OBJECTIVES: Patients with severe intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) often suffer from impaired capacity and rely on surrogates for decision-making. Restrictions on visitors within healthcare facilities during the pandemic may have impacted care and disposition for patient with ICH. We investigated outcomes of ICH patients during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to a pre-pandemic period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of ICH patients from two sources: (1) University of Rochester Get With the Guidelines database and (2) the California State Inpatient Database (SID). Patients were divided into 2019-2020 pre-pandemic and 2020 pandemic groups. We compared mortality, discharge, and comfort care/hospice. Using single-center data, we compared 30-day readmissions and follow-up functional status. RESULTS: The single-center cohort included 230 patients (n = 122 pre-pandemic, n = 108 pandemic group), and the California SID included 17,534 patients (n = 10,537 pre-pandemic, n = 6,997 pandemic group). Inpatient mortality was no different before or during the pandemic in either cohort. Length of stay was unchanged. During the pandemic, more patients were discharged to hospice in the California SID (8.4% vs. 5.9%, p<0.001). Use of comfort care was similar before and during the pandemic in the single center data. Survivors in both datasets were more likely to be discharged home vs. facility during the pandemic. Thirty-day readmissions and follow-up functional status in the single-center cohort were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large database, we identified more ICH patients discharged to hospice during the COVID-19 pandemic and, among survivors, more patients were discharged home rather than healthcare facility discharge during the pandemic.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cerebral Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Cerebral Hemorrhage/therapy , Patient Discharge , Retrospective Studies
BACKGROUND: Traditional in-person Parkinson's disease (PD) research studies are often slow to recruit and place unnecessary burden on participants. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has added new impetus to the development of new research models. OBJECTIVE: To compare recruitment processes and outcomes of three remote decentralized observational PD studies with video visits. METHODS: We examined the number of participants recruited, speed of recruitment, geographic distribution of participants, and strategies used to enhance recruitment in FIVE, a cross-sectional study of Fox Insight participants with and without PD (nâ=â203); VALOR-PD, a longitudinal study of 23andMe, Inc. research participants carrying the LRRK2 G2019S variant with and without PD (nâ=â277); and AT-HOME PD, a longitudinal study of former phase III clinical trial participants with PD (nâ=â226). RESULTS: Across the three studies, 706 participants from 45 U.S. states and Canada enrolled at a mean per study rate of 4.9 participants per week over an average of 51 weeks. The cohorts were demographically homogenous with regard to race (over 95%white) and level of education (over 90%with more than a high school education). The number of participants living in primary care Health Professional Shortage Areas in each study ranged from 30.3-42.9%. Participants reported interest in future observational (98.5-99.6%) and interventional (76.1-87.6%) research studies with remote video visits. CONCLUSION: Recruitment of large, geographically dispersed remote cohorts from a single location is feasible. Interest in participation in future remote decentralized PD studies is high. More work is needed to identify best practices for recruitment, particularly of diverse participants.