Observational study of organisational responses of 17 US hospitals over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has required significant modifications of hospital care. The objective of this study was to examine the operational approaches taken by US hospitals over time in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective observational study of 17 geographically diverse US hospitals from February 2020 to February 2021. OUTCOMES AND ANALYSIS: We identified 42 potential pandemic-related strategies and obtained week-to-week data about their use. We calculated descriptive statistics for use of each strategy and plotted percent uptake and weeks used. We assessed the relationship between strategy use and hospital type, geographic region and phase of the pandemic using generalised estimating equations (GEEs), adjusting for weekly county case counts. RESULTS: We found heterogeneity in strategy uptake over time, some of which was associated with geographic region and phase of pandemic. We identified a body of strategies that were both commonly used and sustained over time, for example, limiting staff in COVID-19 rooms and increasing telehealth capacity, as well as those that were rarely used and/or not sustained, for example, increasing hospital bed capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in resource intensity, uptake and duration of use. Such information may be valuable to health systems during the ongoing pandemic and future ones.

Inclusion of older adults and reporting of consent processes in randomized controlled trials in the emergency department: A scoping review.

Objective: Conducting research in the emergency department (ED) is often complicated by patients' acute and chronic illnesses, which can adversely affect cognition and subsequently capacity to consent for research, especially in older adults. Validated screening tools to assess capacity to consent for research exist, but neither the frequency of use nor which ones are used for ED research are known. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using standard review techniques. Inclusion criteria included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from publication years 2014-2019 that (2) enrolled participants only in the ED, (3) included patients aged 65+ years, and (4) were fully published in English. Articles were sourced from Embase and screened using Covidence. Results: From 3130 search results, 269 studies passed title/abstract and full text screening. Average of the mean or median ages was 55.7 years (SD 14.2). The mean number of study participants was 311.9 [range 8-10,807 participants]. A few (n = 13, 4.8%) waived or had exception from informed consent. Of the 256 studies requiring consent, a fourth (26.5%, n = 68) specifically excluded patients due to impaired capacity to consent. Only 11 (4.3%) documented a formal capacity screening tool and only 13 (5.1%) reported consent by legally authorized representative (LAR). Conclusions: Most RCTs enrolling older adults in EDs did not report assessment of capacity to consent or use of LARs. This snapshot of informed consent procedures is potentially concerning and suggests that either research consent processes for older patients and/or reporting of consent processes require improvement.

Age-related differences in symptoms in older emergency department patients with COVID-19: Prevalence and outcomes in a multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: Older adults represent a disproportionate share of severe COVID-19 presentations and fatalities, but we have limited understanding of the differences in presentation by age and the association between less typical emergency department (ED) presentations and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the RECOVER Network registry, a research collaboration of 86 EDs in 27 U.S. states. We focused on encounters with a positive nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2, and described their demographics, clinical presentation, and outcomes. Sequential multivariable logistic regressions examined the strength of association between age cohort and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 4536 encounters, median patient age was 55 years, 49% were women, and 34% were non-Hispanic Black persons. Cough was the most common presenting complaint across age groups (18-64, 65-74, and 75+): 71%, 67%, and 59%, respectively (p < 0.001). Neurological symptoms, particularly altered mental status, were more common in older adults (2%, 11%, 26%; p < 0.001). Patients 75+ had the greatest odds of ED index visit admission of all age groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.66; 95% CI 5.23-8.56), 30-day hospitalization (aOR 7.44; 95% CI 5.63-9.99), and severe COVID-19 (aOR 4.26; 95% CI 3.45-5.27). Compared to individuals with alternate presentations and adjusting for age, patients with typical symptoms (fever, cough and/or shortness of breath) had similar odds of ED index visit admission (aOR 1.01; 95% CI 0.81-1.24), potentially higher odds of 30-day hospitalization (aOR 1.23; 95% CI 1.00-1.53), and greater odds of severe COVID-19 (aOR 1.46; 95% CI 1.12-1.90). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with COVID-19 are more likely to have presentations without the most common symptoms. However, alternate presentations of COVID-19 in older ED patients are not associated with greater odds of mechanical ventilation and/or death. Our data highlights the importance of a liberal COVID-19 testing strategy among older ED patients to facilitate accurate diagnoses and timely treatment and prophylaxis.

Clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 116 U.S. emergency departments 2-22-2021.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate and reliable criteria to rapidly estimate the probability of infection with the novel coronavirus-2 that causes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and associated disease (COVID-19) remain an urgent unmet need, especially in emergency care. The objective was to derive and validate a clinical prediction score for SARS-CoV-2 infection that uses simple criteria widely available at the point of care. METHODS: Data came from the registry data from the national REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care (RECOVER network) comprising 116 hospitals from 25 states in the US. Clinical variables and 30-day outcomes were abstracted from medical records of 19,850 emergency department (ED) patients tested for SARS-CoV-2. The criterion standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 required a positive molecular test from a swabbed sample or positive antibody testing within 30 days. The prediction score was derived from a 50% random sample (n = 9,925) using unadjusted analysis of 107 candidate variables as a screening step, followed by stepwise forward logistic regression on 72 variables. RESULTS: Multivariable regression yielded a 13-variable score, which was simplified to a 13-point score: +1 point each for age>50 years, measured temperature>37.5°C, oxygen saturation<95%, Black race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, household contact with known or suspected COVID-19, patient reported history of dry cough, anosmia/dysgeusia, myalgias or fever; and -1 point each for White race, no direct contact with infected person, or smoking. In the validation sample (n = 9,975), the probability from logistic regression score produced an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79-0.81), and this level of accuracy was retained across patients enrolled from the early spring to summer of 2020. In the simplified score, a score of zero produced a sensitivity of 95.6% (94.8-96.3%), specificity of 20.0% (19.0-21.0%), negative likelihood ratio of 0.22 (0.19-0.26). Increasing points on the simplified score predicted higher probability of infection (e.g., >75% probability with +5 or more points). CONCLUSION: Criteria that are available at the point of care can accurately predict the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These criteria could assist with decisions about isolation and testing at high throughput checkpoints.