Evaluating Racial/Ethnic Differences in Care Escalation Among COVID-19 Patients in a Home-Based Hospital.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected over 414 million people worldwide with 5.8 million deaths, as of February 2022. Telemedicine-based interventions to expand healthcare systems' capacity and reduce infection risk have rapidly increased during the pandemic, despite concerns regarding equitable access. Atrium Health Hospital at Home (AH-HaH) is a home-based program that provides advanced, hospital-level medical care and monitoring for patients who would otherwise be hospitalized in a traditional setting. Our retrospective cohort study of positive COVID-19 patients who were admitted to AH-HaH aims to investigate whether the rate of care escalation from AH-HaH to traditional hospitalization differed based on patients' racial/ethnic backgrounds. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between care escalation within 14 days from index AH-HaH admission and race/ethnicity. We found approximately one in five patients receiving care for COVID-19 in AH-HaH required care escalation within 14 days. Odds of care escalation were not significantly different for Hispanic or non-Hispanic Blacks compared to non-Hispanic Whites. However, secondary analyses showed that both Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients were younger and with fewer comorbidities than non-Hispanic Whites. The study highlights the need for new care models to vigilantly monitor for disparities, so that timely and tailored adaptations can be implemented for vulnerable populations.

Awake Prone Positioning Strategy for Nonintubated Hypoxic Patients with COVID-19: A Pilot Trial with Embedded Implementation Evaluation.

Rationale: Prone positioning is an appealing therapeutic strategy for nonintubated hypoxic patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19), but its effectiveness remains to be established in randomized controlled trials. Objectives: To identify contextual factors relevant to the conduct of a definitive clinical trial evaluating a prone positioning strategy for nonintubated hypoxic patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a cluster randomized pilot trial at a quaternary care teaching hospital. Five inpatient medical service teams were randomly allocated to two treatment arms: 1) usual care (UC), consisting of current, standard management of hypoxia and COVID-19; or 2) the Awake Prone Positioning Strategy (APPS) plus UC. Included patients had positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing or suspected COVID-19 pneumonia and oxygen saturation less than 93% or new oxygen requirement of 3 L per minute or greater and no contraindications to prone positioning. Oxygenation measures were collected within 48 hours of eligibility and included nadir oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (S/F) ratio and time spent with S/F ratio less than 315. Concurrently, we conducted an embedded implementation evaluation using semistructured interviews with clinician and patient participants to determine contextual factors relevant to the successful conduct of a future clinical trial. The primary outcomes were drawn from an implementation science framework including acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, effectiveness, equity, feasibility, fidelity, and penetration. Results: Forty patients were included in the cluster randomized trial. Patients in the UC group (n = 13) had a median nadir S/F ratio over the 48-hour study period of 216 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 95-303) versus 253 (95% CI, 197-267) in the APPS group (n = 27). Patients in the UC group spent 42 hours (95% CI, 13-47) of the 48-hour study period with an S/F ratio below 315 versus 20 hours (95% CI, 6-39) for patients in the APPS group. Mixed-methods analyses uncovered several barriers relevant to the conduct of a successful definitive randomized controlled trial, including low adherence to prone positioning, large differences between physician-recommended and patient-tolerated prone durations, and diffusion of prone positioning into usual care. Conclusions: A definitive trial evaluating the effect of prone positioning in nonintubated patients with COVID-19 is warranted, but several barriers must be addressed to ensure that the results of such a trial are informative and readily translated into practice.

Insights From Rapid Deployment of a "Virtual Hospital" as Standard Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics disrupt traditional health care operations by overwhelming system resource capacity but also create opportunities for care innovation. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and rapid deployment of a virtual hospital program, Atrium Health hospital at home (AH-HaH), within a large health care system. DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Atrium Health, a large integrated health care organization in the southeastern United States. PATIENTS: 1477 patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from 23 March to 7 May 2020 who received care via AH-HaH. INTERVENTION: A virtual hospital model providing proactive home monitoring and hospital-level care through a virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU) in the home setting for eligible patients with COVID-19. MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, treatments administered (intravenous fluids, antibiotics, supplemental oxygen, and respiratory medications), transfer to inpatient care, and hospital outcomes (length of stay, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, mechanical ventilation, and death) were collected from electronic health record data. RESULTS: 1477 patients received care in either the AH-HaH VOU or VACU or both settings, with a median length of stay of 11 days. Of these, 1293 (88%) patients received care in the VOU only, with 40 (3%) requiring inpatient hospitalization. Of these 40 patients, 16 (40%) spent time in the ICU, 7 (18%) required ventilator support, and 2 (5%) died during their hospital admission. In total, 184 (12%) patients were ever admitted to the VACU, during which 21 patients (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required respiratory inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted as an inpatient to a conventional hospital. Of these 24 patients, 10 (42%) required ICU admission, 1 (3%) required a ventilator, and none died during their hospital admission. LIMITATION: Generalizability is limited to patients with a working telephone and the ability to comply with the monitoring protocols. CONCLUSION: Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Atrium Health.

Modeling COVID-19 latent prevalence to assess a public health intervention at a state and regional scale

BACKGROUND: Emergence of COVID-19 caught the world off-guard and unprepared, initiating a global pandemic. In the absence of evidence, individual communities had to take timely action to reduce the rate of disease spread and avoid overburdening their healthcare systems. Although a few predictive models have been published to guide these decisions, most have not taken into account spatial differences and have included assumptions that do not match the local realities. Access to reliable information that is adapted to local context is critical for policymakers to make informed decisions during a rapidly evolving pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop an adapted susceptible-infected-removed (SIR) model to predict the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic in North Carolina (NC) and the Charlotte metropolitan region and to incorporate the effect of a public health intervention to reduce disease spread, while accounting for unique regional features and imperfect detection. METHODS: Using the software package R, three SIR models were fit to infection prevalence data from the state and the greater Charlotte region and then rigorously compared. One of these models (SIR-Int) accounted for a stay-at-home intervention and imperfect detection of COVID-19 cases. We computed longitudinal total estimates of the susceptible, infected, and removed compartments of both populations, along with other pandemic characteristics (e.g., basic reproduction number). RESULTS: Prior to March 26, disease spread was rapid at the pandemic onset with the Charlotte region doubling time of 2.56 days (95% CI: (2.11, 3.25)) and in NC 2.94 days (95% CI: (2.33, 4.00)). Subsequently, disease spread significantly slowed with doubling times increased in the Charlotte region to 4.70 days (95% CI: (3.77, 6.22)) and in NC to 4.01 days (95% CI: (3.43, 4.83)). Reflecting spatial differences, this deceleration favored the greater Charlotte region compared to NC as a whole. A comparison of the efficacy of intervention, defined as 1 - the hazard ratio of infection, gave 0.25 for NC and 0.43 for the Charlotte region. Also, early in the pandemic, the initial basic SIR model had good fit to the data;however, as the pandemic and local conditions evolved, the SIR-Int model emerged as the model with better fit. CONCLUSIONS: Using local data and continuous attention to model adaptation, our findings have enabled policymakers, public health officials and health systems to proactively plan capacity and evaluate the impact of a public health intervention. Our SIR-Int model for estimated latent prevalence was reasonably flexible, highly accurate, and demonstrated the efficacy of a stay-at-home order at both the state and regional level. Our results highlight the importance of incorporating local context into pandemic forecast modeling, as well as the need to remain vigilant and informed by the data as we enter into a critical period of the outbreak.