Building a thriving academic hospitalist workforce: A rapid qualitative analysis identifying key areas of focus in the field.

BACKGROUND: The hospitalist workforce has been at the forefront of the pandemic and has been stretched in both clinical and nonclinical domains. We aimed to understand current and future workforce concerns, as well as strategies to cultivate a thriving hospital medicine workforce. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted qualitative, semistructured focus groups with practicing hospitalists via video conferencing (Zoom). Utilizing components from the Brainwriting Premortem Approach, attendees were split into small focus groups and listed their thoughts about workforce issues that hospitalists may encounter in the next 3 years, identifying the highest priority workforce issues for the hospital medicine community. Each small group discussed the most pressing workforce issues. These ideas were then shared across the entire group and ranked. We used rapid qualitative analysis to guide a structured exploration of themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Five focus groups were held with 18 participants from 13 academic institutions. We identified five key areas: (1) support for workforce wellness; (2) staffing and pipeline development to maintain an adequate workforce to match clinical growth; (3) scope of work, including how hospitalist work is defined and whether the clinical skillset should be expanded; (4) commitment to the academic mission in the setting of rapid and unpredictable clinical growth; and (5) alignment between the duties of hospitalists and resources of hospitals. Hospitalists voiced numerous concerns about the future of our workforce. Several domains were identified as high-priority areas of focus to address current and future challenges.

The Psychosocial Impact of Treating Patients with COVID-19 on Psychiatry Residents in a Community Hospital: a Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors explored the experiences of psychiatry residents caring for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic on a medical unit. METHODS: From June 2020 through December 2020, structured, individual interviews were conducted with psychiatry residents deployed to internal medicine wards in a community hospital to provide medical care to COVID-19 patients for greater than or equal to 1 week. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analytical methods. RESULTS: Psychiatry residents (n = 16) were interviewed individually for approximately 45 min each. During the interviews, many residents described emotions of fear, anxiety, uncertainty, lack of preparedness, and difficulty coping with high patient mortality rates. Many of the residents expressed concerns regarding insufficient personal protective equipment, with the subsequent worries of their own viral exposure and transmission to loved ones. Multiple residents expressed feeling ill-equipped to care for COVID-19 patients, in some cases stating that utilizing their expertise in mental health would have better addressed the mental health needs of colleagues and patients' families. Participants also described the benefits of processing emotions during supportive group sessions with their program director. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a public health crisis with potential negative impacts on patient care, professionalism, and physicians' well-being and safety. The psychiatry residents and fellows described the overwhelmingly negative impact on their training. The knowledge gained from this study will help establish the role of the psychiatrist not only in future crises but in healthcare as a whole.

Health Care-Associated Infections Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19, March 2020-March 2022.

Importance: The reported incidence of many health care-associated infections (HAIs) increased during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it is unclear whether this is due to increased patient risk or to increased pressure on the health care system. Objective: To assess HAI occurrence among patients admitted to hospitals with and without COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional retrospective analysis of inpatients discharged both with and without laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection was conducted. Data were obtained between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2022, from community hospitals affiliated with a large health care system in the US. Exposure: COVID-19 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Occurrence of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia, and Clostridioides difficile infection as reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network. Results: Among nearly 5 million hospitalizations in 182 hospitals between 2020 and 2022, the occurrence of health care-associated infections (HAIs) was high among the 313 200 COVID-19 inpatients (median [SD] age, 57 [27.3] years; 56.0% women). Incidence per 100 000 patient-days showed higher HAIs among those with COVID-19 compared with those without. For CLABSI, the incidence for the full 9 quarters of the study was nearly 4-fold higher among the COVID-19 population than the non-COVID-19 population (25.4 vs 6.9). For CAUTI, the incidence in the COVID-19 population was 2.7-fold higher in the COVID-19 population (16.5 vs 6.1), and for MRSA, 3.0-fold higher (11.2 vs 3.7). Quarterly trends were compared with the same quarter in 2019. The greatest increase in the incidence of HAI in comparison with the same quarter in 2019 for the entire population occurred in quarter 3 of 2020 for CLABSI (11.0 vs 7.3), quarter 4 of 2021 for CAUTI (7.8 vs 6.8), and quarter 3 of 2021 for MRSA (5.2 vs 3.9). When limited to the non-COVID-19 population, the increase in CLABSI incidence vs the 2019 incidence was eliminated, and the quarterly rates of MRSA and CAUTI were lower vs the prepandemic 2019 comparator quarter. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of hospitals during the pandemic, HAI occurrence among inpatients without COVID-19 was similar to that during 2019 despite additional pressures for infection control and health care professionals. The findings suggest that patients with COVID-19 may be more susceptible to HAIs and may require additional prevention measures.

Advanced Care Planning for Hospitalized Patients Following Clinician Notification of Patient Mortality by a Machine Learning Algorithm.

Importance: Goal-concordant care is an ongoing challenge in hospital settings. Identification of high mortality risk within 30 days may call attention to the need to have serious illness conversations, including the documentation of patient goals of care. Objective: To examine goals of care discussions (GOCDs) in a community hospital setting with patients identified as having a high risk of mortality by a machine learning mortality prediction algorithm. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study took place at community hospitals within 1 health care system. Participants included adult patients with a high risk of 30-day mortality who were admitted to 1 of 4 hospitals between January 2 and July 15, 2021. Patient encounters of inpatients in the intervention hospital where physicians were notified of the computed high risk mortality score were compared with patient encounters of inpatients in 3 community hospitals without the intervention (ie, matched control). Intervention: Physicians of patients with a high risk of mortality within 30 days received notification and were encouraged to arrange for GOCDs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage change of documented GOCDs prior to discharge. Propensity-score matching was completed on a preintervention and postintervention period using age, sex, race, COVID-19 status, and machine learning-predicted mortality risk scores. A difference-in-difference analysis validated the results. Results: Overall, 537 patients were included in this study with 201 in the preintervention period (94 in the intervention group; 104 in the control group) and 336 patients in the postintervention period. The intervention and control groups included 168 patients per group and were well-balanced in age (mean [SD], 79.3 [9.60] vs 79.6 [9.21] years; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.03), sex (female, 85 [51%] vs 85 [51%]; SMD, 0), race (White patients, 145 [86%] vs 144 [86%]; SMD 0.006), and Charlson comorbidities (median [range], 8.00 [2.00-15.0] vs 9.00 [2.00 to 19.0]; SMD, 0.34). Patients in the intervention group from preintervention to postintervention period were associated with being 5 times more likely to have documented GOCDs (OR, 5.11 [95% CI, 1.93 to 13.42]; P = .001) by discharge compared with matched controls, and GOCD occurred significantly earlier in the hospitalization in the intervention patients as compared with matched controls (median, 4 [95% CI, 3 to 6] days vs 16 [95% CI, 15 to not applicable] days; P < .001). Similar findings were observed for Black patient and White patient subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients whose physicians had knowledge of high-risk predictions from machine learning mortality algorithms were associated with being 5 times more likely to have documented GOCDs than matched controls. Additional external validation is needed to determine if similar interventions would be helpful at other institutions.

Community-Based Hospitals Benefit From Restrictive Transfusion Practices.

ABSTRACT: Blood availability was uncertain during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet transfusion remained a common and sometimes necessary procedure. Substantial work on optimizing transfusion practices is centered in tertiary hospitals as high utilizers of blood while the care delivered in smaller community hospitals comprises more than half the nation's transfusions. Improving transfusion practices in community hospitals represents a substantial opportunity to enhance patient safety and the availability of blood resources. Clinical specialists developed a dashboard to retrospectively examine transfusion events including an evidence-based analysis of the patient's clinical situation at the time of transfusion to more accurately identify how appropriately blood was used. The compiled data were discussed and shared with transfusing providers. It was hypothesized that the data provided and communication strategies used would educate providers to current evidence-based practice, leading to more appropriate transfusion with an overall reduction in packed red blood cell utilization. There was an 11% increase in transfusion appropriateness (p = <.001) and a 14% decrease in the units transfused (p = .004). Improvement in transfusion practices demonstrates a significant impact on patient safety and the availability of blood resources. Although absolute opportunity may be less in a community hospital, fewer resources are needed to achieve meaningful change.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient visit volume in cancer patients: Results of COMETA multicenter retrospective observational study.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on first and follow-up visits for cancer outpatients. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective observational study involving three Comprehensive Cancer Care Centers (CCCCs): IFO, including IRE and ISG in Rome, AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari) and one oncology department in a Community Hospital (Saint'Andrea Hospital, Rome). From 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021, we evaluated the volume of outpatient consultations (first visits and follow-up), comparing them with the pre-pandemic year (2019). Results were analyzed by quarter according to the Rt (real-time indicator used to assess the evolution of the pandemic). IFO and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II were "COVID-free" while AUSL-IRCCS RE was a "COVID-mixed" Institute. Depending on the Rt, Sain't Andrea Hospital experienced a "swinging" organizational pathway (COVID-free/ COVID-mixed). Results: Regarding the "first appointments", in 2020 the healthcare facilities operating in the North and Center of Italy showed a downward trend. In 2021, only AUSL-IRCCS RE showed an upward trend. Regarding the "follow-up", only AUSL IRCCS RE showed a slight up-trend in 2020. In 2021, IFO showed an increasing trend, while S. Andrea Hospital showed a negative plateau. Surprisingly, IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari showed an uptrend for both first appointment and follow-ups during pandemic and late pandemic except for the fourth quarter of 2021. Conclusions: During the first pandemic wave, no significant difference was observed amongst COVID-free and COVID-mixed Institutes and between CCCCs and a Community Hospital. In 2021 ("late pandemic year"), it has been more convenient to organize COVID-mixed pathway in the CCCCs rather than to keep the Institutions COVID-free. A swinging modality in the Community Hospital did not offer positive results in term of visit volumes. Our study about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on visit volume in cancer outpatients may help health systems to optimize the post-pandemic use of resources and improve healthcare policies.

Case Study: The Impact of Nursing Professional Practice during the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Large Community Hospital in Canada.

The COVID-19 pandemic posed numerous challenges experienced by healthcare organizations. Nursing professional practice plays a crucial leadership role in supporting nursing staff and leaders in developing policies, parameters and philosophical approaches for delivering safe patient care. The professional practice leadership at Humber River Hospital, a large Canadian community hospital, implemented three key interventions in this hospital-based case study: (1) proactive workforce planning, (2) increased nursing student placements and (3) novel "stretch model of care" in the intensive care unit (ICU). The overall results following the implementation of these interventions resulted in substantial improvements. For example, proactive nursing workforce planning supported both a 98% reduction in agency utilization and an accelerated ICU certification program with an 84% certificate completion rate. Through innovative strategies, there was a significant increase (33-67%) in the number of nursing student placements during the first two years of the pandemic compared with previous years. Within the ICU setting, we maintained optimum ICU capacity that resulted in stronger partnership-driven relationships between nurses and physicians through an interprofessional "stretch model of care." Finally, we avoided emergency department closures and Code Orange calls during peaks of the pandemic.

Interventions and outcomes of COVID-19 patients in a community hospital-A single center study comparing the first and second waves.

BACKGROUND: We have had 3 coronavirus-related pandemics in the last two decades. Each has brought significant toll and with each case there was no cure. Even as vaccines have been developed for the current strain of the virus thereby increasing the prospects of bringing transmissions in communities to a minimum, lessons from this pandemic should be explored in preparation for future pandemics. Other studies have looked at differences in characteristics of patients and mortality rates between the first two waves. In our study we not only identify the differences in outcomes but also explore differences in hospital specific interventions that were implemented at Jersey City Medical Center, NJ, a community-based hospital. AIM: The aim of this study is to assess the differences between the first two waves of the COVID -19 pandemic in terms of management and outcomes to help identify any key lessons in the handling of future pandemics. We compared the population demographics, interventions and outcomes used during the first two waves of COVID-19 in a community-based hospital. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center cross-sectional study including Laboratory confirmed COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen supplementation admitted at Jersey City Medical Center during the first wave (April 1 to June 30, 2020) and the second wave between (October 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021). The Chi-squared test was used to assess the relationship between categorical variables and the T- test for continuous variables. A Logistic regression model was built comparing the second to the first wave while accounting for important covariates. RESULTS: There was a combined total of 473 patients from both waves. Patients in the first wave were older (66.17 years vs 60.38 years, p <0.01), had more comorbidities (2.75 vs 2.29, p 0.003), had more severe disease (50% vs 38.78% p of 0.002), had a longer length of stay (14.18 days vs 8.77 days, p <0.001) and were more likely to be intubated (32.49% vs 21.9 4%, p 0.01). In the univariate model, the odds of mortality in the second wave compared to the first wave was 0.63 (CI, 0.41-0.96) and 1.73 (CI, 0.65-4.66) in the fully adjusted model. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the two waves. Interventions that were noted to be significantly different between the two waves were, increased likelihood of mechanical intubation in the first wave and increased use of steroids in the second wave compared to the first.

For-Profit Hospital Reflections on Community Relationships in the Time of COVID-19.

GOALS: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals and their staffs have been pushed to their limits. Hospitals have had to rethink how they support community health while also providing critical acute care services to combat the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. As anchor institutions, hospitals have a significant effect on not only community health and well-being but also on local economies as primary employers and contractors. This study aimed to understand how the pandemic reshaped interactions with community members, staff, and other community organizations and changed the nature of hospital-community engagement among for-profit hospitals. METHODS: We recruited leaders of for-profit hospitals, systems, and a business association that represents for-profit hospitals. We interviewed 28 participants in various leadership roles via telephone or videoconferencing and then thematically coded interview transcriptions. The themes identified in early interviews guided the structure of forthcoming interviews. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For-profit hospitals appear motivated to address community health needs as anchor institutions in their communities, and these efforts have strengthened and changed in important ways as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, three themes emerged regarding the influence of COVID-19 on hospital-community relationships: Hospitals refocused outreach and engagement efforts to support employees, found essential new ways to safely engage with the community through partnerships and collaborations, and were reminded of the critical roles of social and cultural factors in the health and well-being of individuals and communities. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Hospitals may be able to use lessons learned during the pandemic to support the growing need for community engagement and attention to social determinants of health. The themes that emerged from this study present valuable opportunities for hospitals to carry forward the lessons learned over the course of the pandemic, as they have the potential to improve the delivery of healthcare and community engagement in day-to-day operations as well as in crises.

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy.

Importance: Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. Objective: To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. Exposures: Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. Results: A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients.

The impact of caregivers on nosocomial transmission during a COVID-19 outbreak in a community-based hospital in South Korea.

The COVID-19 pandemic becomes a cause of concern for hospital transmission. Caregivers may play an important role as vectors for nosocomial infections; however, infection control for caregivers often is neglected. A nosocomial COVID-19 outbreak occurred in a 768-bed hospital from March 20, 2020, to April 14, 2020. We conducted a retrospective chart review and epidemiologic investigation on all cases. A total of 54 cases of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in the community-based hospital. They included 26 (48.1%) patients, 21 (38.9%) caregivers, and 7 (13.0%) healthcare workers. These 21 caregivers cared for 18 patients, and of these, 9 were positive for COVID-19, 6 were negative, and 3 died before testing. Of the 6 negative patients, 3 had no exposure because the caregiver began to show symptoms at least 5 days after their discharge. Of the 9 positive patients, 4 cases of transmission took place from patient to caregiver (one patient transmitted COVID-19 to two caregivers), and 6 cases of transmission occurred from caregiver to patient. Of the 54 hospital-acquired cases, 38 occurred in the 8th-floor ward and 8 occurred in the 4th-floor ward. The index case of each ward was a caregiver. Counting the number of cases where transmission occurred only between patients and their own caregivers, 9 patients were suspected of having exposure to COVID-19 from their own caregivers. Six patients (66.7%) were infected by COVID-19-confirmed caregivers, and 3 patients were uninfected. Fewer patients among the infected were able to perform independent activities compared to uninfected patients. Not only patients and healthcare workers but also caregivers groups may be vulnerable to COVID-19 and be transmission sources of nosocomial outbreaks. Therefore, infection control programs for caregivers in addition to patients and healthcare workers can be equally important.

Changes in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient characteristics and resource use in a system of community hospitals in the United States.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has migrated to regions that were initially spared, and it is likely that different populations are currently at risk for illness. Herein, we present our observations of the change in characteristics and resource use of COVID-19 patients over time in a national system of community hospitals to help inform those managing surge planning, operational management, and future policy decisions.

Response of UK community hospitals to the COVID-19 pandemic: an appreciative inquiry.

INTRODUCTION: The 500 community hospitals in the UK provide a range of services to their communities. The response of these small, mainly rural, hospitals to the COVID-19 pandemic has not yet been examined and so this study sought to address this gap. METHOD: Appreciative inquiry was used to understand staff perspectives of how community hospitals responded to the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. A total of 20 organisations participated, representing 168 (34%) community hospitals in the UK. Qualitative interviews were conducted, with a total of 85 staff members, using an online video platform. 30 case studies were developed from these interviews. RESULTS: Staff described positive changes that were made in the context of the fear and uncertainty experienced in the pandemic. Quality improvements were reported in a wide range of services and models of care such as the use of the inpatient beds, and the access and management of urgent care services. Rapid changes were made in the way that services were managed, such as communications and leadership. Programmes of accelerated training were offered for existing and redeployed staff. Attention to staff health and well-being was a feature and there were a variety of innovations designed to support patients and their families. The impact of the changes was viewed as strengthening of integrated working between staff and sectors, the ability to rapidly innovate and improve quality, and the scope to use local decision-making to make changes. CONCLUSION: Staff of community hospitals described innovative and rapid quality improvements in their community hospitals in response to the pandemic. The case studies illustrated the features of community hospitals, showing that they can be resilient, flexible, responsive, creative, compassionate and integrated. The case studies of quality improvements are being used to encourage sharing and learning across community hospitals and beyond.

Casirivimab/imdevimab treatment for outpatient COVID-19 during a SARS-CoV-2 B1.617.2 (Delta) surge at a community hospital.

CONTEXT: Vaccination status has been shown to be linked to patient-centered outcomes in those with COVID-19. However, minimal data have explored the relationship between vaccination status and representation rates after receiving monoclonal antibodies (MABs) the Delta strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a community setting. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine if there was a difference in patient-centered outcomes between those who were vaccinated and unvaccinated after the administration of casirivimab/imdevimab for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the time when the Delta strain was most prevalent. METHODS: A convenience sample of consecutive adults given casirivimab/imdevimab at either an outpatient infusion center or within the emergency department (ED) were included in analysis. Patient demographics, authorized-use qualifiers from the emergency use authorization (EUA), baseline vital signs at the time of infusion, representation rates to a healthcare provider within the hospital's network, and any admissions to the hospital following infusion were all collected from the patient's electronic medical record. Vaccination status was confirmed in both the patient's electronic medical record and the Arizona State Immunization Information System (ASIIS). Analysis was conducted utilizing descriptive statistics, the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data, and the chi-squared analysis for nominal data. RESULTS: In total, 743 patients were included in the study, with 585 being unvaccinated and 158 being vaccinated at the time of administration. Those in the vaccinated group were more likely to be older (60.0 vs. 55.0 years; p<0.001) and to have a history of diabetes (18.4% vs. 11.3%; p=0.02), hypertension (39.9% vs. 28.5%; p=0.006), immunosuppression (7.0% vs. 1.4%; p<0.001), and chronic kidney disease (7.0% vs. 3.4%; p=0.05). In the entire sample, 105 (14.1%) patients had an unexpected return visit to either the ED or urgent care at 28 days, with 17 (2.3%) requiring hospitalization. Patients who were vaccinated were more likely to represent for care after casirivimab/imdevimab infusion (20.3% vs. 12.5%; p=0.01), but no difference was noted in hospitalization rates between the two groups (18.8% vs. 15.1%; p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: MAB therapy with casirivimab/imdevimab for the outpatient treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 was associated with a low rate of hospitalization. However, those who were vaccinated were more likely to present for unexpected return care at either the ED or urgent care within 28 days of the initial infusion.

Level-loading a health system by transferring emergency department patients to a community hospital: Prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department boarding and crowding lead to worse patient outcomes and patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: We describe the implementation of a program to transfer patients requiring medical admission from an academic emergency department to a community hospital's medical floor and analyze its effects on patient outcomes. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed. Data was collected on patient flow through the transfer program. Patient characteristics, boarding time in the emergency department, and hospital-based outcome measures were compared between patients in the transfer program who were successfully transferred to the community hospital and patients who were admitted to the academic medical center. RESULTS: 79 patients were successfully transferred to the community hospital between November 23, 2020 and August 5, 2021, resulting in 279 bed days in the community hospital. Successfully transferred patients experienced a statistically shorter ED boarding time (5.7 vs. 10.9 h, p < 0.0001), ED length of stay (10.5 vs 16.1 h, p < 0.0001), and hospital length of stay (3.5 vs 5.7 days, p < 0.0001) compared to patients initially referred to the transfer program who were admitted to the academic medical center. There were no reported adverse events during transfer, upgrades to the ICU within 24 h of admission, or inpatient deaths for patients who were transferred. CONCLUSION: We implemented an academic emergency department to partner community hospital transfer program that safely level-loads medical patients in a healthcare system.

Remote vs In-home Physician Visits for Hospital-Level Care at Home: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Home hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown. Objective: To compare remote and in-home physician care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020. Interventions: All patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates. Results: A total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.

Hospital factor and prognosis of COVID-19 in New York City, the United States of America: insights from a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: April 22nd, 2020, New York City (NYC) was the epicenter of the pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the US with differences of death rates among its 5 boroughs. We aimed to investigate the difference in mortality associated with hospital factors (teaching versus community hospital) in NYC. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We obtained medical records of 6509 hospitalized patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 from the Mount Sinai Health System including 4 teaching hospitals in Manhattan and 2 community hospitals located outside of Manhattan (Queens and Brooklyn) retrospectively. Propensity score analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with stabilized weights was performed to adjust for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients initially presenting to teaching or community hospitals, and those who were transferred from community hospitals to teaching hospitals. RESULTS: Among 6509 patients, 4653 (72.6%) were admitted in teaching hospitals, 1462 (22.8%) were admitted in community hospitals, and 293 (4.6%) were originally admitted in community and then transferred into teaching hospitals. Patients in community hospitals had higher mortality (42.5%) than those in teaching hospitals (17.6%) or those transferred from community to teaching hospitals (23.5%, P < 0.001). After IPTW-adjustment, when compared to patients cared for at teaching hospitals, the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of mortality were as follows: community hospitals 2.47 (2.03-2.99); transfers 0.80 (0.58-1.09)). CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted to community hospitals had higher mortality than those admitted to teaching hospitals.

COVID-19 in patients with end stage kidney disease at a large community hospital in Eastern Saudi Arabia. A prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To report the outcome of patients with end stage kidney disease (ESKD) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 at a large community hospital in Eastern Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A single center, prospective observational study at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Patients with ESKD who were maintained on dialysis and developed COVID-19 between June 15, 2020 and October 31, 2021 were enrolled. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients with ESKD were diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Twenty two (73%) patients developed the disease prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The median age of the cohort was 63 (55-75) years. Most patients were diabetic (73%), hypertensive (97%) and had a median body mass index of 28 kg/m2. Twenty seven (90%) patients required admission, 16 (52%) patients developed pneumonia, and 5 (17%) patients required mechanical ventilation. Patients who developed pneumonia were older, and the majority had diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. Five patients died with a total mortality of 17%. CONCLUSION: Patients with ESKD who developed COVID-19 had a poor outcome with high mortality compared to the general population. Presence of diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease and older age were associated with a higher risk of severe disease. There was a sharp decline in the number of positive cases following implementation of the vaccination program.