The Impact of Language on Hospital Outcomes for COVID-19 Patients: A Study of Non-English Speaking Hispanic Patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated health inequities, as demonstrated by the disproportionate rates of infection, hospitalization, and death in marginalized racial and ethnic communities. Although non-English speaking (NES) patients have substantially higher rates of COVID-19 positivity than other groups, research has not yet examined primary language, as determined by the use of interpreter services, and hospital outcomes for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Data were collected from 1,770 patients with COVID-19 admitted to an urban academic health medical center in the Chicago, Illinois area from March 2020 to April 2021. Patients were categorized as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, NES Hispanic, and English-speaking (ES) Hispanic using NES as a proxy for English language proficiency. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the predicted probability for each outcome (i.e., ICU admission, intubation, and in-hospital death) by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: After adjusting for possible confounders, NES Hispanic patients had the highest predicted probability of ICU admission (p-value < 0.05). Regarding intubation and in-hospital death, NES Hispanic patients had the highest probability, although statistical significance was inconclusive, compared to White, Black, and ES Hispanic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language have demonstrated disparities in health outcomes. This study provides evidence for heterogeneity within the Hispanic population based on language proficiency that may potentially further contribute to disparities in COVID-19-related health outcomes within marginalized communities.

Identification and Prevention of Extubation Failure by Using an Automated Continuous Monitoring Alert Versus Standard Care.

BACKGROUND: Postextubation monitoring helps identify patients at risk of developing respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of our standard respiratory therapist (RT) assessment tool versus an automated continuous monitoring alert to initiate postextubation RT-driven care on the re-intubation rate. METHODS: This was a single-center randomized clinical trial from March 2020 to September 2021 of adult subjects who received mechanical ventilation for > 24 h and underwent planned extubation in the ICU. The subjects were assigned to the standard RT assessment tool or an automated monitoring alert to identify the need for postextubation RT-driven care. The primary outcome was the need for re-intubation due to respiratory failure within 72 h. Secondary outcomes included re-intubation within 7 d, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, hospital mortality, ICU cost, and RT time associated with patient assessment and therapy provision. RESULTS: Of 234 randomized subjects, 32 were excluded from the primary analysis due to disruption in RT-driven care during the surge of patients with COVID-19, and 1 subject was excluded due to delay in the automated monitoring initiation. Analysis of the primary outcome included 85 subjects assigned to the standard RT assessment group and 116 assigned to the automated monitoring alert group to initiate RT-driven care. There was no significant difference between the study groups in re-intubation rate, median length of stay, mortality, or ICU costs. The RT time associated with patient assessment (P < .001) and therapy provided (P = .031) were significantly lower in the automated continuous monitoring alert group. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects who received mechanical ventilation for > 24 h, there were no significant outcome or cost differences between our standard RT assessment tool or an automated monitoring alert to initiate postextubation RT-driven care. Using an automated continuous monitoring alert to initiate RT-driven care saved RT time. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04231890).

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on recruitment for the working women walking program.

The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affected many aspects of randomized controlled trials, including recruiting and screening participants. The purpose of this paper is to (a) describe adjustments to recruitment and screening due to COVID-19, (b) compare the proportional recruitment outcomes (not completed, ineligible, and eligible) at three screening stages (telephone, health assessment, and physical activity assessment) pre- and post-COVID-19 onset, and (c) compare baseline demographic characteristics pre- and post-COVID-19 onset in the Working Women Walking program. The design is a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of recruitment and screening data from a 52-week sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART). Participants were women 18-70 years employed at a large urban medical center. Recruitment strategies shifted from in-person and electronic to electronic only post-COVID-19 onset. In-person eligibility screening for health and physical activity assessments continued post-COVID-19 onset with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention precautions. Of those who expressed interest in the study pre- and post-COVID-19 onset (n = 485 & n = 269 respectively), 40% (n = 194) met all eligibility criteria pre-COVID-19 onset, and 45.7% (n = 123) post-COVID-19 onset. Although there were differences in the proportions of participants who completed or were eligible for some of the screening stages, the final eligibility rates did not differ significantly pre-COVID-19 versus post-COVID-19 onset. Examination of differences in participant demographics between pre- and post-COVID-19 onset revealed a significant decrease in the percentage of Black women recruited into the study from pre- to post-COVID-19 onset. Studies recruiting participants into physical activity studies should explore the impact of historical factors on recruitment.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Hospital Admissions of Emergency Department COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have found that among patients testing positive for COVID-19 within a health care system, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients are more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to be hospitalized. However, previous studies have looked at odds of being admitted using all positive tests in the system and not only those seeking care in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: This study examined racial/ethnic differences in COVID-19 hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions among patients seeking care for COVID-19 in the ED. RESEARCH DESIGN: Electronic health records (n=7549) were collected from COVID-19 confirmed patients that visited an ED of an urban health care system in the Chicago area between March 2020 and February 2021. RESULTS: After adjusting for possible confounders, White patients had 2.2 times the odds of being admitted to the hospital and 1.5 times the odds of being admitted to the ICU than Black patients. There were no observed differences between White and Hispanic patients. CONCLUSIONS: White patients were more likely than Black patients to be hospitalized after presenting to the ED with COVID-19 and more likely to be admitted directly to the ICU. This finding may be due to racial/ethnic differences in severity of disease upon ED presentation, racial and ethnic differences in access to COVID-19 primary care and/or implicit bias impacting clinical decision-making.

Interhospital Transfer Outcomes for Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Requiring Mechanical Ventilation.

Studying interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in the spring 2020 surge may help inform future pandemic management. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 transferred to a tertiary referral center with increased surge capacity with patients admitted from the emergency department. DESIGN SETTING PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of single center urban academic medical center ICUs. All patients admitted and discharged with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia who received invasive ventilation between March 17, 2020, and October 14, 2020. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Demographic and clinical variables were obtained from the electronic medical record. Patients were classified as emergency department admits or interhospital transfers. Regression models tested the association between transfer status and survival, adjusting for demographics and presentation severity. RESULTS: In total, 298 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia were admitted to the ICU and received mechanical ventilation. Of these, 117 were transferred from another facility and 181 were admitted through the emergency department. Patients were primarily male (64%) and Black (38%) or Hispanic (45%). Transfer patients differed from emergency department admits in having English as a preferred language (71% vs 56%; p = 0.008) and younger age (median 57 vs 61 yr; p < 0.001). There were no differences in race/ethnicity or primary payor. Transfers were more likely to receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (12% vs 3%; p = 0.004). Overall, 50 (43%) transferred patients and 78 (43%) emergency department admits died prior to discharge. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality or days from intubation to discharge between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a single-center retrospective cohort, no significant differences in hospital mortality or length of stay between interhospital transfers and emergency department admits were found. While more study is needed, this suggests that interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 can be done safely and effectively.

Looking around the corner: COVID-19 shocks and market dynamics in US medical tourism.

Patients have historically travelled from across the world to the United States for medical care that is not accessible locally or not available at the same perceived quality. The COVID-19 pandemic has nearly frozen the cross-border buying and selling of healthcare services, referred to as medical tourism. Future medical travel to the United States may also be deterred by the combination of an initially uncoordinated public health response to the pandemic, an overall troubled atmosphere arising from widely publicized racial tensions and pandemic-related disruptions among medical services providers. American hospitals have shifted attention to domestic healthcare needs and risk mitigation to reduce and recover from financial losses. While both reforms to the US healthcare system under the Biden Presidency and expansion to the Affordable Care Act will influence inbound and outbound medical tourism for the country, new international competitors are also likely to have impacts on the medical tourism markets. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, US-based providers are forging new and innovative collaborations for delivering care to patients abroad that promise more efficient and higher quality of care which do not necessitate travel.