Cross-Sectional Assessment of Surgical Consult Volume to Determine Optimal Residency Staffing During Covid-19 Lockdown.

INTRODUCTION: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been protocols initiated to reduce its transmission. Despite these measures, critical hospital staff are still at risk of infection with subsequent loss of the workforce. The purpose of this study was to determine the difference in surgical consult volume during a COVID-19 pandemic to extrapolate staffing requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional study of surgical consult volume during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were obtained from routine administrative records which track daily volume of all surgical consults, including trauma center activations, performed by the general surgery residency. We compared the mean number of consults across periods defined by salient lockdown and reopening events in the community using one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant decrease in the mean number of surgical consults during the state-mandated lockdown/stay-at-home orders (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the mean number of surgical consults when only comparing prelockdown and postlockdown (lockdown period excluded). CONCLUSIONS: No change in expected consult volume should be assumed unless there is a complete lockdown. During a complete population lockdown/stay-at-home orders, decreased staffing can be scheduled to allow considerations of decreasing community or in-hospital spread of communicable disease. Once reopening happens, even if only partly, full staffing may be needed to accommodate a return to normal consult volume.

Medication Use Among Patients With COVID-19 in a Large, National Dataset: Cerner Real-World Data™.

PURPOSE: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required clinicians to use knowledge of therapeutic mechanisms of established drugs to piece together treatment regimens. The purpose of this study is to examine the trends in medication use among patients with COVID-19 across the United States using a national dataset. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of the COVID-19 cohort in the Cerner Real-World Data warehouse, which includes deidentified patient information for encounters associated with COVID-19 from December 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020. The primary variables of interest were medications given to patients during their inpatient COVID-19 treatment. We also identified demographic characteristics, calculated the proportion of patients with each medication, and stratified data by demographic variables. FINDINGS: Our sample included 51,169 inpatients from every region of the United States. Males and females were equally represented, and most patients were white and non-Hispanic. The largest proportion of patients were older than 45 years. Corticosteroids were used the most among all patients (56.5%), followed by hydroxychloroquine (17.4%), tocilizumab (3.1%), and lopinavir/ritonavir (1.1%). We found substantial variation in medication use by region, race, ethnicity, sex, age, and insurance status. IMPLICATIONS: Variations in medication use are likely attributable to multiple factors, including the timing of the pandemic by region in the United States and processes by which medications are introduced and disseminated. This study is the first of its kind to assess trends in medication use in a national dataset and is the first large, descriptive study of pharmacotherapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. It provides an important glimpse into prescribing patterns during a pandemic.

Incidence of Secondary Bacterial Infections Following Utilization of Tocilizumab for the Treatment of COVID-19 - A Matched Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Immunosuppressive agents are theorized to target the cytokine storm syndrome in COVID-19. However, the downstream effects regarding susceptibilities to secondary infection risk remains unknown. This study seeks to determine risk differences for secondary infections among COVID-19 patients who did and did not receive tocilizumab. METHODS: We conducted a matched retrospective cohort study from two large, acute care hospitals in Western Connecticut from March 1, to May 31, 2020. We collected variables using manual medical record abstraction. The primary exposure variable was any dose of tocilizumab. The primary outcome was any healthcare-associated bacterial or fungal infection as defined by the National Healthcare Safety Network. We performed a Kaplan-Meier analysis to assess the crude difference in cumulative probability of healthcare-associated infection (HAI) across exposure groups. We also performed a multivariable Cox regression analysis to determine the hazard ratio for HAI by exposure group while controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated no difference in the cumulative probability of HAI across groups. The adjusted hazard of HAI for patients given tocilizumab was 0.85 times that of patients not given tocilizumab (95% confidence interval = 0.29, 2.52, P = 0.780) after controlling for relevant confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab did not increase the incidence of secondary infection among COVID-19 patients. Larger, randomized trials should evaluate infection as a secondary outcome to validate this finding.

Emergency department utilization for mental health conditions before and after the COVID-19 outbreak.

INTRODUCTION: The outbreak of COVID-19 disrupted lives across the United States. Evidence shows that such a climate is deleterious to mental health and may increase demand for mental health services in emergency departments. The purpose of this study was to determine the difference in emergency department utilization for mental health diagnoses before and after the COVID-19 surge. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study between January-August 2019 and January-August 2020 with emergency department encounter as the sampling unit. The primary outcome was the proportion of all emergency department encounters attributed to mental health. We performed chi-square analyses to evaluate the differences between 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: We found that overall emergency department volume declined between 2019 and 2020, while the proportion attributable to mental health conditions increased (p < 0.01). Substance abuse, anxiety, and mood disorders accounted for nearly 90% of mental health diagnoses during both periods. When stratified by sex, substance abuse was the leading mental health diagnosis for males and anxiety and substance abuse disorders combined accounted for the largest proportion for females. DISCUSSION: The emergency department is an important community resource for the identification and triage of mental health emergencies. This role is even more important during disasters and extended crises, making it imperative that emergency departments employ experienced mental health staff. This study provides a comparison of emergency department utilization for mental health diagnoses before the pandemic and during the spring 2020 surge and may serve as a useful guide for hospitals, health systems and communities in future planning.

Clinical Outcomes With the Use of Prophylactic Versus Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of anticoagulation on inhospital mortality among coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients with the a priori hypothesis that there would be a lower risk of inhospital mortality with use of preemptive therapeutic over prophylactic dose enoxaparin or heparin. DESIGN SETTING: Retrospective cohort study from April 1, 2020, to April 25, 2020. The date of final follow-up was June 12, 2020 Two large, acute-care hospitals in Western Connecticut. PATIENTS: Five hundred and one inpatients were identified after discharge as 18 years or older and positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The final sample size included 374 patients after applying exclusion criteria. Demographic variables were collected via hospital billing inquiries, whereas the clinical variables were abstracted from patients' medical records. EXPOSURE: Preemptive enoxaparin or heparin at a therapeutic or prophylactic dose. MAIN RESULTS: When comparing treatments through multivariable analysis, risk of inhospital mortality was 2.3 times greater in patients receiving preemptive therapeutic anticoagulation (95% CI = 1.0-4.9; p = 0.04). Additionally, the average treatment effects were higher (ß = 0.11, p = 0.01) in the therapeutic group. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in inhospital mortality was observed among patients on preemptive therapeutic anticoagulation. Thus, in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 and its complications, we recommend further research and cautious use of preemptive therapeutic over prophylactic anticoagulation.