Racial and neighborhood disparities in mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States: An analysis of the CDC case surveillance database

Background Black and Hispanic populations have higher overall COVID-19 infection and mortality odds compared to Whites. Some state-wide studies conducted in the early months of the pandemic found no in-hospital racial disparities in mortality. Methods We performed chi-square and logistic regression analyses on the CDC COVID-19 Case Surveillance Restricted Database. The primary outcome of the study was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The primary exposures were racial group (White, Black, Hispanic and Others) and neighborhood type (low vulnerability, moderate vulnerability, high vulnerability, very high vulnerability). Findings The overall unadjusted mortality rate was 33% and was lowest among Hispanics. In the fully adjusted models, Blacks and Hispanics had higher overall odds of dying [OR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.15, 1.25) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.17, 1.28) respectively] compared with White patients, and patients from neighborhoods with very high vulnerability had the highest mortality odds in the Northeast, Midwest and overall [Adjusted OR 2.08 (95% CI 1.91, 2.26)]. In the Midwest, Blacks and Hispanics had higher odds of mortality compared with Whites, but this was not observed in other regions. Interpretation Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to die compared to Whites in the Midwest. Patients from highly vulnerable neighborhoods also had the highest likelihood of death in the Northeast and Midwest. These results raise important questions on our efforts to curb healthcare disparities and structural racism in the healthcare setting.

Racial and neighborhood disparities in mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States: An analysis of the CDC case surveillance database.

BACKGROUND: Black and Hispanic populations have higher overall COVID-19 infection and mortality odds compared to Whites. Some state-wide studies conducted in the early months of the pandemic found no in-hospital racial disparities in mortality. METHODS: We performed chi-square and logistic regression analyses on the CDC COVID-19 Case Surveillance Restricted Database. The primary outcome of the study was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The primary exposures were racial group (White, Black, Hispanic and Others) and neighborhood type (low vulnerability, moderate vulnerability, high vulnerability, very high vulnerability). FINDINGS: The overall unadjusted mortality rate was 33% and was lowest among Hispanics. In the fully adjusted models, Blacks and Hispanics had higher overall odds of dying [OR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.15, 1.25) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.17, 1.28) respectively] compared with White patients, and patients from neighborhoods with very high vulnerability had the highest mortality odds in the Northeast, Midwest and overall [Adjusted OR 2.08 (95% CI 1.91, 2.26)]. In the Midwest, Blacks and Hispanics had higher odds of mortality compared with Whites, but this was not observed in other regions. INTERPRETATION: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to die compared to Whites in the Midwest. Patients from highly vulnerable neighborhoods also had the highest likelihood of death in the Northeast and Midwest. These results raise important questions on our efforts to curb healthcare disparities and structural racism in the healthcare setting.

In-hospital Outcomes for COVID-19 Patients in the Military Health System: Comparison of Military and Civilian Facility Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Beneficiaries of TRICARE, an insurance program of the military health system, can choose to receive care within the private sector (fee-for-service) or direct (budget-based facilities with salaried providers) care setting. Previous studies in several specialties have shown that there are disparities in both resource utilization and outcomes between the two settings. In this study, we sought to determine differences in outcomes between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients treated in the private sector versus direct care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using TRICARE claims data, we identified patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 between March and September 2020. Cases were classified, according to the facility where they were admitted for treatment, as private sector or direct care. We abstracted patient sociodemographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and outcomes including in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ventilator use, in-hospital complications, and 30-day readmission. We used multivariable regression models, adjusted for covariates, to determine the association between health care settings and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3,177 patients were included. Of these, 2,147 (68%) and 1,030 (32%) received care in the private sector and direct care settings, respectively. The average age of the study cohort was 52 years (SD = 21), and 84% had at least one medical comorbidity. In adjusted analyses, we found significant differences in the rates of ICU admission, with patients treated in private sector care having lower odds of being admitted to the ICU (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76). There were no significant differences in the rates of in-hospital mortality, ventilator use, in-hospital complications, and 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: With the exception of ICU admission rates, which are higher in the direct care setting, we encountered comparable hospital-based outcomes for patients treated for COVID-19 within the military health system, whether care was received under private sector or direct care.

Changes in Elective and Urgent Surgery Among TRICARE Beneficiaries During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is known to have altered the capacity to perform surgical procedures in numerous health care settings. The impact of this change within the direct and private-sector settings of the Military Health System has not been effectively explored, particularly as it pertains to disparities in surgical access and shifting of services between sectors. We sought to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced access to care for surgical procedures within the direct and private-sector settings of the Military Health System. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated claims for patients receiving urgent and elective surgical procedures in March-September 2017, 2019, and 2020. The pre-COVID period consisted of 2017 and 2019 and was compared to 2020. We adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical comorbidities, and region of care using multivariable Poisson regression. Subanalyses considered the impact of race and sponsor rank as a proxy for socioeconomic status. RESULTS: During the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no significant difference in the adjusted rate of urgent surgical procedures in direct (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) or private-sector (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02) care. This was also true for elective surgeries in both settings. No significant disparities were identified in any of the racial subgroups or proxies for socioeconomic status we considered in direct or private-sector care. CONCLUSIONS: We found a similar performance of elective and urgent surgeries in both the private sector and direct care during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Importantly, no racial disparities were identified in either care setting.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the injury prevention research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: In its 2016 report on trauma care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on injury prevention. METHODS: Experts in injury prevention research were recruited to identify current gaps in injury prevention research, generate research questions and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach from December 2019 through September 2020. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with both military and civilian representatives. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to use a Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subject matter experts generated 394 questions in 12 topic areas. By round 3 of the Delphi, 367 (93.1%) questions reached consensus, of which 169 (46.1%) were determined to be high priority, 196 (53.4%) medium priority, and 2 (0.5%) low priority. Among the 169 high priority questions, suicide (29.6%), firearm violence (20.1%), and violence prevention (18.3%) were the most prevalent topic areas. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of injury prevention research identified 169 high priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future injury prevention research. Funding agencies and researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therepeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Stress-Related Disorders of Family Members of Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit With COVID-19.

Importance: The psychological symptoms associated with having a family member admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic are not well defined. Objective: To examine the prevalence of symptoms of stress-related disorders, primarily posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in family members of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 approximately 90 days after admission. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multisite, mixed-methods observational cohort study assessed 330 family members of patients admitted to the ICU (except in New York City, which had a random sample of 25% of all admitted patients per month) between February 1 and July 31, 2020, at 8 academic-affiliated and 4 community-based hospitals in 5 US states. Exposure: Having a family member in the ICU with COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: Symptoms of PTSD at 3 months, as defined by a score of 10 or higher on the Impact of Events Scale 6 (IES-6). Results: A total of 330 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.2 [15.1] years; 228 [69.1%] women; 150 [52.8%] White; 92 [29.8%] Hispanic) were surveyed at the 3-month time point. Most individuals were the patients' child (129 [40.6%]) or spouse or partner (81 [25.5%]). The mean (SD) IES-6 score at 3 months was 11.9 (6.1), with 201 of 316 respondents (63.6%) having scores of 10 or higher, indicating significant symptoms of PTSD. Female participants had an adjusted mean IES-6 score of 2.6 points higher (95% CI, 1.4-3.8; P < .001) than male participants, whereas Hispanic participants scored a mean of 2.7 points higher compared with non-Hispanic participants (95% CI, 1.0-4.3; P = .002). Those with graduate school experience had an adjusted mean score of 3.3 points lower (95% CI, 1.5-5.1; P < .001) compared with those with up to a high school degree or equivalent. Qualitative analyses found no substantive differences in the emotional or communication-related experiences between those with high vs low PTSD scores, but those with higher scores exhibited more distrust of practitioners. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, symptoms of PTSD among family members of ICU patients with COVID-19 were high. Hispanic ethnicity and female gender were associated with higher symptoms. Those with higher scores reported more distrust of practitioners.

Demographic Disparity in Use of Telemedicine for Ambulatory General Surgical Consultation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of the Initial Public Health Emergency and Second Phase Periods.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients with limited digital literacy may experience reduced telemedicine access. We investigated racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in telemedicine compared with in-person surgical consultation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of new visits within the Division of General & Gastrointestinal Surgery at an academic medical center occurring between March 24 through June 23, 2020 (Phase I, Massachusetts Public Health Emergency) and June 24 through December 31, 2020 (Phase II, relaxation of restrictions on healthcare operations) was performed. Visit modality (telemedicine/phone vs in-person) and demographic data were extracted. Bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and visit modality. RESULTS: During Phase I, 347 in-person and 638 virtual visits were completed. Multivariable modeling demonstrated no significant differences in virtual compared with in-person visit use across racial/ethnic or insurance groups. Among patients using virtual visits, Latinx patients were less likely to have video compared with audio-only visits than White patients (OR, 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.96). Black race and insurance type were not significant predictors of video use. During Phase II, 2,922 in-person and 1,001 virtual visits were completed. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that Black patients (OR, 1.52; 95% CI 1.12-2.06) were more likely to have virtual visits than White patients. No significant differences were observed across insurance types. Among patients using virtual visits, race/ethnicity and insurance type were not significant predictors of video use. CONCLUSION: Black patients used telemedicine platforms more often than White patients during the second phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual consultation may help increase access to surgical care among traditionally under-resourced populations.

A Retrospective Observational Study Exploring 30- and 90-Day Outcomes for Patients With COVID-19 After Percutaneous Tracheostomy and Gastrostomy Placement.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the 30- and 90-day outcomes of COVID-19 patients receiving tracheostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multisite, inpatient. PATIENTS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received tracheostomy and PEG at four Boston hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Tracheostomy and PEG placement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was mortality at 30 and 90 days post-procedure. Secondary outcomes included continued device presence, place of residence, complications, and rehospitalizations. Eighty-one COVID-19 patients with tracheostomy and PEG placement were included. At 90 days post-device placement, the mortality rate was 9.9%, 2.7% still had the tracheostomy, 32.9% still had the PEG, and 58.9% were at home. CONCLUSIONS: More than nine-in-10 patients in our population of COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy and PEG were alive 90 days later and most were living at home. This study provides new information regarding the outcomes of this patient population that may serve as a step in guiding clinicians, patients, and families when making decisions regarding these devices.

The Relationship Between Surgeon Gender and Stress During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between surgeon gender and stress during the Covid-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: Although female surgeons face difficulties integrating work and home in the best of times, the Covid-19 pandemic has presented new challenges. The implications for the female surgical workforce are unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multi-center telephone survey study of surgeons was conducted across 5 academic institutions (May 15-June 5, 2020). The primary outcome was maximum stress level, measured using the validated Stress Numerical Rating Scale-11. Mixed-effects generalized linear models were used to estimate the relationship between surgeon stress level and gender. RESULTS: Of 529 surgeons contacted, 337 surgeons responded and 335 surveys were complete (response rate 63.7%). The majority of female respondents were housestaff (58.1%), and the majority of male respondents were faculty (56.8%) (P = 0.008). A greater proportion of male surgeons (50.3%) than female surgeons (36.8%) had children ≤18 years (P = 0.015). The mean maximum stress level for female surgeons was 7.51 (SD 1.49) and for male surgeons was 6.71 (SD 2.15) (P < 0.001). After adjusting for the presence of children and training status, female gender was associated with a significantly higher maximum stress level (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings that women experienced more stress than men during the Covid-19 pandemic, regardless of parental status, suggest that there is more to the gendered differences in the stress experience of the pandemic than the added demands of childcare. Deliberate interventions are needed to promote and support the female surgical workforce during the pandemic.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients Hospitalized with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Boston.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have been described in health systems overwhelmed with a surge of cases. However, studies examining outcomes of patients admitted to hospitals not in crisis are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristic and outcomes of all patients with COVID-19 who are admitted to hospitals not in crisis, and factors associated with mortality in this population. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis PARTICIPANTS: In total, 470 consecutive patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization in one health system in Boston from January 1, 2020 to April 15, 2020. MAIN MEASURES: We collected clinical outcomes during hospitalization including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, receipt of mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors. We utilized multivariable logistic regression models to examine factors associated with mortality. KEY RESULTS: A total of 470 patients (median age 66 [range 23-98], 54.0% male) were included. The most common comorbidities were diabetes (38.5%, 181/470) and obesity (41.3%, 194/470). On admission, 41.9% (197/470) of patients were febrile and 60.6% (285/470) required supplemental oxygen. During hospitalization, 37.9% (178/470) were admitted to the ICU, 33.6% (158/470) received mechanical ventilation, 29.4% (138/470) received vasopressors, 16.4% (77/470) reported limitations on their desire for life-sustaining therapies such as intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and 25.1% (118/470) died. Among those admitted to the ICU (N=178), the median number of days on the ventilator was 10 days (IQR 1-29), and 58.4% (104/178) were discharged alive. Older age (OR=1.04, P<0.001), male sex (OR=2.14, P=0.007), higher comorbidities (OR=1.20, P=0.001), higher lactate dehydrogenase on admission (2nd tertile: OR=4.07, P<0.001; 3rd tertile: OR=8.04, P<0.001), and the need for supplemental oxygen on admission (OR=2.17, P=0.014) were all associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and those who received mechanical ventilation survived. These data highlight the need to examine public health and system factors that contribute to improved outcomes for this population.

Exploring the Experience of the Surgical Workforce During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the stress levels and experience of academic surgeons by training status (eg, housestaff or faculty). BACKGROUND: Covid-19 has uniquely challenged and changed the United States healthcare system. A better understanding of the surgeon experience is necessary to inform proactive workforce management and support. METHODS: A multi-institutional, cross-sectional telephone survey of surgeons was conducted across 5 academic medical centers from May 15 to June 5, 2020. The exposure of interest was training status. The primary outcome was maximum stress level, measured using the validated Stress Numerical Rating Scale-11 (range 0-10). RESULTS: A total of 335 surveys were completed (49.3% housestaff, 50.7% faculty; response rate 63.7%). The mean maximum stress level of faculty was 7.21 (SD 1.81) and of housestaff was 6.86 (SD 2.06) (P = 0.102). Mean stress levels at the time of the survey trended lower amongst housestaff (4.17, SD 1.89) than faculty (4.56, SD 2.15) (P = 0.076). More housestaff (63.6%) than faculty (40.0%) reported exposure to individuals with Covid-19 (P < 0.001). Subjects reported inadequate personal protective equipment in approximately a third of professional exposures, with no difference by training status (P = 0.557). CONCLUSIONS: During the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, the personal and professional experiences of housestaff and faculty differed, in part due to a difference in exposure as well as non-work-related stressors. Workforce safety, including adequate personal protective equipment, expanded benefits (eg, emergency childcare), and deliberate staffing models may help to alleviate the stress associated with disease resurgence or future disasters.