Why Did New York State Hospitals Rank So Poorly?

BACKGROUND: According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services star ratings, New York State (NYS) hospitals are relatively poor performers, with 33% achieving 1 star compared with 5% of hospitals across the United States. OBJECTIVES: We compared NYS hospitals to all United States hospitals using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) and star ratings component measures. We perform risk adjustment for hospital and market characteristics associated poor performance. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional observational study. SUBJECTS: All acute care hospitals in the United States which had HVBP scores for 2019 in April 21, 2021, Hospital Care Compare database. MEASURES: Analysis of variance was used to compare NYS hospitals to all United States hospitals. Multivariable-based risk adjustment was applied to NYS hospitals with adjustment for hospital characteristics (eg, occupancy, size), hospital fiscal ratios (eg, operating margin), and market characteristics (eg, percent of hospital market that has a high school diploma). RESULTS: NYS hospitals averaged lower patient satisfaction and higher readmissions. These domains were statistically significantly associated with lower socioeconomic status in the hospital market area. Risk adjustment reduced but did not eliminate these differences. NYS also performed poorly on pressure ulcers and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism prevention. NYS hospitals were similar to the United States in mortality and hospital-acquired infections. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the demographic makeup of hospital markets account for some of the poor performance of NYS hospitals. Some aspects, such as long length of stay, may be associated with wider regional trends.

Covid-19 Positivity Differences Among Patients of a Rural, Southern US State Hospital System Based on Population Density, Rural-Urban Classification, and Area Deprivation Index.

In this study we examined the correlation of COVID-19 positivity with area deprivation index (ADI), social determinants of health (SDOH) factors based on a consumer and electronic medical record (EMR) data and population density in a patient population from a tertiary healthcare system in Arkansas. COVID-19 positivity was significantly associated with population density, age, race, and household size. Understanding health disparities and SDOH data can add value to health and the creation of trustable AI.

Evaluating the Novel Coronavirus infection outbreak surveillance results in a state hospital: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has raised the global public health concern and has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed to examine the clinical course and outcomes of the patients with COVID-19 in the southeastern part of Turkey. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted on the files of 173 patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19. The "COVID-19 Case Information Form" in the patients' medical records was used. RESULTS: Of the patients with COVID-19, 64.2% were male and 16.2% had a chronic disease. Their mean age was 34.76±25.75 years. Cough and fatigue were the most common clinical symptoms at admission with 38.7%. The patients at the age of 65 and over were treated mostly in the intensive care unit, and the symptoms associated with the cardiovascular and nausea and vomiting were observed more often (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It was found that the majority of the patients were male and there were differences between the age groups in terms of transmission route, the clinic where they were being followed-up, some symptoms, and clinical status outcome. It is recommended that multi-center, prospective, experimental, or observational studies with larger samples should be and the patients should be followed-up for longer periods.

Psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic: Perceived stress, anxiety, work-family imbalance, and coping strategies among healthcare professionals in Khartoum state hospitals, Sudan, 2021.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is highly contagious and can spread a pandemic, so it is related to serious health issues and major public concerns, and is considered by the medical community to be the greatest concern because it is the greatest risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare professionals in Khartoum state hospitals 2021. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Generalized Anxiety Scale (GAD-7), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), and Work-Family Balance Measure Scale were used to assess the psychological impact of doctors and nurses working in four big hospitals in Sudan, by an online questionnaire, analyzed by the statistical package for social science (SPSS) during February. RESULTS: Most of the participants had minimal to mild anxiety according to GAD-7 score, 121 (35.2%) and 103 (29.9%), respectively. Using PSS-10, the cutoff point was determined as 19 as the mean for total score was 19.2 ± 6.2, accordingly, more than half had high levels of stress (scored 19 and above) 189 (54.9%). For the Work-Family Balance Scale, 10 was regarded as the cutoff point. There was a significant association between specialty and stress level p-value .032. No significant correlations were found between age and stress level, neither between age and anxiety level (r -.100, p-value .064 and r = -.022, p-value .683, respectively). CONCLUSION: More than half of healthcare professionals (54.9%) showed high levels of stress. Most of the healthcare professionals had poor work-family balance (60.2%).

Adverse reactions to Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination of healthcare workers at Malta's state hospital.

BACKGROUND: The long-term control of COVID-19 depends on an effective global vaccination strategy. Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from serious infection is critical. Malta, a European country, initiated the vaccination roll-out using Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine targeting HCWs. This study determined vaccination adverse effects (AEs) in this cohort. METHOD: An online survey was disseminated to all HCWs via work email (29/3/21 to 9/4/21) to gather AEs regarding pain, redness and swelling at injection site, fever, chills, fatigue, muscle/joint pains, headache, vomiting and diarrhoea severity following each dose (Likert scale). Descriptive, comparative and multiple binary regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A response of 30.30% (n = 1480) was achieved with the commonest AEs being pain at injection site (88.92% CI 95%: 87.21-90.42), mostly mild (51%) and moderate (43%). Fatigue was reported by 72.97% (CI 95%: 70.65-75.17), 42% were mild and 41% were moderate. Females reported significantly (P ≤ .05, respectively) more pain (OR: 1.90), redness (OR: 2.49), swelling at injection site (OR: 1.33), fever (OR: 1.74), chills (OR: 2.32), fatigue (OR: 2.43), muscle (OR: 1.54) and joint pains (OR: 2.01), headache (OR: 2.07) and vomiting (OR: 3.43) when adjusted for age and HCW role. Localised AEs were reported following both vaccine doses unlike systemic AEs that were mostly reported after second doses. CONCLUSION: Vaccination benefits outweigh the minor AEs experienced, with females exhibiting a higher susceptibility. The general low vaccination AEs observed within the HCW cohort is encouraging and should help in allaying vaccine hesitancy among the population.

An Epidemiologic Study of COVID-19 Patients in a State Psychiatric Hospital: High Penetrance With Early CDC Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the transmission of COVID-19 in a U.S. state psychiatric hospital setting. METHODS: Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were tested throughout a large psychiatric hospital to determine penetrance. The hospital followed initial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent (N=51 of 65) of tested patients in the building where the first positive patient was housed (building zero) tested positive for COVID-19. Eighty-eight percent (N=14 of 16) of tested asymptomatic patients in building zero were positive, compared with 12% (N=6 of 51) of randomly selected asymptomatic patients in a sample from the rest of the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of patients can become positive for COVID-19 despite following initial CDC guidelines. As such, use of masks by all patients in close-quarter settings prior to the first positive case appears warranted. Recent CDC guidelines align with this strategy.

Intensive Care Unit Admissions During the First 3 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland: A Single-Center, Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND Data on the outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring Intensive Care Unit (ICU) care in Poland are limited. There are no data on critically ill patients with COVID-19 who did not meet criteria for ICU admission. MATERIAL AND METHODS We analyzed patients admitted to the ICU and those ineligible for ICU admission in a large COVID-19-dedicated hospital, during the first 3 months of the pandemic in Poland. Data from 67 patients considered for ICU admissions due to COVID-19 infection, treated between 10 March and 10 June 2020, were reviewed. Following exclusions, data on 32 patients admitted to the ICU and 21 patients ineligible for ICU admission were analyzed. RESULTS In 38% of analyzed patients, symptoms of COVID-19 infection occurred during a hospital stay for an unrelated medical issue. The mean age of ICU patients was 62.4 (10.4) years, and the majority of patients were male (69%), with at least one comorbidity (88%). The mean admission APACHE II and SAPS II scores were 20.1 (8.1) points and 51.2 (15.3) points, respectively. The Charlson Comorbidity Index and Clinical Frailty Scale were lower in ICU patients compared with those disqualified: 5.9 (4.3) vs. 9.1 (3.5) points, P=0.01, and 4.7 (1.7) vs. 6.9 (1.2) points, P<0.01, respectively. All ICU patients required intubation and mechanical ventilation. ICU mortality was 67%. Hospital mortality among patients admitted to the ICU and those who were disqualified was 70% and 79%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU admission in our studied population were frail and had significant comorbidities. The outcomes in this group were poor and did not seem to be influenced by ICU admission.

Providing end-of-life care in a Nightingale hospital.

Lauren Oliver, formerly Clinical Nurse Advisor, NHS Nightingale North West, outlines the challenges faced by staff in providing good-quality end-of-life care for patients in a temporary hospital during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Schiavonia Hospital response to COVID-19 outbreak: a first single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: On 21 February 2020, Schiavonia Hospital (SH) detected the first 2 cases of COVID-19 in Veneto Region. As a result of the underlying concomitant spread of infection, SH had to rearrange the clinical services in terms of structural changes to the building, management of spaces, human resources and supplies, in order to continue providing optimal care to the patients and staff safety. The aim of this article is to describe how SH was able to adjust its services coping with the epidemiological stages of the pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three periods can be identified; in each one the most important organizational modifications are analyzed (hospital activities, logistical changes, communication, surveillance on HCW). RESULTS: The first period, after initial cases' identification, was characterized by the hospital isolation. In the second period the hospital reopened and it was divided into two completely separated areas, named COVID-19 and COVID-free, to prevent intra-hospital contamination. The last period was characterized by the re-organization of the facility as the largest COVID Hospital in Veneto, catching exclusively COVID-19 patients from the surrounding areas. CONCLUSIONS: SH changed its organization three times in less than two months. From the point of view of the Medical Direction of the Hospital the challenges had been many but it allowed to consolidate an organizational model which could answer to health needs during the emergency situation.

The Behavioral Health System and Its Response to COVID-19: A Snapshot Perspective.

The global experience of the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. The magnitude, pace, and uncertainty of the pandemic have taxed systems and catalyzed innovation in many fields, including behavioral health. Behavioral health leaders have absorbed changing information about regulations and laws, proper use of personal protective equipment, isolation and quarantine, telepsychiatry practices (broadly defined here as the use of virtual and telephonic means to provide behavioral health care), and financial opportunities and challenges while attending to the mental health needs of local populations. This Open Forum reviews many of the adaptations of the behavioral health system in response to COVID-19 on the basis of a point-in-time snapshot and describes needed multidimensional policy and practice considerations for the future.