COVID-19-Related Publications by Hospitalists in the United States.

Objective To determine the degree to which hospitalists published academic manuscripts related to COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic. Patients and methods The study was a cross-sectional analysis of the author's specialty, defined by byline or professional online biography, from articles related to COVID-19 published between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. It included the top four internal medicine journals by impact factor: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Participants were all United States (US)-based physician authors contributing to COVID-19 publications. Our primary outcome was the percentage of US-based physician authors of COVID-19 articles who were hospitalists. Subgroup analyses characterized author specialty by authorship position (first, middle, last) and article type (research vs. non-research). Results Between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021, the top four US-based medical journals published 870 articles related to COVID-19 of which 712 articles with 1940 US-based physician authors were included. Hospitalists accounted for 4.2% (82) of authorship positions including 4.7% (49/1038) of authorship positions in research articles and 3.7% (33/902) of authorship positions in non-research articles. First, middle, and last authorship positions were held by hospitalists at 3.7% (18/485), 4.4% (45/1034), and 4.5% (19/421) of the time, respectively. Conclusions Despite caring for a large number of patients with COVID-19, hospitalists were rarely involved in disseminating COVID-19 knowledge. Limited authorship by hospitalists could constrain the dissemination of inpatient medicine knowledge, impact patient outcomes, and affect the academic promotion of early-career hospitalists.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

Gender differences in COVID-19-related manuscript authorship by hospitalists during the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine (HM) has a well-described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages. OBJECTIVE: Examine how COVID-19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US-based physician first and last authors of COVID-19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM-specific journals. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM-specific journals. RESULTS: During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US-based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US-based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women. CONCLUSIONS: Across COVID-19-related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high-impact general medical journals. HM-specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

Improving Healthcare Value: COVID-19 Emergency Regulatory Relief and Implications for Post-Acute Skilled Nursing Facility Care.

Rarely, if ever, does a national healthcare system experience such rapid and marked change as that seen with the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the president of the United States declared a national health emergency, enabling the Department of Health & Human Services authority to grant temporary regulatory waivers to facilitate efficient care delivery in a variety of healthcare settings. The statutory requirement that Medicare beneficiaries stay three consecutive inpatient midnights to qualify for post-acute skilled nursing facility coverage is one such waiver. This so-called Three Midnight Rule, dating back to the 1960s as part of the Social Security Act, is being scrutinized more than half a century later given the rise in observation hospital stays. Despite the tragic emergency circumstances prompting waivers, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Congress now have a unique opportunity to evaluate potential improvements revealed by COVID-19 regulatory relief and should consider permanent reform of the Three Midnight Rule.