Engagement With the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Coronavirus Self-Checker and Guidance Provided to Users in the United States From March 23, 2020, to April 19, 2021: Thematic and Trend Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States experienced surges in healthcare needs, which challenged capacity throughout the healthcare system. Stay-at-home orders in many jurisdictions, cancellation of elective procedures, and closures of outpatient medical offices disrupted patient access to care. To inform symptomatic persons about when to seek care and potentially help alleviate the burden on the healthcare system, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and partners developed the CDC Coronavirus Self-Checker ("Self-Checker"). This interactive tool assists individuals seeking information about COVID-19 to determine the appropriate level of care by asking demographic, clinical, and nonclinical questions during an online "conversation." OBJECTIVE: This paper describes user characteristics, trends in use, and recommendations delivered by the Self-Checker between March 23, 2020, and April 19, 2021, for pursuing appropriate levels of medical care depending on the severity of user symptoms. METHODS: User characteristics and trends in completed conversations that resulted in a care message were analyzed. Care messages delivered by the Self-Checker were manually classified into three overarching conversation themes: (1) seek care immediately; (2) take no action, or stay home and self-monitor; and (3) conversation redirected. Trends in 7-day averages of conversations and COVID-19 cases were examined with development and marketing milestones that potentially impacted Self-Checker user engagement. RESULTS: Among 16,718,667 completed conversations, the Self-Checker delivered recommendations for 69.27% (n=11,580,738) of all conversations to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor"; 28.8% (n=4,822,138) of conversations to "seek care immediately"; and 1.89% (n=315,791) of conversations were redirected to other resources without providing any care advice. Among 6.8 million conversations initiated for self-reported sick individuals without life-threatening symptoms, 59.21% resulted in a recommendation to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." Nearly all individuals (99.8%) who were not sick were also advised to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Self-Checker conversations resulted in advice to take no action, or stay home and self-monitor. This guidance may have reduced patient volume on the medical system; however, future studies evaluating patients' satisfaction, intention to follow the care advice received, course of action, and care modality pursued could clarify the impact of the Self-Checker and similar tools during future public health emergencies.

An Evaluation of the Text Illness Monitoring (TIM) Platform for COVID-19: Cross-sectional Online Survey of Public Health Users.

BACKGROUND: The US public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic has required contact tracing and symptom monitoring at an unprecedented scale. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several partners created the Text Illness Monitoring (TIM) platform in 2015 to assist US public health jurisdictions with symptom monitoring for potential novel influenza virus outbreaks. Since May 2020, 142 federal, state, and local public health agencies have deployed TIM for COVID-19 symptom monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility, benefits, and challenges of TIM to help guide decision-making for improvements and expansion to support future public health emergency response efforts. METHODS: We conducted a brief online survey of previous and current TIM administrative users (admin users) from November 28 through December 21, 2020. Closed- and open-ended questions inquired about the onboarding process, decision to use TIM, groups monitored with TIM, comparison of TIM to other symptom monitoring systems, technical challenges and satisfaction with TIM, and user support. A total of 1479 admin users were invited to participate. RESULTS: A total of 97 admin users from 43 agencies responded to the survey. Most admin users represented the Indian Health Service (35/97, 36%), state health departments (26/97, 27%), and local or county health departments (18/97, 19%), and almost all were current users of TIM (85/94, 90%). Among the 43 agencies represented, 11 (26%) used TIM for monitoring staff exclusively, 13 (30%) monitored community members exclusively, and 19 (44%) monitored both staff and community members. Agencies most frequently used TIM to monitor symptom development in contacts of cases among community members (28/43, 65%), followed by symptom development among staff (27/43, 63%) and among staff contacts of cases (24/43, 56%). Agencies also reported using TIM to monitor patients with COVID-19 for the worsening of symptoms among staff (21/43, 49%) and community members (18/43, 42%). When asked to compare TIM to previous monitoring systems, 78% (40/51) of respondents rated TIM more favorably than their previous monitoring system, 20% (10/51) said there was no difference, and 2% (1/51) rated the previous monitoring system more favorably than TIM. Most respondents found TIM favorable in terms of time burden, staff burden, timeliness of the data, and the ability to monitor large population sizes. TIM compared negatively to other systems in terms of effort to enroll participants (ie, persons TIM monitors) and accuracy of the data. Most respondents (76/85, 89%) reported that they would highly or somewhat recommend TIM to others for symptom monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation of TIM showed that agencies used TIM for a variety of purposes and rated TIM favorably compared to previously used monitoring systems. We also identified opportunities to improve TIM; for example, enhancing the flexibility of alert deliveries would better meet admin users' varying needs. We also suggest continuous program evaluation practices to assess and respond to implementation gaps.

Spatial modeling of vaccine deserts as barriers to controlling SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine distribution is at risk of further propagating the inequities of COVID-19, which in the United States (US) has disproportionately impacted the elderly, people of color, and the medically vulnerable. We sought to measure if the disparities seen in the geographic distribution of other COVID-19 healthcare resources were also present during the initial rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Using a comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine database (VaccineFinder), we built an empirically parameterized spatial model of access to essential resources that incorporated vaccine supply, time-willing-to-travel for vaccination, and previous vaccination across the US. We then identified vaccine deserts-US Census tracts with localized, geographic barriers to vaccine-associated herd immunity. We link our model results with Census data and two high-resolution surveys to understand the distribution and determinates of spatially accessibility to the COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: We find that in early 2021, vaccine deserts were home to over 30 million people, >10% of the US population. Vaccine deserts were concentrated in rural locations and communities with a higher percentage of medically vulnerable populations. We also find that in locations of similar urbanicity, early vaccination distribution disadvantaged neighborhoods with more people of color and older aged residents. CONCLUSION: Given sufficient vaccine supply, data-driven vaccine distribution to vaccine deserts may improve immunization rates and help control COVID-19.

COVID-19 has affected the elderly, people of color, and individuals with chronic illnesses more than the general population. Large barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine could make this problem worse. We used a website called VaccineFinder, which has information on the location of most COVID-19 vaccine doses in the US, to measure vaccine accessibility in early 2021. We then identified vaccine deserts, defined as small US regions with poor access to the COVID-19 vaccine. We found that over 10% of the US lived in a vaccine desert. Overall, we found that vaccines were less available to people in rural areas, people of color, and individuals with chronic illnesses. It will be important to reverse this pattern and ensure enough vaccines are sent to these communities to help reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Learning From Experience- Confronting Challenges and Adapting to Change in a Large Academic Abdominal Radiology Practice: Insights From a Faculty Retreat.

RATIONALE: Substantial organizational changes, increasing clinical volumes, and the COVID-19 pandemic presented compound stressors to faculty radiologists in our large academic abdominal radiology division and necessitated multiple changes in our practice. METHODS: To address the challenges and establish group consensus, we conducted a virtual divisional faculty retreat centered on themes of team building, clinical work, trainee education, and faculty mentorship. A pre-retreat survey evaluated satisfaction with aspects of professional life and clinical work practices and invited personal reflections. Survey data were presented in the retreat segments focused on each theme, and subsequent discussion was facilitated in small group breakouts. RESULTS: Responses to the team-building survey revealed common values and sources of gratitude, including health, family and meaningful work and relationships. Faculty reported a strong sense of personal accomplishment, but with varied emotional exhaustion scores. Faculty were satisfied with remote work assignments but identified opportunities to improve the clinical work schedule including reversion of some remote assignments to in-person and increased interventional radiology shift staggering. Compared to pre-COVID practice, faculty respondents perceived giving lower quality and less frequent feedback to trainees; evolving educational resource needs were identified. A more formal approach to faculty mentoring was sought. A post-retreat survey revealed high participant satisfaction. OUTCOMES: In the future, we plan to continue divisional retreat activities to respond to evolving challenges and further improve team building, clinical workflow, trainee education, and faculty mentorship.

Trainee and Attending Perspectives on Remote Radiology Readouts in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Social distancing mandates due to COVID-19 have necessitated adaptations to radiology trainee workflow and educational practices, including the radiology "readout." We describe how a large academic radiology department achieved socially distant "remote readouts," provide trainee and attending perspectives on this early experience, and propose ways by which "remote readouts" can be used effectively by training programs beyond COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Beginning March 2020, radiologists were relocated to workspaces outside of conventional reading rooms. Information technologies were employed to allow for "remote readouts" between trainees and attendings. An optional anonymous open-ended survey regarding remote readouts was administered to radiology trainees and attendings as a quality improvement initiative. From the responses, response themes were abstracted using thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics of the qualitative data were calculated. RESULTS: Radiologist workstations from 14 traditional reading rooms were relocated to 36 workspaces across the hospital system. Two models of remote readouts, synchronous and asynchronous, were developed, facilitated by commercially available information technologies. Thirty-nine of 105 (37%) trainees and 42 of 90 (47%) attendings responded to the survey. Main response themes included: social distancing, technology, autonomy/competency, efficiency, education/feedback and atmosphere/professional relationship. One hundred and forty-eight positive versus 97 negative comments were reported. Social distancing, technology, and autonomy/competency were most positively rated. Trainees and attending perspectives differed regarding the efficiency of remote readouts. CONCLUSION: "Remote readouts," compliant with social distancing measures, are feasible in academic radiology practice settings. Perspectives from our initial experience provide insight into how this can be accomplished, opportunities for improvement and future application, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.