Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Hospitalization and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The recent spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately impacted racial and ethnic minority groups; however, the impact of healthcare utilization on outcome disparities remains unexplored. Our study examines racial and ethnic disparities in hospitalization, medication usage, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data for adult patients within an integrated healthcare system in New York City between February 28-August 28, 2020, who had a lab-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Primary outcome was likelihood of inpatient admission. Secondary outcomes were differences in medication administration, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of 4717 adult patients evaluated in the emergency department (ED), 3219 (68.2%) were admitted to an inpatient setting. Black patients were the largest group (29.1%), followed by Hispanic/Latinx (29.0%), White (22.9%), Asian (3.86%), and patients who reported "other" race-ethnicity (19.0%). After adjusting for demographic, clinical factors, time, and hospital site, Hispanic/Latinx patients had a significantly lower adjusted rate of admission compared to White patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.76). Black (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43-0.84) and Asian patients (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.25 - 0.89) were less likely to be admitted to the ICU. We observed higher rates of ICU admission (OR 2.96; 95% CI 1.43-6.15, and OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.26-2.65) and in-hospital mortality (OR 4.38; 95% CI 2.66-7.24; and OR 2.96; 95% CI 2.12-4.14) at two community-based academic affiliate sites relative to the primary academic site. CONCLUSION: Non-White patients accounted for a disproportionate share of COVID-19 patients seeking care in the ED but were less likely to be admitted. Hospitals serving the highest proportion of minority patients experienced the worst outcomes, even within an integrated health system with shared resources. Limited capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic likely exacerbated pre-existing health disparities across racial and ethnic minority groups.

Perspectives on Telehealth for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic using the quadruple aim: interviews with 48 physicians.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth delivery expanded quickly during the COVID-19 pandemic after the reduction of payment and regulatory barriers, but older adults are the least likely to benefit from this expansion. Little is known about physician experiences initiating telehealth and factors that fostered or discouraged adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic with older adult patients. Therefore, our objective was to understand experiences of frontline physicians caring for older adults via telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews from September 2020 to November 2020 with 48 physicians. We recruited a diverse sample of geriatricians (n = 18), primary care (n = 15), and emergency (n = 15) physicians from all United Stated (US) regions, rural-urban settings, and academic-community practices who cared for older adult patients during the pandemic using purposive sampling methods. We completed framework analysis of the transcribed interviews to identify emerging themes and used the Quadruple Aim to organize themes. RESULTS: Frontline physicians described telehealth as a more flexible, value-based, and patient-centered mode of health care delivery. Benefits of using telehealth to treat older adults included reducing deferred care and increasing timely care, improving efficiency for physicians, enhancing communication with caregivers and patients, reducing patient travel burdens, and facilitating health outreach and education. Challenges included unequal access for rural, older, or cognitively impaired patients. Physicians noted that payment parity with in-person visits, between video and telephone visits, and relaxation of restrictive regulations would enhance their ability to continue to offer telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: Frontline physicians who treated older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic were largely in favor of continuing telehealth use beyond the pandemic; however, they noted that sustainability would depend on enacting policies that address access inequities and reimbursement concerns. Our data provide policy insights that if placed into action could facilitate the long-term success of telehealth and encourage a more flexible healthcare delivery system in the US.

Executive summary of the 2021 SAEM consensus conference: From bedside to policy: Advancing social emergency medicine and population health through research, collaboration, and education.

BACKGROUND: Social emergency medicine (social EM) examines the intersection of emergency care and the social factors that influence health outcomes. In 2021, the SAEM consensus conference focused on social EM and population health, with the goal of prioritizing research topics, creating collaborations, and advancing the field of social EM. METHODS: Organization of the conference began in 2019 within SAEM. Cochairs were identified and a planning committee created the framework for the conference. Leaders for subgroups were identified, and subgroups performed literature reviews and identified additional stakeholders within EM and community organizations. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the conference format was modified. RESULTS: A total of 246 participants registered for the conference and participated in some capacity at three distinct online sessions. Research prioritization subgroups were as follows-group 1: ED screening and referral for social and access needs; group 2: structural competency; and group 3: race, racism, and antiracism. Thirty-two "projects in progress" were presented within five domains-identity and health: people and places; health care systems; training and education; material needs; and individual and structural violence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ongoing challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 SAEM consensus conference brought together hundreds of stakeholders to define research priorities and create collaborations to push the field forward.

Yield of Head Imaging in Ambulatory and Hospitalized Patients With SARS-CoV-2: A Multi-Center Study of 8675 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To describe the neurological and cerebrovascular findings in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and underwent head imaging in ambulatory and inpatient settings. METHODS: Consecutive patients aged ≥18 years with SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosed or treated at Mayo Clinic sites from 3/11/2020 to 7/23/2020 with head CT or brain MRI within 30 days of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis were included. Demographics, medical history, indication for SARS-CoV-2 testing, neurologic symptoms, indication for brain imaging, neuroimaging findings, etiology of cerebrovascular events, and hospital course were abstracted from medical records. RESULTS: Of 8,675 patients with SARS-CoV-2, 180 (2.07%) had head imaging. Mean age of the entire cohort was 42 ± 18 years, whereas mean age of those with head imaging was 62 ± 19 years. Common indications for imaging were headache (34.4%), encephalopathy (33.4%), focal neurologic symptom (16.7%), and trauma (13.9%). While 86.1% of patients who underwent head imaging had normal exams, cerebrovascular events occurred in 18 patients (0.21% of the total cohort). Of patients with cerebrovascular events, 8 (44.5%) had acute infarct; 6 (33.3%), acute intracranial hemorrhage; 5 (2.8%), subacute infarct; and 1 (0.6%) posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. In the thirteen patients with ischemic stroke, 6 (46.2%) had cryptogenic stroke; 3 (23.1%), other defined causes; 2 (15.4%), small vessel stroke; 1 (7.7%), large vessel stroke; and 1 (7.7%) cardioembolic stroke. CONCLUSION: In ambulatory and hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the rate of head imaging is low, with common indications of encephalopathy and headache. Cerebrovascular events occurred rarely, and cryptogenic stroke was the most common stroke mechanism.