The Impacts and Vulnerabilities for People Living with Spinal Cord Injury and Their Service Systems of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Queensland, Australia

As part of a larger study examining the perceived impacts of health system stress in Queensland, Australia, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, this study explored the experiences and perspectives of a sample of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) and critical stakeholders to identify secondary complications, access concerns, and potential solutions in the context of the pandemic. This study utilised a multimethods qualitative design. Thirty-four people with SCI completed an online survey between August and November 2021, recruited from an online Spinal Life Australia Peer Support Group. Sixteen SCI expert stakeholders, recruited from the Queensland Spinal Cord Injuries Services, consumer support organisations, and funding agencies, participated in one of two expert stakeholder forums in September 2021, focusing on impacts of the pandemic on the services they provided. Survey and forum results were analysed thematically. Results highlighted service disruption wherein people with SCI faced difficulty accessing health and community services (including rehabilitation) and personal supports. Reduced access led to secondary complications in physical health, psychosocial, and occupational domains. Solutions for safeguarding access to care, including action-ready back-up plans, effective technology and training, collaboration of service networks, and forward planning for system disruption, consumables access, staff support, and advocacy are required to best support vulnerable populations and the supporting staff in times of crisis. In conclusion, COVID-19 disrupted access to specialist SCI and mainstream health, rehabilitation, and social care services, resulting in functional decline and physical and psychosocial complications. While people with SCI and their service providers attempted to innovate and solve problems to overcome service access barriers, this is not possible in all situations. Improved planning and preparation for future system disruptions mitigates risks and better protects vulnerable populations and service providers in times of severe system stress.

Hospital-level care at home for patients with acute respiratory disease: A descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Home hospital (HH) is hospital-level substitutive care delivered at home for acutely ill patients who would traditionally be cared for in the hospital. Despite HH programs operating successfully for years, and scientific evidence of similar or better outcomes compared to bricks and mortar care, HH outcomes in the US for respiratory disease have not been evaluated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do outcomes differ between patients admitted to HH with acute respiratory illness vs other acute general medical conditions? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data of patients admitted to HH (2017-21). We compared patients requiring admission with respiratory disease (asthma exacerbation (26%), acute exacerbation for COPD [AECOPD] (33%), and non-COVID-19 pneumonia [PNA] (41%)) to all other HH patients. During HH, patients received 2 nurse and 1 physician visit daily, intravenous medications, advanced respiratory therapies, and continuous heart and respiratory rate monitoring. MAIN OUTCOMES: acute and post-acute utilization and safety. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,031 patients; 24% were admitted for respiratory disease. Patients with and without respiratory disease were similar: mean age 68 (SD, 17), 62% female, and 48% White. Respiratory patients were more often active smokers (21% vs 9%; p<0.001). FEV1/FVC ≤70 in 80% of cases; 28% had severe or very severe obstructive pattern (n=118). During HH, respiratory patients had less utilization: length of stay (mean days, 3.4 vs 4.6), laboratory orders (median, 0 vs 2), intravenous medication (43% vs 73%) and specialist consultation (2% vs 7%) (p all <0.001). 96% of patients completed the full admission at home with no mortality in the respiratory group. Within 30-days of discharge, both groups had similar readmission, ED presentation and mortality rates. INTERPRETATION: HH is as safe and effective for patients with acute respiratory disease as for those with other acute general medical conditions. If scaled, it can generate significant high-value capacity for health systems and communities, with opportunities to advance the complexity of care delivered.

Non-Sterile to Sterile Compounding: An Unconventional Response During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The drug supply chain has suffered many interruptions over the past decade. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated an already fragile infrastructure for supplying critical medications to hospitals and health-systems. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight to the history, thought-processes, and response to critical medication shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on hydromorphone infusions and the action steps taken to engage in non-sterile to sterile (NSTS) compounding. Over a period of 6 weeks, we compounded 1,613 NSTS hydromorphone infusion bags. All lots were cleared for sterility, particulate, potency, and endotoxin testing by an outside FDA registered laboratory. We did not have any safety reports filed specific to the NSTS compounded hydromorphone infusion bags. Over a period of 15 weeks, 715 infusions were consumed. The drug supply chain suffers frequent interruptions and critical shortages, particularly in times of a natural disaster or a global pandemic. Non-sterile to sterile compounding is often associated with risks of inaccuracies, impurities, and contamination. There are instances in which non-sterile to sterile compounding is appropriate and should be considered in times of drug shortages to support the care of hospitalized patients.

Remote vs In-home Physician Visits for Hospital-Level Care at Home: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Home hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown. Objective: To compare remote and in-home physician care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020. Interventions: All patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates. Results: A total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.

Use of Hospital Capacity Command Centers to Improve Patient Flow and Safety: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Delayed emergency department (ED) and hospital patient throughput is recognized as a critical threat to patient safety. Increasingly, hospitals are investing significantly in deploying command centers, long used in airlines and the military, to proactively manage hospital-wide patient flow. This scoping review characterizes the evidence related to hospital capacity command centers (CCCs) and synthesizes current data regarding their implementation. METHODS: As no consensus definition exists for CCCs, we characterized them as units (i) involving interdisciplinary, permanently colocated teams, (ii) using real-time data, and (iii) managing 2 or more patient flow functions (e.g., bed management, transfers, discharge planning, etc.), to distinguish CCCs from transfer centers. We undertook a scoping review of the medical and gray literature published through April 2019 related to CCCs meeting these criteria. RESULTS: We identified 8 eligible articles (including 4 peer-reviewed studies) describing 7 CCCs of varying designs. The most common CCC outcome measures related to transfer volume (n = 5) and ED boarding (n = 4). Several CCCs also monitored patient-level clinical parameters. Although all articles reported performance improvements, heterogeneity in CCC design and evidence quality currently restricts generalizability of findings. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous anecdotal accounts suggest that CCCs are being widely deployed in an effort to improve hospital patient flow and safety, yet peer-reviewed evidence regarding their design and effectiveness is in its earliest stages. The costs, objectives, and growing deployment of CCCs merit an investment in rigorous research to better measure their processes and outcomes. We propose a standard definition, conceptual framework, research priorities, and reporting standards to guide future investigation of CCCs.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening system utilizing daily symptom attestation helps identify hospital employees who should be tested to protect patients and coworkers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a daily attestation system used by employees of a multi-institutional academic medical center, which comprised of symptom-screening, self-referrals to the Occupational Health Services team, and/or a severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all employee attestations and SARS-CoV-2 tests performed between March and June 2020. SETTING: A large multi-institutional academic medical center, including both inpatient and ambulatory settings. PARTICIPANTS: All employees who worked at the study site. METHODS: Data were combined from the attestation system (COVIDPass), the employee database, and the electronic health records and were analyzed using descriptive statistics including χ2, Wilcoxon, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. We investigated whether an association existed between symptomatic attestations by the employees and the employee testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: After data linkage and cleaning, there were 2,117,298 attestations submitted by 65,422 employees between March and June 2020. Most attestations were asymptomatic (99.9%). The most commonly reported symptoms were sore throat (n = 910), runny nose (n = 637), and cough (n = 570). Among the 2,026 employees who ever attested that they were symptomatic, 905 employees were tested within 14 days of a symptomatic attestation, and 114 (13%) of these tests were positive. The most common symptoms associated with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were anosmia (23% vs 4%) and fever (46% vs 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Daily symptom attestations among healthcare workers identified a handful of employees with COVID-19. Although the number of positive tests was low, attestations may help keep unwell employees off campus to prevent transmissions.

A SARS-CoV-2 Cluster in an Acute Care Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about clusters of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in acute care hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To describe the detection, mitigation, and analysis of a large cluster of SARS-CoV-2 infections in an acute care hospital with mature infection control policies. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and staff with cluster-related SARS-CoV-2 infections. INTERVENTION: Close contacts of infected patients and staff were identified and tested every 3 days, patients on affected units were preemptively isolated and repeatedly tested, affected units were cleaned, room ventilation was measured, and specimens were sent for whole-genome sequencing. A case-control study was done to compare clinical interactions, personal protective equipment use, and breakroom and workroom practices in SARS-CoV-2-positive versus negative staff. MEASUREMENTS: Description of the cluster, mitigation activities, and risk factor analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen patients and 38 staff members were included in the cluster per whole-genome sequencing and epidemiologic associations. The index case was a symptomatic patient in whom isolation was discontinued after 2 negative results on nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction testing. The patient subsequently infected multiple roommates and staff, who then infected others. Seven of 52 (13%) secondary infections were detected only on second or subsequent tests. Eight of 9 (89%) patients who shared rooms with potentially contagious patients became infected. Potential contributing factors included high viral loads, nebulization, and positive pressure in the index patient's room. Risk factors for transmission to staff included presence during nebulization, caring for patients with dyspnea or cough, lack of eye protection, at least 15 minutes of exposure to case patients, and interactions with SARS-CoV-2-positive staff in clinical areas. Whole-genome sequencing confirmed that 2 staff members were infected despite wearing surgical masks and eye protection. LIMITATION: Findings may not be generalizable. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 clusters can occur in hospitals despite robust infection control policies. Insights from this cluster may inform additional measures to protect patients and staff. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Incidence of Nosocomial COVID-19 in Patients Hospitalized at a Large US Academic Medical Center.

Importance: Some patients are avoiding essential care for fear of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hospitals. There are few data, however, on the risk of acquiring COVID-19 in US hospitals. Objective: To assess the incidence of COVID-19 among patients hospitalized at a large US academic medical center in the 12 weeks after the first inpatient case was identified. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included all patients admitted to Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) between March 7 and May 30, 2020. Follow-up occurred through June 17, 2020. Medical records for all patients who first tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on hospital day 3 or later or within 14 days of discharge were reviewed. Exposures: A comprehensive infection control program was implemented that included dedicated COVID-19 units with airborne infection isolation rooms, personal protective equipment in accordance with US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, personal protective equipment donning and doffing monitors, universal masking, restriction of visitors, and liberal RT-PCR testing of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether infection was community or hospital acquired based on timing of tests, clinical course, and exposures. Results: Over the 12-week period, 9149 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.1 [26.4] years; median [IQR] age, 51 years [30-67 years]; 5243 female [57.3%]) were admitted to the hospital, for whom 7394 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were performed; 697 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, translating into 8656 days of COVID-19-related care. Twelve of the 697 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (1.7%) first tested positive on hospital day 3 or later (median, 4 days; range, 3-15 days). Of these, only 1 case was deemed to be hospital acquired, most likely from a presymptomatic spouse who was visiting daily and diagnosed with COVID-19 before visitor restrictions and masking were implemented. Among 8370 patients with non-COVID-19-related hospitalizations discharged through June 17, 11 (0.1%) tested positive within 14 days (median time to diagnosis, 6 days; range, 1-14 days). Only 1 case was deemed likely to be hospital acquired, albeit with no known exposures. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients in a large academic medical center with rigorous infection control measures, nosocomial COVID-19 was rare during the height of the pandemic in the region. These findings may inform practices in other institutions and provide reassurance to patients concerned about contracting COVID-19 in hospitals.