Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Neurosurgical Transfers: A Single Tertiary Center Study.

OBJECTIVE: Interfacility transfers represent a large proportion of neurosurgical admissions to tertiary care centers each year. In this study, the authors examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of transfers, timing of transfers, demographic profile of transfer patients, and clinical outcomes including rates of surgical intervention. METHODS: A retrospective review of neurosurgical transfer patients at a single tertiary center was performed. Patients transferred from April to November 2020 (the "COVID Era") were compared with an institutional database of transfer patients collected before the COVID-19 pandemic (the "Pre-COVID Era"). During the COVID Era, both emergent and nonemergent neurosurgical services had resumed. A comparison of demographic and clinical factors between the 2 cohorts was performed. RESULTS: A total of 674 patients were included in the study (331 Pre-COVID and 343 COVID-Era patients). Overall, there was no change in the average monthly number of transfers (P = 0.66) or in the catchment area of referral hospitals. However, COVID-Era patients were more likely to be uninsured (1% vs. 4%), had longer transfer times (COVID vs. Pre-COVID Era: 18 vs. 9 hours; P < 0.001), required higher rates of surgical intervention (63% vs. 50%, P = 0.001), had higher rates of spine pathology (17% vs. 10%), and less frequently were admitted to the intensive care unit (34% vs. 52%, P < 0.001). Overall, COVID-Era patients did not experience delays to surgical intervention (3.1 days vs. 3.6 days, P = 0.2). When analyzing the subgroup of COVID-Era patients, COVID infection status did not impact the time of transfer or rates of operation, although COVID-infected patients experienced a longer time to surgery after admission (14 vs. 2.9 days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic did not reduce the number of monthly transfers, operation rates, or catchment area for transfer patients. Transfer rates of uninsured patients increased during the COVID Era, potentially reflecting changes in access to community neurosurgery care. Shorter time to surgery seen in COVID-Era patients possibly reflects institutional policies that improved operating room efficiency to compensate for surgical backlogs. COVID status affeted time to surgery, reflecting the preoperative care that these patients require before intervention.

Neurosurgery Subspecialty Practice During a Pandemic: A Multicenter Analysis of Operative Practice in 7 U.S. Neurosurgery Departments During Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: Changes to neurosurgical practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have not been thoroughly analyzed. We report the effects of operative restrictions imposed under variable local COVID-19 infection rates and health care policies using a retrospective multicenter cohort study and highlight shifts in operative volumes and subspecialty practice. METHODS: Seven academic neurosurgery departments' neurosurgical case logs were collected; procedures in April 2020 (COVID-19 surge) and April 2019 (historical control) were analyzed overall and by 6 subspecialties. Patient acuity, surgical scheduling policies, and local surge levels were assessed. RESULTS: Operative volume during the COVID-19 surge decreased 58.5% from the previous year (602 vs. 1449, P = 0.001). COVID-19 infection rates within departments' counties correlated with decreased operative volume (r = 0.695, P = 0.04) and increased patient categorical acuity (P = 0.001). Spine procedure volume decreased by 63.9% (220 vs. 609, P = 0.002), for a significantly smaller proportion of overall practice during the COVID-19 surge (36.5%) versus the control period (42.0%) (P = 0.02). Vascular volume decreased by 39.5% (72 vs. 119, P = 0.01) but increased as a percentage of caseload (8.2% in 2019 vs. 12.0% in 2020, P = 0.04). Neuro-oncology procedure volume decreased by 45.5% (174 vs. 318, P = 0.04) but maintained a consistent proportion of all neurosurgeries (28.9% in 2020 vs. 21.9% in 2019, P = 0.09). Functional neurosurgery volume, which declined by 81.4% (41 vs. 220, P = 0.008), represented only 6.8% of cases during the pandemic versus 15.2% in 2019 (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Operative restrictions during the COVID-19 surge led to distinct shifts in neurosurgical practice, and local infective burden played a significant role in operative volume and patient acuity.

Telemedicine in Neurosurgery: Standardizing the Spinal Physical Examination Using A Modified Delphi Method.

OBJECTIVE: The use of telemedicine has dramatically increased due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many neurosurgeons are now using telemedicine technologies for preoperative evaluations and routine outpatient visits. Our goal was to standardize the telemedicine motor neurologic examination, summarize the evidence surrounding clinical use of telehealth technologies, and discuss financial and legal considerations. METHODS: We identified a 12-member panel composed of spine surgeons, fellows, and senior residents at a single institution. We created an initial telehealth strength examination protocol based on published data and developed 10 agree/disagree statements summarizing the protocol. A blinded Delphi method was utilized to build consensus for each statement, defined as > 80% agreement and no significant disagreement using a 2-way binomial test (significance threshold of p < 0.05). Any statement that did not meet consensus was edited and iteratively resubmitted to the panel until consensus was achieved. In the final round, the panel was unblinded and the protocol was finalized. RESULTS: After the first round, 4/10 statements failed to meet consensus ( < 80% agreement, and p = 0.031, p = 0.031, p = 0.003, and p = 0.031 statistical disagreement, respectively). The disagreement pertained to grading of strength of the upper (3/10 statements) and lower extremities (1/10 statement). The amended statements clarified strength grading, achieved consensus ( > 80% agreement, p > 0.05 disagreement), and were used to create the final telehealth strength examination protocol. CONCLUSION: The resulting protocol was used in our clinic to standardize the telehealth strength examination. This protocol, as well as our summary of telehealth clinical practice, should aid neurosurgical clinics in integrating telemedicine modalities into their practice.

Consensus-based perioperative protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, quaternary-care facilities continue to provide care for patients in need of urgent and emergent invasive procedures. Perioperative protocols are needed to streamline care for these patients notwithstanding capacity and resource constraints. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel was assembled at the University of California, San Francisco, with 26 leaders across 10 academic departments, including 7 department chairpersons, the chief medical officer, the chief operating officer, infection control officers, nursing leaders, and resident house staff champions. An epidemiologist, an ethicist, and a statistician were also consulted. A modified two-round, blinded Delphi method based on 18 agree/disagree statements was used to build consensus. Significant disagreement for each statement was tested using a one-sided exact binomial test against an expected outcome of 95% consensus using a significance threshold of p < 0.05. Final triage protocols were developed with unblinded group-level discussion. RESULTS: Overall, 15 of 18 statements achieved consensus in the first round of the Delphi method; the 3 statements with significant disagreement (p < 0.01) were modified and iteratively resubmitted to the expert panel to achieve consensus. Consensus-based protocols were developed using unblinded multidisciplinary panel discussions. The final algorithms 1) quantified outbreak level, 2) triaged patients based on acuity, 3) provided a checklist for urgent/emergent invasive procedures, and 4) created a novel scoring system for the allocation of personal protective equipment. In particular, the authors modified the American College of Surgeons three-tiered triage system to incorporate more urgent cases, as are often encountered in neurosurgery and spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent and emergent invasive procedures need to be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The consensus-based protocols in this study may assist healthcare providers to optimize perioperative care during the pandemic.