Emergency department returns and early follow-up visits after heart failure hospitalization: Cohort study examining the role of race.

Health disparities in heart failure (HF) show that Black patients face greater ED utilization and worse clinical outcomes. Transitional care post-HF hospitalization, such as 7-day early follow-up visits, may prevent ED returns. We examine whether early follow-up is associated with lower ED returns visits within 30 days and whether Black race is associated with receiving early follow-up after HF hospitalization. This was a retrospective cohort analysis of all Black and White adult patients at 13 hospitals in Michigan hospitalized for HF from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2020. Adjusted risk ratios (aRR) were estimated from multivariable logistic regressions. The analytic sample comprised 6,493 patients (mean age = 71 years (SD 15), 50% female, 37% Black, 9% Medicaid). Ten percent had an ED return within 30 days and almost half (43%) of patients had 7-day early follow-up. Patients with early follow-up had lower risk of ED returns (aRR 0.85 [95%CI, 0.71-0.98]). Regarding rates of early follow-up, there was no overall adjusted association with Black race, but the following variables were related to lower follow-up: Medicaid insurance (aRR 0.90 [95%CI, 0.80-1.00]), dialysis (aRR 0.86 [95%CI, 0.77-0.96]), depression (aRR 0.92 [95%CI, 0.86-0.98]), and discharged with opioids (aRR 0.94 [95%CI, 0.88-1.00]). When considering a hospital-level interaction, three of the 13 sites with the lowest percentage of Black patients had lower rates of early follow-up in Black patients (ranging from 15% to 55% reduced likelihood). Early follow-up visits were associated with a lower likelihood of ED returns for HF patients. Despite this potentially protective association, certain patient factors were associated with being less likely to receive scheduled follow-up visits. Hospitals with lower percentages of Black patients had lower rates of early follow-up for Black patients. Together, these may represent missed opportunities to intervene in high-risk groups to prevent ED returns in patients with HF.

Association Between Primary Care Practice Telehealth Use and Acute Care Visits for Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Conditions During COVID-19.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many primary care practices adopted telehealth in place of in-person care to preserve access to care for patients with acute and chronic conditions. The extent to which this change was associated with their rates of acute care visits (ie, emergency department visits and hospitalizations) for these conditions is unknown. Objective: To examine whether a primary care practice's level of telehealth use is associated with a change in their rate of acute care visits for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSC visits). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis used a difference-in-differences study design to analyze insurance claims data from 4038 Michigan primary care practices from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. Exposures: Low, medium, or high tertile of practice-level telehealth use based on the rate of telehealth visits from March 1 to August 31, 2020, compared with prepandemic visit volumes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted ACSC visit rates before (June to September 2019) and after (June to September 2020) the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, reported as an annualized average marginal effect. The study examined overall, acute, and chronic ACSC visits separately and controlled for practice size, in-person visit volume, zip code-level attributes, and patient characteristics. Results: A total of nearly 1.5 million beneficiaries (53% female; mean [SD] age, 40 [22] years) were attributed to 4038 primary care practices. Compared with 2019 visit volumes, median telehealth use was 0.4% for the low telehealth tertile, 14.7% for the medium telehealth tertile, and 39.0% for the high telehealth tertile. The number of ACSC visits decreased in all tertiles, with adjusted rates changing from 24.3 to 14.9 per 1000 patients per year (low), 23.9 to 15.3 per 1000 patients per year (medium), and 27.5 to 20.2 per 1000 patients per year (high). In difference-in-differences analysis, high telehealth use was associated with a higher ACSC visit rate (2.10 more visits per 1000 patients per year; 95% CI, 0.22-3.97) compared with low telehealth practices; practices in the middle tertile did not differ significantly from the low tertile. No difference was found in ACSC visits across tertiles when acute and chronic ACSC visits were examined separately. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study that used a difference-in-differences analysis, the association between practice-level telehealth use and ACSC visits was mixed. High telehealth use was associated with a slightly higher overall ACSC visit rate than low telehealth practices. The association of telehealth with downstream care use should be closely monitored going forward.

Risk factors and outcomes associated with community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A multihospital cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the incidence of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate associated predictors and outcomes. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to August 2020 across 38 Michigan hospitals, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfections. In-hospital and 60-day mortality, readmission, discharge to long-term care facility (LTCF), and mechanical ventilation duration were assessed for patients with versus without coinfection. RESULTS: Of 2,205 patients with COVID-19, 141 (6.4%) had a coinfection: 3.0% community onset and 3.4% hospital acquired. Of patients without coinfection, 64.9% received antibiotics. Community-onset coinfection predictors included admission from an LTCF (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.34-6.76; P < .001) and admission to intensive care (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.87-6.55; P < .001). Hospital-acquired coinfection predictors included fever (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15-5.27; P = .02) and advanced respiratory support (OR, 40.72; 95% CI, 13.49-122.93; P < .001). Patients with (vs without) community-onset coinfection had longer mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.67-6.56; P = .001) and higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06-3.40; P = .03) and 60-day mortality (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29; P = .03). Patients with (vs without) hospital-acquired coinfection had higher discharge to LTCF (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 3.30-21.76; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.37-7.33; P ≤ .001), and 60-day mortality (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.11-6.33; P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Despite community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection being uncommon, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received antibiotics. Admission from LTCF and to ICU were associated with increased risk of community-onset coinfection. Future studies should prospectively validate predictors of COVID-19 coinfection to facilitate the reduction of antibiotic use.

Piloting a statewide emergency department take-home naloxone program: Improving the quality of care for patients at risk of opioid overdose.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) patients with nonfatal opioid overdose are at high risk for subsequent fatal overdose, yet ED programs aimed at reducing harm from opioid use remain underdeveloped. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to pilot a statewide ED take-home naloxone program and improve the care of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) and risky drug use through training and interprofessional network building. METHODS: Nine hospital EDs with pharmacy, nurse, and physician champions were recruited, surveyed, and trained. Take-home naloxone rescue kits were developed, disseminated, and tracked. Two overdose prevention summits were convened prior to the COVID pandemic, and two X-waiver training courses aimed at emergency physicians and advanced practice providers were arranged, both in person and virtual. RESULTS: A total of 872 naloxone rescue kits were distributed to ED patients at risk of opioid overdose during the first phase of this project, and more than 140 providers were trained in the use of medications for OUD in acute care settings. CONCLUSIONS: A statewide ED take-home naloxone program was shown to be feasible across a range of different hospitals with varying maturity in preexisting OUD resources and capabilities. Future work will be aimed at both expanding and measuring the effectiveness of this work.

Emergency department provider in triage: assessing site-specific rationale, operational feasibility, and financial impact.

Emergency department (ED) crowding is recognized as a critical threat to patient safety, while sub-optimal ED patient flow also contributes to reduced patient satisfaction and efficiency of care. Provider in triage (PIT) programs-which typically involve, at a minimum, a physician or advanced practice provider conducting an initial screening exam and potentially initiating treatment and diagnostic testing at the time of triage-are frequently endorsed as a mechanism to reduce ED length of stay (LOS) and therefore mitigate crowding, improve patient satisfaction, and improve ED operational and financial performance. However, the peer-reviewed evidence regarding the impact of PIT programs on measures including ED LOS, wait times, and costs (as variously defined) is mixed. Mechanistically, PIT programs exert their effects by initiating diagnostic work-ups earlier and, sometimes, by equipping triage providers to directly disposition patients. However, depending on local contextual factors-including the co-existence of other front-end interventions and delays in ED throughput not addressed by PIT-we demonstrate how these features may or may not ultimately translate into reduced ED LOS in different settings. Consequently, site-specific analysis of the root causes of excessive ED LOS, along with mechanistic assessment of potential countermeasures, is essential for appropriate deployment and successful design of PIT programs at individual EDs. Additional motivations for implementing PIT programs may include their potential to enhance patient safety, patient satisfaction, and team dynamics. In this conceptual article, we address a gap in the literature by demonstrating the mechanisms underlying PIT program results and providing a framework for ED decision-makers to assess the local rationale for, operational feasibility of, and financial impact of PIT programs.

Emergency Physicians and Personal Narratives Improve the Perceived Effectiveness of COVID-19 Public Health Recommendations on Social Media: A Randomized Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Containment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires the public to change behavior under social distancing mandates. Social media are important information dissemination platforms that can augment traditional channels communicating public health recommendations. The objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 public health messaging on Twitter when delivered by emergency physicians and containing personal narratives. METHODS: On April 30, 2020, we randomly assigned 2,007 U.S. adults to an online survey using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Participants rated one of four simulated Twitter posts varied by messenger type (emergency physician vs. federal official) and content (personal narrative vs. impersonal guidance). The main outcomes were perceived message effectiveness (35-point scale), perceived attitude effectiveness (PAE; 15-point scale), likelihood of sharing Tweets (7-point scale), and writing a letter to their governor to continue COVID-19 restrictions (write letter or none). RESULTS: The physician/personal (PP) message had the strongest effect and significantly improved all main messaging outcomes except for letter writing. Unadjusted mean differences between PP and federal/impersonal (FI) were as follows: perceived messaging effectiveness (3.2 [95% CI = 2.4 to 4.0]), PAE (1.3 [95% CI = 0.8 to 1.7]), and likelihood of sharing (0.4 [95% CI = 0.15 to 0.7]). For letter writing, PP made no significant impact compared to FI (odds ratio = 1.14 [95% CI = 0.89 to 1.46]). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency physicians sharing personal narratives on Twitter are perceived to be more effective at communicating COVID-19 health recommendations compared to federal officials sharing impersonal guidance.