Delayed hospital admission for traumatic hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Concerns of contracting the highly contagious disease COVID-19 have led to a reluctance in seeking medical attention, which may contribute to delayed hospital arrival among traumatic patients. The study objective was to describe differences in time from injury to arrival for patients with traumatic hip fractures admitted during the pandemic to pre-pandemic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study at six level I trauma centers included patients with traumatic hip fractures. Patients with a non-fall mechanism and those who were transferred in were excluded. Patients admitted 16 March 2019-30 June 2019 were in the "pre-pandemic" group, patients were admitted 16 March 2020-30 June 2020 were in the "pandemic" group. The primary outcome was time from injury to arrival. Secondary outcomes were time from arrival to surgical intervention, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and mortality. RESULTS: There were 703 patients, 352 (50.1%) pre-pandemic and 351 (49.9%) during the pandemic. Overall, 66.5% were female and the median age was 82 years old. Patients were similar in age, race, gender, and injury severity score. The median time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically shorter for pre-pandemic patients when compared to pandemic patients, 79.5 (56, 194.5) min vs. 91 (59, 420), p = 0.04. The time from arrival to surgical intervention (p = 0.64) was statistically similar between groups. For both groups, the median HLOS was 5 days, p = 0.45. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher during the pandemic, 1.1% vs 3.4%, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: While time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically longer during the pandemic, the difference may not be clinically important. Time from arrival to surgical intervention remained similar, despite changes made to prevent COVID-19 transmission.

Implementing the SNIS recommendations for neurointerventional emergent care in the setting of COVID-19: impact on stroke metrics and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent Society of Neurointerventional Surgery (SNIS) recommendations affected hospital stroke metrics. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared stroke patients admitted to a comprehensive stroke center during the COVID-19 pandemic April 1 2020 to June 30 2020 (COVID-19) to patients admitted April 1 2019 to June 30 2019. We examined stroke admission volume and acute stroke treatment use. RESULTS: There were 637 stroke admissions, 52% in 2019 and 48% during COVID-19, with similar median admissions per day (4 vs 3, P=0.21). The proportion of admissions by stroke type was comparable (ischemic, P=0.69; hemorrhagic, P=0.39; transient ischemic stroke, P=0.10). Acute stroke treatment was similar in 2019 to COVID-19: tPA prior to arrival (18% vs, 18%, P=0.89), tPA treatment on arrival (6% vs 7%, P=0.85), and endovascular therapy (endovascular therapy (ET), 22% vs 25%, P=0.54). The door to needle time was also similar, P=0.12, however, the median time from arrival to groin puncture was significantly longer during COVID-19 (38 vs 43 min, P=0.002). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving ET were intubated during COVID-19 due to SNIS guideline implementation (45% vs 96%, P<0.0001). There were no differences by study period in discharge mRS, P=0.84 or TICI score, P=0.26. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect stroke admission volume or acute stroke treatment utilization. Outcomes were not affected by implementing SNIS guidelines. Although there was a statistical increase in time to groin puncture for ET, it was not clinically meaningful. These results suggest hospitals managing patients efficiently can implement practices in response to COVID-19 without impacting outcomes.

Examining emergency medical services' prehospital transport times for trauma patients during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Longer prehospital times were associated with increased odds for survival in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic affected emergency medical services (EMS) prehospital times for trauma patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared trauma patients transported via EMS to six US level I trauma centers admitted 1/1/19-12/31/19 (2019) and 3/16/20-6/30/20 (COVID-19). Outcomes included: total EMS pre-hospital time (dispatch to hospital arrival), injury to dispatch time, response time (dispatch to scene arrival), on-scene time (scene arrival to scene departure), and transportation time (scene departure to hospital arrival). Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used, alpha = 0.05. All times are presented as median (IQR) minutes. RESULTS: There were 9400 trauma patients transported by EMS: 79% in 2019 and 21% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients were similar in demographics and transportation mode. Emergency room deaths were also similar between 2019 and COVID-19 [0.6% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.13].There were no differences between 2019 and during COVID-19 for total EMS prehospital time [44 (33, 63) vs. 43 (33, 62), p = 0.12], time from injury to dispatch [16 (6, 55) vs. 16 (7, 77), p = 0.41], response time [7 (5, 12) for both groups, p = 0.27], or on-scene time [16 (12-22) vs. 17 (12,22), p = 0.31]. Compared to 2019, transportation time was significantly shorter during COVID-19 [18 (13, 28) vs. 17 (12, 26), p = 0.01]. CONCLUSION: The median transportation time for trauma patients was marginally significantly shorter during COVID-19; otherwise, EMS prehospital times were not significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Processes for Trauma Care at Six Level I Trauma Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: As the COVID-19 pandemic spread, patient care guidelines were published and elective surgeries postponed. However, trauma admissions are not scheduled and cannot be postponed. There is a paucity of information available on continuing trauma care during the pandemic. The study purpose was to describe multicenter trauma care process changes made during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This descriptive survey summarized the response to the COVID-19 pandemic at six Level I trauma centers. The survey was completed in 05/2020. Questions were asked about personal protective equipment, ventilators, intensive care unit (ICU) beds, and negative pressure rooms. Data were summarized as proportions. RESULTS: The survey took an average of 5 days. Sixty-seven percent reused N-95 respirators; 50% sanitized them with 25% using ultraviolet light. One hospital (17%) had regional resources impacted. Thirty-three percent created ventilator allocation protocols. Most hospitals (83%) designated more beds to the ICU; 50% of hospitals designated an ICU for COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients were isolated in negative pressure rooms at all hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Level I trauma centers created processes to provide optimal trauma patient care and still protect providers. Other centers can use the processes described to continue care of trauma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.