Exploratory Descriptive Analysis of Smart Speaker Utilization in the Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights stated that they would use discretion when enforcing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regarding remote communication technologies that promoted telehealth delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was in an effort to protect patients, clinicians, and staff. More recently, smart speakers-voice-activated, hands-free devices-are being proposed as productivity tools within hospitals. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize the novel use of smart speakers in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective observational study of Amazon Echo Show® utilization from May 2020 to October 2020 in a large academic Northeast health system ED. Voice commands and queries were classified as either patient care-related or non-patient care-related, and then further subcategorized to explore the content of given commands. RESULTS: Of 1232 commands analyzed, 200 (16.23%) were determined to be patient care-related. Of these commands, 155 (77.5%) were clinical in nature (i.e., "drop in on triage") and 23 (11.5%) were environment-enhancing commands (i.e., "play calming sounds"). Among non-patient care-related commands, 644 (62.4%) were for entertainment. Among all commands, 804 (65.3%) were during night-shift hours, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Smart speakers showed notable engagement, primarily being used for patient communication and entertainment. Future studies should examine content of patient care conversations using these devices, effects on frontline staff wellbeing, productivity, patient satisfaction, and even explore opportunities for "smart" hospital rooms.

EMS Non-Transport of Low-Risk COVID-19 Patients.

Objectives: COVID-19 infections in the community have the potential to overwhelm both prehospital and in-hospital resources. Transport of well-appearing patients, in the absence of available emergency department treatment capacity, increases strain on the hospital and EMS system. In May of 2020, the Connecticut Office of EMS issued a voluntary, EMS-initiated, non-transport protocol for selected low-risk patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. We evaluated the implementation of this non-transport protocol in a mixed urban/suburban EMS system.Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of contemporaneously recorded quality improvement documentation for uses of the Connecticut COVID-19 non-transport protocol by EMS clinicians within our EMS system during two implementations: from 12/14/2020 to 5/1/21, and again from 1/3/22 to 2/18/22, which coincided with large COVID-19 case surges in our region.Results: The vast majority of patients treated under the non-transport protocol were not reevaluated by EMS or in our emergency departments in the subsequent 24 hours. There was reasonable adherence to the protocol, with 83% of cases appropriate for the non-transport protocol. The most common reasons for protocol violations were age outside of protocol scope (pediatric patients), failure of documentation, or vital signs outside of the established protocol parameters. We did not find an increased 24-hour ED visit rate in patients who were inappropriately triaged to the protocol. Of patients who had ED visits within 24 hours, only two were admitted, none to higher levels of care.Conclusion: Within this small study, EMS clinicians in our system were able to safely and accurately apply a non-transport protocol for patients presenting with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. This is consistent with previous literature suggesting that EMS-initiated non-transport is a viable strategy to reduce the burden on health systems.

Estimated reimbursement impact of COVID-19 on emergency physicians.

BACKGROUND: The delivery and financing of health care services were altered in unprecedented ways by COVID-19 and subsequent policy responses. We estimated reimbursement losses to emergency physicians in 2020 compared to 2019 related to shifting acute care utilization during COVID-19. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of the Clinical Emergency Department Registry (CEDR) and the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). Study sample included all ED visits from a sample of 214 emergency department (ED) sites in the CEDR in 2019 and 2020 as well as all ED visits in the NEDS in 2019. We identified level of service billing code for evaluation and management (E&M) services, insurance payer, and geographic location of ED visits across sites in the CEDR and linked these to fee schedules to estimate total professional reimbursement across sites. Our primary analysis was to estimate reimbursement in 2020 compared to 2019 across the CEDR sites. In our secondary analysis, we linked sites in the CEDR to those in NEDS to estimate nationwide reimbursement. RESULTS: Total E&M reimbursement for emergency physicians in the CEDR was $1.6 billion in 2019 and $1.3 billion in 2020, reflecting a 19.7% decline year over year ($308 million loss). In our secondary analysis, we estimate nationwide losses of $6.6 billion, a -19.4% decline year over year. If emergency physicians had received maximum allowable federal relief funds via CARES Act Phases 1 to 3 (2% of 2019 revenue) this would sum to $680 million (2% of the $34 billion) or 10.3% of the estimated $6.6 billion pandemic-related losses. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses provide an estimate of the scale of economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings warrant consideration for policymaker relief and future redesign of emergency care financing. Ultimately, the COVID-19 pandemic likely expanded known cracks in the financing of health care into steep fault lines.

Pediatric mental health visits with prolonged length of stay in community emergency departments during COVID-19.

Objectives: To characterize trends in pediatric mental health visit counts, including visits for prolonged length of stay (LOS), in a sample of emergency departments (EDs) from 29 states during COVID-19. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the Clinical Emergency Data Registry from January 2020 through December 2021. We reported trends in pediatric mental health visit counts overall and for those with prolonged ED LOS. We reported incident rate ratios (IRRs) for monthly counts compared to January 2020. Among visits with LOS >24 hours, we reported on the most common diagnostic categories. Results: There were 107 EDs from 29 states with available complete data in 2020 and 2021. Pediatric mental health visit counts resulting in a LOS greater than 6, 12, and 24 hours were higher for much of 2021. At their peak, there were 604 visits with LOS >12 hours (IRR, 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.86-2.47) and 262 visits (IRR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.97-3.09) with LOS >24 hours in April 2021. Pediatric mental health visits with LOS >12 hours and >24 hours made up 20.9% and 7.3% of pediatric mental health visits overall, respectively. For visits with ED LOS >24 hours, the most common diagnostic categories were suicide or self-injury, depressive disorders, and mental health syndrome. Conclusions: In this sample of 107 EDs in 29 states, visit counts with prolonged LOS >24 hours more than doubled in some months since the arrival of COVID-19. These findings are indicative of an increasingly strained emergency and mental health system.

Choice Architecture to Assist Clinicians with Appropriate COVID-19 Test Ordering.

BACKGROUND: Despite improving supplies, SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests remain limited during surges and more so given concerns around COVID-19/influenza co-occurrence. Matching clinical guidelines to available supplies ensures resources remain available to meet clinical needs. We report a change in clinician practice after an electronic health record (EHR) order redesign to impact emergency department (ED) testing patterns. METHODS: We included all ED visits between December 1, 2021 and January 18, 2022 across a hospital system to assess the impact of EHR order changes on provider behavior 3 weeks before and after the change. The EHR order redesign included embedded symptom-based order guidance. Primary outcomes were the proportion of COVID-19 + flu/respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) testing performed on symptomatic, admitted, and discharged patients, and the proportion of COVID-19 + flu testing on symptomatic, discharged patients. RESULTS: A total of 52 215 ED visits were included. For symptomatic, discharged patients, COVID-19 + flu/RSV testing decreased from 11.4 to 5.8 tests per 100 symptomatic visits, and the rate of COVID-19 + flu testing increased from 7.4 to 19.1 before and after the intervention, respectively. The rate of COVID-19 + flu/RSV testing increased from 5.7 to 13.1 tests per 100 symptomatic visits for symptomatic patients admitted to the hospital. All changes were significant (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A simple EHR order redesign was associated with increased adherence to institutional guidelines for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza testing amidst supply chain limitations necessitating optimal allocation of scarce testing resources. With continually shifting resource availability, clinician education is not sufficient. Rather, system-based interventions embedded within exiting workflows can better align resources and serve testing needs of the community.

Association of Initial SARS-CoV-2 Test Positivity With Patient-Reported Well-being 3 Months After a Symptomatic Illness.

Importance: Long-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use. Objective: To compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form-Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis. Results: Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19-positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19-negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19-positive group vs the COVID-19-negative group only for social participation (ß = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P < .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19-positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: ß = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P < .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: ß = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, participants in both the COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.

Hospital Occupancy and Emergency Department Boarding During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This cross-sectional study uses national benchmarking data to evaluate hospital occupancy and emergency department boarding during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prehospital emergency department care activations during the initial COVID-19 pandemic surge.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in prehospital presentations of critical medical and trauma conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic using prehospital and emergency department (ED) care activations. METHODS: Observational analysis of ED care activations in a tertiary, urban ED between March 10, 2020 and September 1, 2020 was compared to the same time periods in 2018 and 2019. ED care activations for critical medical conditions were classified based on clinical indication: undifferentiated medical, trauma, or stroke. MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcomes were the number of patients presenting from the prehospital setting with specified ED activation criteria, total ED volume, ambulance arrival volume, and volume of COVID-19 hospital admissions. Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing curves were used to visually display our results. RESULTS: There were 1,461 undifferentiated medical activations, 905 stroke activations, and 1,478 trauma activations recorded, representing absolute decreases of 11.3, 28.1, and 20.3 percent, respectively, relative to the same period in 2019, coinciding with the declaration of a public health emergency in Connecticut. For all three types of presentation, post-peak spikes in activations were observed in early May, approximately two weeks after our health system in Connecticut reached its peak number of COVID-19 hospitalizations-eg, undifferentiated medical activations: increase in 280 percent, n = 140 from 2019, p < 0.0001-and declined thereafter, reaching a nadir in early June 2020. CONCLUSIONS: After the announcement of public health measures to mitigate COVID-19, ED care activations declined in a large Northeast academic ED, followed by post-peak surges in activations as COVID- 19 cases decreased.

Improving patient and clinician safety during COVID-19 through rapidly adaptive simulation and a randomised controlled trial: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 required healthcare systems to iteratively adapt for safe and up-to-date care as knowledge of the disease rapidly evolved. Rates of COVID-19 infections continue to fluctuate and patients without COVID-19 increasingly return to the emergency department (ED) for care. This leads to new challenges and threats to patient and clinician safety as suspected patients with COVID-19 need to be quickly detected and isolated among other patients with non-COVID-19-related illnesses. At the front lines, emergency physicians also face continued personal safety concerns and increased work burden, which heighten stress and anxiety, especially given the prolonged course of the pandemic. Burnout, already a serious concern for emergency physicians due to the cumulative stresses of their daily practice, may present as a longer-term outcome of these acute stressors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will implement a rapidly adaptive simulation-based approach to understand and improve physician preparedness while decreasing physician stress and anxiety. First, we will conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews and human factor observations to determine the challenges and facilitators of COVID-19 preparedness and mitigation of physician stress. Next, we will conduct a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a simulation preparedness intervention on physician physiological stress as measured by decreased heart rate variability on shift and anxiety as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for funding, and ethics approval was obtained from the Yale University Human Investigation Committee in 2020 (HIC# 2000029370 and 2000029372). To support ongoing efforts to address clinician stress and preparedness, we will strategically disseminate the simulation intervention to areas most impacted by COVID-19. Using a virtual telesimulation and webinar format, the dissemination efforts will provide hands-on learning for ED and hospital administrators as well as simulation educators. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04614844.

Emergency department utilization for substance use disorders and mental health conditions during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: As the emergency department (ED) has evolved into the de-facto site of care for a variety of substance use disorder (SUD) presentations, trends in ED utilization are an essential public health surveillance tool. Changes in ED visit patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic may reflect changes in access to outpatient treatment, changes in SUD incidence, or the unintended effects of public policy to mitigate COVID-19. We use a national emergency medicine registry to describe and characterize trends in ED visitation for SUDs since 2019. METHODS: We included all ED visits identified in a national emergency medicine clinical quality registry, which included 174 sites across 33 states with data from January 2019 through June 2021. We defined SUD using ED visit diagnosis codes including: opioid overdose and opioid use disorder (OUD), alcohol use disorders (AUD), and other SUD. To characterize changes in ED utilization, we plotted the 3-week moving average ratio of visit counts in 2020 and 2021 as compared to visit counts in 2019. FINDINGS: While overall ED visits declined in the early pandemic period and had not returned to 2019 baseline by June 2021, ED visit counts for SUD demonstrated smaller declines in March and April of 2020, so that the proportion of overall ED visits that were for SUD increased. Furthermore, in the second half of 2020, ED visits for SUD returned to baseline, and increased above baseline for OUD ever since May 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We observe distinct patterns in ED visitation for SUDs over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for OUD for which ED visitation barely declined and now exceeds previous baselines. These trends likely demonstrate the essential role of hospital-based EDs in providing 24/7/365 care for people with SUDs and mental health conditions. Allocation of resources must be directed towards the ED as a de-facto safety net for populations in crisis.

Implementation of an Electronic Health Record Integrated Clinical Pathway Improves Adherence to COVID-19 Hospital Care Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, frequently changing guidelines presented challenges to emergency department (ED) clinicians. The authors implemented an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated clinical pathway that could be accessed by clinicians within existing workflows when caring for patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. The objective was to examine the association between clinical pathway utilization and adherence to institutional best practice treatment recommendations for COVID-19. METHODS: The authors conducted an observational analysis of all ED patients seen in a health system inclusive of seven EDs between March 18, 2020, and April 20, 2021. They implemented the pathway as an interactive flow chart that allowed clinicians to place orders while viewing the most up-to-date institutional guidance. Primary outcomes were proportion of admitted PUIs receiving dexamethasone and aspirin in the ED, and secondary outcome was time to delivering treatment. RESULTS: A total of 13 269 patients were admitted PUIs. The pathway was used by 40.6% of ED clinicians. When clinicians used the pathway, patients were more likely to be prescribed aspirin (OR, 7.15; 95% CI, 6.2-8.26) and dexamethasone (10.4; 8.85-12.2). For secondary outcomes, clinicians using the pathway had statistically significant ( P < 0.0001) improvement in timeliness of ordering medications and admission to the hospital. Aspirin, dexamethasone, and admission order time were improved by 103.89, 94.34, and 121.94 minutes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of an EHR-integrated clinical pathway improved clinician adherence to changing COVID-19 treatment guidelines and timeliness to associated medication administration. As pathways continue to be implemented, their effects on improving patient outcomes and decreasing disparities in patient care should be further examined.

Real-world assessment of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nasopharyngeal swab testing in a region with a high burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Concerns persist regarding possible false-negative results that may compromise COVID-19 containment. Although obtaining a true false-negative rate is infeasible, using real-life observations, the data suggest a possible false-negative rate of ˜2.3%. Use of a sensitive, amplified RNA platform should reassure healthcare systems.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 Testing of Emergency Department Admissions Increases Emergency Department Length of Stay.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our institution experienced a change in SARS-CoV-2 testing policy as well as substantial changes in local COVID-19 prevalence, allowing for a unique examination of the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 testing and emergency department (ED) length of stay. METHODS: This was an observational interrupted time series of all patients admitted to an academic health system between March 15, 2020, and September 30, 2020. Given testing limitations from March 15 to April 24, all patients receiving SARS-CoV-2 tests were symptomatic. On April 24, testing was expanded to all ED admissions. The primary and secondary outcomes were ED length of stay and number needed to test to obtain a positive, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 70,856 patients were cared for in the EDs during the 7-month period. The testing change increased admission length of stay by 1.89 hours (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.38). The number needed to test was 2.5 patients and was highest yield on April 1, 2020, when the state positivity rate was 39.7%; however, the number needed to test exceeded 170 patients by Sept 1, 2020, at which point the state positivity rate was 0.5%. CONCLUSION: Although universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of ED admissions may meaningfully support mitigation and containment efforts, the clinical cost of testing all admissions amid low community positivity is notable. In our system, universal ED SARS-CoV-2 testing was associated with a 24% increase in admission length of stay alongside the detection of only 1 positive case every other day. Given the known harms and risks of ED boarding and crowding, solutions must be developed to support regular operational flow while balancing infection prevention needs.

Simulating approaches to emergency department pandemic physician staffing during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: During pandemics, emergency departments (EDs) are challenged by the need to replace quarantined ED staff and avoid staffing EDs with nonemergency medicine (EM) trained physicians. We sought to design and examine three feasible ED staffing models intended to safely schedule EM physicians to staff three EDs within a health system during a prolonged infectious disease outbreak. METHODS: We conducted simulation analyses examining the strengths and limitations of three ED clinician staffing models: two-team and three-team fixed cohort, and three-team unfixed cohort. Each model was assessed with and without immunity, and by varying infection rates. We assumed a 12-week pandemic disaster requiring a 2-week quarantine. MAIN OUTCOME: The outcome, time to staffing shortage, was defined as depletion of available physicians in both 8- and 12-hour shift duration scenarios. RESULTS: All staffing models initially showed linear physician attrition with higher infection rates resulting in faster staffing shortages. The three-team fixed cohort model without immunity was not viable beyond 11 weeks. The three-team unfixed cohort model without immunity avoided staffing shortage for the duration of the pandemic up to an infection rate of 50 percent. The two-team model without immunity also avoided staffing shortage up to 30 percent infection rate. When accounting for immunity, all models behaved similarly initially but returned to adequate staffing during week 5 of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation analyses reveal fundamental tradeoffs that are critical to designing feasible pandemic disaster staffing models. Emergency physicians should test similar models based on local assumptions and capacity to ensure adequate staffing preparedness for prolonged pandemics.

Leadership communication, stress, and burnout among frontline emergency department staff amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Organizations have a key role to play in supporting healthcare workers (HCWs) and mitigating stress during COVID-19. We aimed to understand whether perceptions of support and communication by local leadership were associated with reduced reports of stress and burnout among frontline HCWs. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional surveys embedded within emergency department (ED) workflow during the first wave of COVID-19 from April 9, 2020 to June 15th, 2020 within three EDs of a multisite health system in the Northeast United States. All ED HCWs were administered electronic surveys during shift via text message. We simultaneously conducted 64 qualitative interviews to better characterize and validate survey responses. Primary survey outcomes were levels of work stress and burnout. RESULTS: Over 10 week study, 327 of 431 (76%) frontline HCWs responded to at least one round of the survey. More useful communication mediated through higher perception of support was significantly associated with lower work stress (B = -0.33, p < 0.001) and burnout (B = -7.84, p < 0.001). A one-point increase on the communication Likert scale was associated with a 9% reduction in stress and a 19% reduction in burnout. Three themes related to effective crisis communication during COVID-19 emerged in interviews: (1) information consolidation prior to dissemination, (2) consistency of communication, and (3) bi-directional communication. CONCLUSION: This work suggests that effective local leadership communication, characterized by information consolidation, consistency, and bi-directionality, leads to higher perceptions of support and lower stress and burnout among ED frontline workers. As the pandemic continues, these results present an evidence-based framework for leaders to support frontline HCWs through effective crisis communication.

National trends in emergency department closures, mergers, and utilization, 2005-2015.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To describe nationwide hospital-based emergency department (ED) closures and mergers, as well as the utilization of emergency departments and inpatient beds, over time and across varying geographic areas in the United States. METHODS: Observational analysis of the American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey from 2005 to 2015. Primary outcomes were hospital-based ED closure and merger. Secondary outcomes were yearly ED visits per hospital-based ED and yearly hospital admissions per hospital bed. RESULTS: The total number of hospital-based EDs decreased from 4,500 in 2005 to 4,460 in 2015, with 200 closures, 138 mergers, and 160 new hospital-based EDs. While yearly ED visits per hospital-based ED exhibited a 28.6% relative increase (from 25,083 to 32,248), yearly hospital admissions per hospital bed had a 3.3% relative increase (from 45.4 to 43.9) from 2005 to 2015. The number of hospital admissions and hospital beds did not change significantly in urban areas and declined in rural areas. ED visits grew more uniformly across urban and rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: The number of hospital-based ED closures is small when accounting for mergers, but occurs as many more patients are presenting to a stable number of EDs in larger health systems, though rural areas may differentially affected. EDs were managing accelerating patient volumes alongside stagnant inpatient bed capacity.

Emergency department visits for emergent conditions among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED) visits have declined while excess mortality, not attributable to COVID-19, has grown. It is not known whether older adults are accessing emergency care differently from their younger counterparts. Our objective was to determine patterns of ED visit counts for emergent conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic for older adults. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Observational analysis of ED sites enrolled in a national clinical quality registry. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and sixty-four ED sites in 33 states from January 1, 2019 to November 15, 2020. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We measured daily ED visit counts for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, sepsis, fall, and hip fracture, as well as deaths in the ED, by age categories. We estimated Poisson regression models comparing early and post-early pandemic periods (defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to the pre-pandemic period. We report incident rate ratios to summarize changes in visit incidence. RESULTS: For AMI, stroke, and sepsis, the older (75-84) and oldest old (85+ years) had the greatest decline in visit counts initially and the smallest recovery in the post-early pandemic periods. For falls, visits declined early and partially recovered uniformly across age categories. In contrast, hip fractures exhibited less change in visit rates across time periods. Deaths in the ED increased during the early pandemic period, but then fell and were persistently lower than baseline, especially for the older (75-84) and oldest old (85+ years). CONCLUSIONS: The decline in ED visits for emergent conditions among older adults has been more pronounced and persistent than for younger patients, with fewer deaths in the ED. This is concerning given the greater prevalence and risk of poor outcomes for emergent conditions in this age group that are amenable to time-sensitive ED diagnosis and treatment, and may in part explain excess mortality during the COVID-19 era among older adults.

Career Development Considerations for Academic Physician Mentees and Mentors in the Time of COVID-19: Jump in or Just Dip a Toe?

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted medical research, pushing mentors and mentees to decide if COVID-19 research would be germane to the early career investigator's developing research portfolio. With COVID-19 halting hundreds of federal trials involving non-COVID-19 research, mentors and mentees must also consider the broader moral calling of contributing to COVID-19 research. At the time of writing, the National Institutes of Health had responded to the pandemic with significant funding for COVID-19 research. However, because this pandemic is a new phenomenon, few mentors have expertise in the disease and relevant established resources. As a result, many mentors are unable to provide insight on COVID-19 research to early career investigators considering a pivot toward research related to this disease. The authors suggest 4 ways for mentees and mentors to respond to the changes the pandemic has brought to research funding and opportunities: (1) include COVID-19 research in existing portfolios to diversify intellectual opportunities and reduce funding risks; (2) negotiate the mentor-mentee relationship and roles and expectations early in project discussions-considering, as relevant, the disproportionate burden of home responsibilities often borne by early career faculty members who are women and/or from a minority group; (3) address any mentor limitations in content expertise; and (4) if the decision is to pivot to COVID-19 research, select projects with implications generalizable beyond this pandemic to other infectious outbreaks or to the redesign of health care delivery. Mentors and mentees must weigh the relevance of COVID-19 research projects to the postpandemic world and the amount of available funding against the developing interests of early career investigators. Academic medical centers nationwide must enable seasoned and early career researchers to contribute meaningfully to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 research.