. Factors associated with increased incidence of COVID-19 included percentage of population that is Hispanic (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.23-1.28) and percentage of households living in poverty (IRR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.19-1.32). CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant association between neighborhoods with high rates of disadvantage and COVID-19. Policy makers need to consider these health inequities when responding to the pandemic and planning for subsequent health needs.

The cases not seen: Patterns of emergency department visits and procedures in the era of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Prior data suggest Emergency Department (ED) visits for many emergency conditions decreased during the initial COVID-19 surge. However, the pandemic's impact on the wide range of conditions seen in EDs, and the resources required for treating them, has been less studied. We sought to provide a comprehensive analysis of ED visits and associated resource utilization during the initial COVID-19 surge. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis from 5 hospitals in a large health system in Massachusetts, comparing ED encounters from 3/1/2020-4/30/2020 to identical weeks from the prior year. Data collected included demographics, ESI, diagnosis, consultations ordered, bedside procedures, and inpatient procedures within 48 h. We compared raw frequencies between time periods and calculated incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: ED volumes decreased by 30.9% in 2020 compared to 2019. Average acuity of ED presentations increased, while most non-COVID-19 diagnoses decreased. The number and incidence rate of all non-critical care ED procedures decreased, while the occurrence of intubations and central lines increased. Most subspecialty consultations decreased, including to psychiatry, trauma surgery, and cardiology. Most non-elective procedures related to ED encounters also decreased, including craniotomies and appendectomies. CONCLUSION: Our health system experienced decreases in nearly all non-COVID-19 conditions presenting to EDs during the initial phase of the pandemic, including those requiring specialty consultation and urgent inpatient procedures. Findings have implications for both public health and health system planning.

A Video-based Debriefing Program to Support Emergency Medicine Clinician Well-being During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency clinicians on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic experience a range of emotions including anxiety, fear, and grief. Debriefing can help clinicians process these emotions, but the coronavirus pandemic makes it difficult to create a physically and psychologically safe space in the emergency department (ED) to perform this intervention. In response, we piloted a video-based debriefing program to support emergency clinician well-being. We report the details of our program and results of our evaluation of its acceptability and perceived value to emergency clinicians during the pandemic. METHODS: ED attending physicians, resident physicians, and non-physician practitioners (NPP) at our quaternary-care academic medical center were invited to participate in role-based, weekly one-hour facilitated debriefings using Zoom. ED attendings with experience in debriefing led each session and used an explorative approach that focused on empathy and normalizing reactions. At the end of the pilot, we distributed to participants an anonymous 10-point survey that included multiple-answer questions and visual analogue scales. RESULTS: We completed 18 debriefings with 68 unique participants (29 attending physicians, 6 resident physicians, and 33 NPPs. A total of 76% of participants responded to our survey and 77% of respondents participated in at least two debriefings. Emergency clinicians reported that the most common reasons to participate in the debriefings were "to enhance my sense of community and connection" (81%) followed by "to support colleagues" (75%). Debriefing with members of the same role group (92%) and the Zoom platform (81%) were considered to be helpful aspects of the debriefing structure. Although emergency clinicians found these sessions to be useful (78.8 +/- 17.6) interquartile range: 73-89), NPPs were less comfortable speaking up (58.5 +/- 23.6) than attending physicians (77.8 +/- 25.0) (p = < 0.008). CONCLUSION: Emergency clinicians participating in a video-based debriefing program during the coronavirus pandemic found it to be an acceptable and useful approach to support emotional well-being. Our program provided participants with a platform to support each other and maintain a sense of community and connection. Other EDs should consider implementing a debriefing program to safeguard the emotional well-being of their emergency clinician workforce.