Preparedness and response of assisted living facilities toward COVID-19 infection control in Houston, Texas, USA

Background: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) including assisted living facilities (ALFs) are hubs for high transmission and poor prognosis of COVID-19 among the residents who are more susceptible due to old age and comorbidities. Aim: Houston Health Department conducted assessments of ALFs within the City of Houston to determine preparedness and existing preventive measures at the facilities. Methods: Onsite assessments were conducted at ALFs using a modified CDC Infection Control Assessment and Response (ICAR) Tool. Data was obtained on IPC measures, training, testing, vaccination etc. Data was analyzed, frequencies generated, and bivariate associations determined. Results: A total of 118 facilities were assessed and categorized into small scale 46 (39%), medium scale 47 (40%), and large scale 25 (21%). The facilities had 2431 residents and 2290 staff. Thirty-one (26%) facilities reported an outbreak in 2020, while 14 (12%) had an ongoing outbreak. Twenty-three (97%) large-scale and 12 (26%) small-scale facilities had COVID-19 testing program. Vaccination coverage among residents ranged from 99% in large-scale to 40% in small-scale facilities but was smaller among staff at 748 (45%) in large scale, 71 (36%) in small scale, and 193 (45%) in medium scale. While 24 (96%) large-scale and 34 (77%) of small-scale facilities conducted staff training staff on IPC practices, 22 (92%) of large-scale and 19 (56%) of small-scale facility staff demonstrated capacity (p = 0.01), respectively. Visitor screening was done at 100% of large-scale and 80% of small-scale and the medium-scale ALFs. Discussion: Assisted living facilities within the city of Houston are at various levels of preparedness and interventions with respect to COVID-19 response. © The Author(s) 2023.

A Gamified Social Media-Based Head and Neck Radiology Education Initiative of the American Society of Head and Neck Radiology: Viewership and Engagement Trends at 3 Years.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Social media has made inroads in medical education. We report the creation and 3-year (2018-2021) longitudinal assessment of the American Society of Head and Neck Radiology Case of the Week (#ASHNRCOTW), assessing viewership, engagement, and impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on this Twitter-based education initiative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Unknown cases were tweeted from the American Society of Head and Neck Radiology account weekly. Tweet impressions (number of times seen), engagements (number of interactions), and new followers were tabulated. A social media marketing platform identified worldwide distribution of Twitter followers. Summary and t test statistics were performed. RESULTS: #ASHNRCOTW was highly visible with 2,082,280 impressions and 203,137 engagements. There were significantly greater mean case impressions (9917 versus 6346), mean case engagements (1305 versus 474), case engagement rates (13.06% versus 7.76%), mean answer impressions (8760 versus 5556), mean answer engagements (908 versus 436), answer engagement rates (10.38% versus 7.87%), mean total (case + answer) impressions (18,677 versus 11,912), mean total engagements (2214 versus 910), and total engagement rates (11.79% versus 7.69%) for cases published after the pandemic started (all P values < .001). There was a significant increase in monthly new followers after starting #ASHNRCOTW (mean, 134 versus 6; P < .001) and significantly increased monthly new followers after the pandemic started compared with prepandemic (mean, 178 versus 101; P = .003). The American Society of Head and Neck Radiology has 7564 Twitter followers throughout 130 countries (66% outside the United States). CONCLUSIONS: Social media affords substantial visibility, engagement, and global outreach for radiology education. #ASHNRCOTW viewership and engagement increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Timeline for site onboarding for an nih funded clinical trial in pediatric gastroenterology & nutrition: Ikaneat

Prospective multicenter center studies are needed to develop inter-institutional clinical pathways and improve health care practices. Multicenter studies are encouraged by the National Institutes of Health and desired by investigators. However, investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multi-site trials face many challenges1, one of which is the timeline involved in contracting, regulatory and human subjects' requirements. These steps must be finalized prior to each site's activation to engage in any study-related activities. Research indicates these timelines can be especially challenging for pediatric trials, and trials involving medically complex patients.2,3 Given the typical investigator-initiated funding cycle of five years or less, understanding the timeline necessary to achieve multi-site activation is key to the conduct of multi-site trials, especially trials that are complex. Therefore, the purpose of the current analysis is to present the timeline for site activation across nine sites in the United States participating in the iKanEat trial (NCT03815019;NIH R01 HD093933) from October 2018 thru present. iKanEat is a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted across 10 sites in the United States focused on the use of megesterol as part of a pediatric tube weaning program. Data were collected from the regulatory system at the primary site regarding the variables of: expressing interest, IRB approval, contract approval, site activation, and first subject recruited. Data indicate that time from expressing interest in the study to full IRB approval averaged 230 days (range = 70-396) and time to full contract approval averaged 190 days (range = 88-190). The time for clearing all administrative hurdles and moving to full site activation for subject recruitment averaged 288 days (range = 253-350) and the time from site activation to consenting a first patient to the study averaged 463 days (range = 314-669). Reasons for delays collected from each site included coordination with the investigational pharmacy, site accounting set up, and scheduling site trainings with the investigative team at the primary site. It is also likely that the outbreak of SARS COV-2, and subsequent pauses in site activities, impacted these timelines, especially from March 2020-March 2021. These longer than anticipated timelines have put subject recruitment goals at risk and also increased cost for the current study. These findings indicate that at least one year should be built into study timelines prior to subject recruitment. This information should be helpful to other investigators planning multi-site investigator-initiated pediatric trials. Future research should examine specific methods for decreasing these timelines, with an emphasis on those trials that involve medically complex children.

The Decrease in Hospitalizations For Heart Failure During the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Community and Academic Hospital Comparison Study

Introduction: During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations has been observed to decrease. The patient behavior, clinician behavior and pathophysiological contributors are currently unclear. We sought to determine if the pattern of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations was the same between 1 Academic Hospital with Advanced HF and Transplant services and 2 Community Hospitals, within a single health system in Massachusetts (MA). Methods: The 3 hospitals, Academic/Advanced HF Hospital A, Community Hospital B and Community Hospital C, are all located within 30-mile radius and share many clinical protocols, although HF hospitalizations at Academic/Advanced HF Hospital A include advanced HF therapy referrals and patients listed for heart transplantation. We retrospectively reviewed the weekly adult hospitalizations for HF, defined as patients ≥18 years discharged with a principal diagnosis of HF per ICD-10 coding (I110, I130, I132, I50 subsets) across the 3 hospitals, between January 1 and April 26 in 2019 and 2020. The weekly hospitalization volumes for 2019 and 2020 were displayed as a bar graph, alongside the total MA COVID-19 diagnosis and key dates in the pandemic response, for each hospital. Results: The volume of weekly hospitalizations for HF in March and April 2020 were lower at all 3 hospitals, as compared to 2019 (Figure 1). At Academic/Advanced HF Hospital A, the reduction in weekly HF hospitalizations began in mid-February, prior to the MA ‘state of emergency’ declaration effective March 11 and the ‘stay at home’ order effective March 24, 2020. Conversely, at Community Hospitals B and C the reduction in hospitalizations for HF (compared to 2019) occurred closer to the ‘stay at home’ order. The date on which each hospital formally ramped down non-urgent outpatient visits and procedures occurred first for Academic/Advanced HF Hospital A, but HF hospitalization volume reduction still appeared to precede this announcement. Conclusion: The decrease in hospitalizations for HF during the COVID-19 pandemic began in an Academic/Advanced HF Hospital before the MA ‘state of emergency’ and ‘stay at home’ orders, but around the time of the ‘state of emergency’ order in 2 affiliated Community Hospitals. This observation suggests that the factors driving HF volume during a pandemic may differ across patient populations and hospitals, even within the same region.