A review of COVID-19's impact on modern medical systems from a health organization management perspective.

The novel SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) disrupted many facets of the healthcare industry throughout the pandemic and has likely permanently altered modern healthcare delivery. It has been shown that existing healthcare infrastructure influenced national responses to COVID-19, but the current implications and resultant sequelae of the pandemic on the organizational framework of healthcare remains largely unknown. This paper aims to review how aspects of contemporary medical systems - the physical environment of care delivery, global healthcare supply chains, workforce structures, information and communication systems, scientific collaboration, as well as policy frameworks - evolved in the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparison of published guidelines for management of coagulopathy and thrombosis in critically ill patients with COVID 19: implications for clinical practice and future investigations.

Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk for thrombotic complications which has led to an intense debate surrounding their anticoagulation management. In the absence of data from randomized controlled clinical trials, a number of consensus guidelines and recommendations have been published to facilitate clinical decision-making on this issue. However, substantive differences exist between these guidelines which can be difficult for clinicians. This review briefly summarizes the major societal guidelines and compares their similarities and differences. A common theme in all of the recommendations is to take an individualized approach to patient management and a call for prospective randomized clinical trials to address important anticoagulation issues in this population.

Comparison of outcomes in non-head injured trauma patients using pre-injury warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients on prehospital anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a vulnerable subset of the trauma population. While protocolized warfarin reversal is widely available and easily implemented, prehospital anticoagulation with DOAC is cost prohibitive with only a few reversal options. This study aims to compare hospital outcomes of non-head injured trauma patients taking pre-injury DOAC versus warfarin. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center was performed. All adult trauma patients with pre-injury anticoagulation admitted between January 2015 and December 2018, were stratified into DOAC-using and warfarin-using groups. Patients were excluded if they had traumatic brain injury (TBI). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Outcomes measures included in-hospital mortality, blood transfusion requirements, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS and discharge disposition. RESULTS: 374 non-TBI trauma patients on anticoagulation were identified, of which 134 were on DOACs and 240 on warfarin. Patients on DOACs had a higher ISS (9 [IQR, 9-10] vs. 9 [IQR, 5-9]; p<0.001), and lower admission INR values (1.2 [IQR, 1.1-1.3] vs 2.4 [IQR, 1.8-2.7]; p<0.001) than warfarin users. Use of reversal agents was higher in warfarin users (p<0.001). Relative to warfarin, DOAC users did not differ significantly with respect to hospital mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI [0.13-1.73]). Multivariable analysis (not possible for mortality) did not show significant difference for RBC transfusion requirements (OR 0.92 [0.51-1.67]), ICU LOS (OR 1.08 [0.53-2.19]), hospital LOS (OR 1.10 [0.70-1.74]) or discharge disposition (OR 0.56 [0.29-1.11]) between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite lower reversal rates and higher ISS, non-TBI trauma patients with pre-injury DOAC use had similar outcomes as patients on pre-injury warfarin. There may be equipoise to have larger, prospective studies evaluating the comparative safety of DOACs and warfarin in the population prone to low energy fall type injuries.