Comparison of Severe Maternal Morbidities Associated With Delivery During Periods of Circulation of Specific SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

Importance: Infection with SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, is associated with adverse maternal outcomes. While it is known that severity of COVID-19 varies by viral strain, the extent to which this variation is reflected in adverse maternal outcomes, including nonpulmonary maternal outcomes, is not well characterized. Objective: To evaluate the associations of SARS-CoV-2 infection with severe maternal morbidities (SMM) in pregnant patients delivering during 4 pandemic periods characterized by predominant viral strains. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients delivering in a multicenter, geographically diverse US health system between March 2020 and January 2022. Individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity-matched with as many as 4 individuals without evidence of infection based on demographic and clinical variables during 4 time periods based on the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2: March to December 2020 (wild type); January to June 2021 (Alpha [B.1.1.7]); July to November 2021 (Delta [B.1.617.2]); and December 2021 to January 2022 (Omicron [B.1.1.529]). Data were analyzed from October 2021 to June 2022. Exposures: Positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test result during the delivery encounter. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was any SMM event, as defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during hospitalization for delivery. Secondary outcomes were number of SMM, respiratory SMM, nonrespiratory SMM, and nontransfusion SMM events. Results: Over all time periods, there were 3129 patients with SARS-CoV-2, with a median (IQR) age of 29.1 (24.6-33.2) years. They were propensity matched with a total of 12 504 patients without SARS-CoV-2, with a median (IQR) age of 29.2 (24.7-33.2) years. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection had significantly higher rates of SMM events than those without in all time periods, except during Omicron. While the risk of any SMM associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased for the wild-type strain (odds ratio [OR], 2.74 [95% CI, 1.85-4.03]) and Alpha variant (OR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.69-4.01]), the risk during the Delta period was higher (OR, 7.69 [95% CI, 5.19-11.54]; P for trend < .001). The findings were similar for respiratory complications, nonrespiratory complications, and nontransfusion outcomes. For example, the risk of nonrespiratory SMM events for patients with vs without SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar for the wild-type strain (OR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.40-3.27]) and Alpha variant (OR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.20-3.12]), highest for the Delta variant (OR, 4.65 [95% CI, 2.97-7.29]), and not significantly higher in the Omicron period (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.67-2.08]; P for trend < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant was associated with higher rates of SMM events compared with other strains. Given the potential of new strains, these findings underscore the importance of preventive measures.

Effect of Text Message Reminders and Vaccine Reservations on Adherence to a Health System COVID-19 Vaccination Policy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many organizations implemented COVID-19 vaccination requirements during the pandemic, but the best way to increase adherence to these policies is unknown. Objective: To evaluate if behavioral nudges delivered through text messages could accelerate adherence to a health system's COVID-19 vaccination policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted within Ascension health system from October 11 to November 8, 2021. Participants included health system employees in the Midwest or South US who were not adherent with the vaccination policy 1 month before its deadline. Data were analyzed from November 17, 2021, to February 25, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to control or to receive a text message intervention that stated a vaccine had been reserved for the participant, with a scheduled date for vaccination within a 2-week period. Participants could reschedule to a different date within the period or upload a copy of their vaccination card. Follow-up text message reminders were sent the day before and the day of the appointment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to the health system's vaccination policy during the 2-week intervention. Secondary outcomes included time to vaccination during a 4-week follow-up period. Results: The sample included 2000 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.4 [12.3] years; 1724 [86.2%] women), with 1000 participants randomized to the control group and 1000 participants randomized to the intervention group. Overall, there were 164 Hispanic participants (8.2%), 46 non-Hispanic Asian participants (2.3%), 202 non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1%), and 1418 non-Hispanic White participants (70.9%). By the end of the 2-week intervention, 363 participants in the text message nudge group (36.3%) and 318 participants in the control group (31.8%) were adherent with the vaccination policy, representing a significant increase of 4.9 (95% CI, 0.8 to 9.1) percentage points in adjusted analyses comparing the nudge group with the control group (P = .02). Among participants who became adherent by the end of the 4-week follow-up period, the text message nudge significantly reduced time to adherence by a mean of 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1 to 4.7) days (P < .001) and a median of 5.0 (95% CI, 2.5 to 7.7) days (P < .001) compared with the control group. At 4 weeks, overall vaccination adherence was no longer different between groups (control: 477 participants [47.7%]; intervention: 472 participants [47.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that a behavioral nudge delivered through text messages accelerated adherence to a health system's COVID-19 vaccination policy but did change overall adherence by the time of the policy deadline. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05037201.

Does the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination rate among healthcare personnel reflect their community? An evaluation of a multistate healthcare system.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination rates of a large health system reflected their respective service areas but varied by work role. Nurse vaccination rates were higher (56.9%) and rates among nursing support personnel were lower (38.6%) than those of their communities (51.7%; P < .001). Physician vaccination rates were highest (71.6%) and were not associated with community vaccination levels.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI): The urgent need to refocus on hardwiring prevention efforts.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a considerable impact on US hospitalizations, affecting processes and patient population. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) and catheter associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) in hospitals. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of CLABSIs and CAUTIs in 78 US 12 months before COVID-19 and 6 months during COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: During the 2 study periods, there were 795,022 central-line days and 817,267 urinary catheter days. Compared to the period before the COVID-19 pandemic, CLABSI rates increased by 51.0% during the pandemic period from 0.56 to 0.85 per 1,000 line days (P < .001) and by 62.9% from 1.00 to 1.64 per 10,000 patient days (P < .001). Hospitals with monthly COVID-19 patients representing >10% of admissions had a National Health Safety Network (NHSN) device standardized infection ratio for CLABSI that was 2.38 times higher than hospitals with <5% prevalence during the pandemic period (P = .004). Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus CLABSIs increased by 130% from 0.07 to 0.17 events per 1,000 line days (P < .001), and Candida spp by 56.9% from 0.14 to 0.21 per 1,000 line days (P = .01). In contrast, no significant changes were identified for CAUTI (0.86 vs 0.77 per 1,000 catheter days; P = .19). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with substantial increases in CLABSIs but not CAUTIs. Our findings underscore the importance of hardwiring processes for optimal line care and regular feedback on performance to maintain a safe environment.

COVID-19 hospital prevalence as a risk factor for mortality: an observational study of a multistate cohort of 62 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The associated mortality with COVID-19 has improved compared with the early pandemic period. The effect of hospital COVID-19 patient prevalence on COVID-19 mortality has not been well studied. METHODS: We analysed data for adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to 62 hospitals within a multistate health system over 12 months. Mortality was evaluated based on patient demographic and clinical risk factors, COVID-19 hospital prevalence and calendar time period of the admission, using a generalised linear mixed model with site of care as the random effect. RESULTS: 38 104 patients with COVID-19 were hospitalised, and during their encounters, the prevalence of COVID-19 averaged 16% of the total hospitalised population. Between March-April 2020 and January-February 2021, COVID-19 mortality declined from 19% to 12% (p<0.001). In the adjusted multivariable analysis, mid and high COVID-19 inpatient prevalence were associated with a 25% and 41% increase in the odds (absolute contribution to probability of death of 2%-3%) of COVID-19 mortality compared with patients with COVID-19 in facilities with low prevalence (<10%), respectively (high prevalence >25%: adjusted OR (AOR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.61; mid-prevalence (10%-25%): AOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38). Mid and high COVID-19 prevalence accounted for 76% of patient encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Although inpatient mortality for patients with COVID-19 has sharply declined compared with earlier in the pandemic, higher COVID-19 hospital prevalence remained a common risk factor for COVID-19 mortality. Hospital leaders need to reconsider how we provide support to care for patients in times of increased volume and complexity, such as those experienced during COVID-19 surges.

Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine non-intent by essential vs non-essential worker, demographic, and socioeconomic status among 101,048 US adults.

As of May 2021, over 286 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine doses have been administered across the country. This data is promising, however there are still populations that, despite availability, are declining vaccination. We reviewed vaccine likelihood and receptiveness to recommendation from a doctor or nurse survey responses from 101,048 adults (≥18 years old) presenting to 442 primary care clinics in 8 states and the District of Columbia. Occupation was self-reported and demographic information extracted from the medical record, with 58.3% (n = 58,873) responding they were likely to receive the vaccine, 23.6% (n = 23,845) unlikely, and 18.1% (n = 18,330) uncertain. We found that essential workers were 18% less likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. Of those who indicated they were not already "very likely" to receive the vaccine, a recommendation from a nurse or doctor resulted in 16% of respondents becoming more likely to receive the vaccine, although certain occupations were less likely than others to be receptive to recommendations. To our knowledge, this is the first study to look at vaccine intent and receptiveness to recommendations from a doctor or nurse across specific essential worker occupations, and may help inform future early phase, vaccine rollouts and public health measure implementations.

Association of Race With Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 92 US Hospitals.

IMPORTANCE: While current reports suggest that a disproportionate share of US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and deaths are among Black residents, little information is available regarding how race is associated with in-hospital mortality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of race, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, on all-cause, in-hospital mortality for patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included 11 210 adult patients (age ≥18 years) hospitalized with confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between February 19, 2020, and May 31, 2020, in 92 hospitals in 12 states: Alabama (6 hospitals), Maryland (1 hospital), Florida (5 hospitals), Illinois (8 hospitals), Indiana (14 hospitals), Kansas (4 hospitals), Michigan (13 hospitals), New York (2 hospitals), Oklahoma (6 hospitals), Tennessee (4 hospitals), Texas (11 hospitals), and Wisconsin (18 hospitals). EXPOSURES: Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by positive result on polymerase chain reaction testing of a nasopharyngeal sample. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Death during hospitalization was examined overall and by race. Race was self-reported and categorized as Black, White, and other or missing. Cox proportional hazards regression with mixed effects was used to evaluate associations between all-cause in-hospital mortality and patient characteristics while accounting for the random effects of hospital on the outcome. RESULTS: Of 11 210 patients with confirmed COVID-19 presenting to hospitals, 4180 (37.3%) were Black patients and 5583 (49.8%) were men. The median (interquartile range) age was 61 (46 to 74) years. Compared with White patients, Black patients were younger (median [interquartile range] age, 66 [50 to 80] years vs 61 [46 to 72] years), were more likely to be women (2259 [49.0%] vs 2293 [54.9%]), were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (611 [13.3%] vs 1031 [24.7%]), and had higher median (interquartile range) scores on the Neighborhood Deprivation Index (-0.11 [-0.70 to 0.56] vs 0.82 [0.08 to 1.76]) and the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (21 [0 to 44] vs 22 [0 to 46]). All-cause in-hospital mortality among hospitalized White and Black patients was 23.1% (724 of 3218) and 19.2% (540 of 2812), respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, insurance, comorbidities, neighborhood deprivation, and site of care, there was no statistically significant difference in risk of mortality between Black and White patients (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.09). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although current reports suggest that Black patients represent a disproportionate share of COVID-19 infections and death in the United States, in this study, mortality for those able to access hospital care did not differ between Black and White patients after adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities.

Cause of death within 30 days of percutaneous coronary intervention in an era of mandatory outcome reporting.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to ascertain causes of death and the incidence of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related mortality within 30 days. BACKGROUND: Public reporting of 30-day mortality after PCI without clearly identifying the cause may result in operator risk avoidance and affect hospital reputation and reimbursements. Death certificates, utilized by previous reports, have poor correlation with actual cause of death and may be inadequate for public reporting. METHODS: All patients who died within 30 days of a PCI from January 2009 to April 2011 at a tertiary care center were included. Causes of death were identified through detailed chart review using Academic Research Consortium consensus guidelines and compared with reported death certificates. The causes of death were divided into cardiac and noncardiac and PCI and non-PCI-related categories. RESULTS: Of the 4,078 PCI, 81 deaths (2%) occurred within 30 days. Of these, 58% died of cardiac and 42% of noncardiac causes. However, only 42% of 30-day deaths were attributed to PCI-related complications. Patients with non-PCI-related, compared with PCI-related, death presented with a higher incidence of cardiogenic shock (15 of 47 [32%] vs. 2 of 34 [6%]; p < 0.01) and cardiac arrest (19 of 47 [40%] vs. 1 of 34 [3%]; p < 0.01). Death certificates had only 58% accuracy (95% confidence interval: 45% to 72%) for classifying patients as experiencing cardiac versus noncardiac death. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-half of 30-day deaths are attributed to a PCI-related complication. Death certificates are inaccurate and do not report PCI-related deaths, which may represent a better marker of PCI quality.

Characteristics of medical professional liability claims in patients with cardiovascular diseases.

This report presents data describing a large cohort of closed cardiovascular medical professional liability (MPL) claims. The Physician Insurers Association of America established a registry of closed MPL claims in 1985. This registry contains data describing 230,624 closed claims for 28 medical specialties through 2007. The registry is maintained to support educational programs designed to improve the quality of care and to reduce patient injury and MPL claims. In this report, descriptive techniques are used to present summary information for the medical cardiovascular claims in the registry. Of 230,624 closed claims, 4,248 (1.8%) involved cardiovascular medical physicians. Of the 4,248 closed cardiovascular medical claims, 770 (18%) resulted in indemnity payments, and the average indemnity payment was $248,291. In the entire database, 30% of closed claims were paid, and the average indemnity payment was $204,268. The most common allegation among cardiovascular closed claims was diagnostic error, and the most prevalent diagnosis was coronary atherosclerosis. Claims involving cardiac catheterization and coronary angioplasty represented 12% and 7% of the cardiovascular closed claims. Aortic aneurysms and dissections, although relatively infrequent as clinical events, represent a substantial MPL risk because of the high percentage of paid claims (30%) and the very high average indemnity payment of $417,298. In conclusion, MPL issues are common and are important to all practicing cardiologists. Detailed knowledge of risks associated with liability claims should assist practicing cardiologists in improving the quality of care, reducing patient injury, and reducing the incidence of claims.

An evidence-based template for implementation of multidisciplinary evidence-based practices in a tertiary hospital setting.

Public demand for higher quality and lower cost, evolving pay-for-performance initiatives from payors, and the growing volume of quality "report cards" are driving health care organizations to develop evidence-based practice (EBP) guidelines. Hospitals will be expected to provide the infrastructure and resources needed to support these care processes. Published best practices for implementing EBPs are rooted in organizational and behavioral change theories. Some provide a framework for implementation but lack specific steps to be followed. Others provide process detail, but their focus is too narrow to address the breadth of interdisciplinary care for defined populations. The Saint Vincent Guide for Evidence-Based Practice Implementation is a 4-phase, "fill-in-the-blank" template, road map, and time line for creating interdisciplinary, diagnosis-specific, evidence-based practices to "hard wire" the care delivery process. It is a result of our experiences with and a literature review of EBP implementation best practices that, taken together, substantiate the steps prescribed by the Guide.

Implementing evidence-based practice for acute myocardial infarction utilizing automated information technology.

Saint Vincent Health Center has adopted 2 strong tools--evidence-based practice and automated information technology--to significantly improve mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Automated information technology drives real-time evidence-based clinical processes and has reduced mortality from 10% to 3% over a 1-year period.