A scoping review of bacterial resistance among inpatients amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention operations worldwide, raising concerns for an acceleration of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Therefore, we aimed to define the scope of peer reviewed research comparing AMR in inpatient bacterial clinical cultures before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science through 15 June 2023. Our inclusion criteria were: (1) English language, (2) primary evidence, (3) peer-reviewed, (4) clinical culture data from humans, (5) AMR data for at least one bacterial order/species, (6) inpatient setting, (7) use of statistical testing to evaluate AMR data before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reviewers extracted country, study design, type of analysis, study period, setting and population, number of positive cultures or isolates, culture type(s), method of AMR analysis, organisms, and AMR results. Study results were organised by organism and antibiotic class or resistance mechanism. AMR results are also summarised by individual study and across all studies. RESULTS: In total, 4805 articles were identified with 55 papers meeting inclusion criteria. Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus were the most commonly studied organisms. There were 464 bacterial AMR results across all studies with 82 (18%) increase, 71 (15%) decrease, and 311 (67%) no change results. CONCLUSIONS: The literature examining the impact of COVID-19 on AMR among inpatients is diverse with most results reflecting no change pre/post pandemic. Ongoing inquiry is needed into evolving patterns in AMR post COVID-19.

Accuracy of Dysphagia Screening by Non-clinical Research Staff in the Emergency Department.

Although the emergency department (ED) is the initial care setting for the majority of older adults requiring hospital admission, there is a paucity of ED-based dysphagia research in this at-risk population. This is driven by barriers to dysphagia evaluation in this complex care environment. Therefore, we assessed the reliability of trained, non-clinical ED research staff in administering dysphagia screening tools compared to trained speech pathologists (SLPs). We also aimed to determine perceptual screening discrepancies (e.g. voice change) between clinical and non-clinical staff. Forty-two older adults with suspected pneumonia were recruited during an ED visit and underwent dysphagia (Toronto Bedside Swallow Screening Tool; TOR-BSST©) and aspiration (3-oz water swallow test; 3-oz WST) screening by trained non-clinical research staff. Audio-recordings of screenings were re-rated post-hoc by trained, blinded SLPs with discrepancies resolved via consensus. Cohen's kappa (unweighted) revealed moderate agreement in pass/fail ratings between clinical and non-clinical staff for both the TOR-BSST© (k = 0.75) and the 3 oz WST (k = 0.66) corresponding to excellent sensitivity and good specificity for both the TOR-BSST (SN = 94%, SP = 85%) and the 3 oz WST (SN = 90%, SP = 81%). Further analysis of TOR-BSST perceptual parameters revealed that most discrepancies between clinicians and non-clinicians resulted from over-diagnosis of change in vocal quality (53%). These results support the feasibility of non-clinical research staff administering screening tools for dysphagia and aspiration in the ED. Dysphagia screening may not necessitate clinical staff involvement, which may improve feasibility of large-scale ED research. Future training of research staff should focus on perceptual assessment of vocal quality.

Dysphagia Is an Underrecognized Risk Factor for Viral Pneumonia Severity.

The aim of this study was to examine the role of pre-existing dysphagia as a risk factor for COVID-19 severity among adults ≥50 years of age presenting to the emergency department (ED). This was a retrospective cohort study that used electronic health record data from two Midwestern EDs in the same health care system. The sample included patients ≥50 years of age who tested positive for SARS-COV-2 during an ED visit between March 15, 2020 and November 19, 2020. Patients were dichotomized based on documented history of dysphagia. The primary outcome was the highest World Health Organization COVID-19 clinical severity score within 30-days of ED arrival. Patients with a score of <4 were classified as non-severe whereas a score ≥4 was considered severe. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in clinical severity scores between patients with and without dysphagia. A logistic regression model was created to estimate the odds of a severe COVID-19 clinical score. The sample included 126 patients without dysphagia and 40 patients with dysphagia. Patients with a history of dysphagia were more likely to develop severe COVID-19 disease compared to patients without (65.0% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.015). In multivariable analysis, patients with preexisting dysphagia (OR 2.38, 95% CI: 1.05-5.42; p = 0.038) and diabetes (OR 2.42 95% CI: 1.15-5.30; p = 0.021) had significantly increased odds of developing severe COVID-19. This study showed that a pre-existing diagnosis of dysphagia was independently associated with COVID-19 severity in adults ≥50 years of age.

Optimizing Antimicrobial Stewardship in the Emergency Department.

Antibiotic stewardship is a core component of emergency department (ED) practice and impacts patient safety, clinical outcomes, and public health. The unique characteristics of ED practice, including crowding, time pressure, and diagnostic uncertainty, need to be considered when implementing antibiotic stewardship interventions in this setting. Rapid advances in pathogen detection and host response biomarkers promise to revolutionize the diagnosis of infectious diseases in the ED, but such tests are not yet considered standard of care. Presently, clinical decision support embedded in the electronic health record and pharmacist-led interventions are the most effective ways to improve antibiotic prescribing in the ED.

Inappropriate Diagnosis of Pneumonia Among Hospitalized Adults.

Importance: Little is known about incidence of, risk factors for, and harms associated with inappropriate diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Objective: To characterize inappropriate diagnosis of CAP in hospitalized patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study, including medical record review and patient telephone calls, took place across 48 Michigan hospitals. Trained abstractors retrospectively assessed hospitalized patients treated for CAP between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were adults admitted to general care with a discharge diagnostic code of pneumonia who received antibiotics on day 1 or 2 of hospitalization. Data were analyzed from February to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Inappropriate diagnosis of CAP was defined using a National Quality Forum-endorsed metric as CAP-directed antibiotic therapy in patients with fewer than 2 signs or symptoms of CAP or negative chest imaging. Risk factors for inappropriate diagnosis were assessed and, for those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) were documented and stratified by full course (>3 days) vs brief (≤3 days) antibiotic treatment using generalized estimating equation models adjusting for confounders and propensity for treatment. Results: Of the 17 290 hospitalized patients treated for CAP, 2079 (12.0%) met criteria for inappropriate diagnosis (median [IQR] age, 71.8 [60.1-82.8] years; 1045 [50.3%] female), of whom 1821 (87.6%) received full antibiotic courses. Compared with patients with CAP, patients inappropriately diagnosed were older (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11 per decade) and more likely to have dementia (AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.55-2.08) or altered mental status on presentation (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.19). Among those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes for full vs brief treatment did not differ (25.8% vs 25.6%; AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23). Full vs brief duration of antibiotic treatment among patients was associated with antibiotic-associated adverse events (31 of 1821 [2.1%] vs 1 of 258 [0.4%]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, inappropriate diagnosis of CAP among hospitalized adults was common, particularly among older adults, those with dementia, and those presenting with altered mental status. Full-course antibiotic treatment of those inappropriately diagnosed with CAP may be harmful.

Validation of Thermal Imaging and the ALT-70 Prediction Model to Differentiate Cellulitis From Pseudocellulitis.

Importance: Cellulitis is misdiagnosed in up to 30% of cases due to mimic conditions termed pseudocellulitis. The resulting overuse of antibiotics is a threat to patient safety and public health. Surface thermal imaging and the ALT-70 (asymmetry, leukocytosis, tachycardia, and age ≥70 years) prediction model have been proposed as tools to help differentiate cellulitis from pseudocellulitis. Objectives: To validate differences in skin surface temperatures between patients with cellulitis and patients with pseudocellulitis, assess the optimal temperature measure and cut point for differentiating cellulitis from pseudocellulitis, and compare the performance of skin surface temperature and the ALT-70 prediction model in differentiating cellulitis from pseudocellulitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective diagnostic validation study was conducted among patients who presented to the emergency department with acute dermatologic lower extremity symptoms from October 11, 2018, through March 11, 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2020 to March 2021 with additional work conducted in September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Temperature measures for affected and unaffected skin were obtained. Cellulitis vs pseudocellulitis was assessed by a 6-physician, independent consensus review. Differences in temperature measures were compared using the t test. Logistic regression was used to identify the temperature measure and associated cut point with the optimal performance for discriminating between cellulitis and pseudocellulitis. Diagnostic performance characteristics for the ALT-70 prediction model, surface skin temperature, and both combined were also assessed. Results: The final sample included 204 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.6 [16.5] years; 121 men [59.3%]), 92 (45.1%) of whom had a consensus diagnosis of cellulitis. There were statistically significant differences in all skin surface temperature measures (mean temperature, maximum temperature, and gradients) between cellulitis and pseudocellulitis. The maximum temperature of the affected limb for patients with cellulitis was 33.2 °C compared with 31.2 °C for those with pseudocellulitis (difference, 2.0 °C [95% CI, 1.3-2.7 °C]; P < .001). The maximum temperature was the optimal temperature measure with a cut point of 31.2 °C in the affected skin, yielding a mean (SD) negative predictive value of 93.5% (4.7%) and a sensitivity of 96.8% (2.3%). The sensitivity of all 3 measures remained above 90%, while specificity varied considerably (ALT-70, 22.0% [95% CI, 15.8%-28.1%]; maximum temperature of the affected limb, 38.4% [95% CI, 31.7%-45.1%]; combination measure, 53.9% [95% CI, 46.5%-61.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large diagnostic validation study, significant differences in skin surface temperature measures were observed between cases of cellulitis and cases of pseudocellulitis. Thermal imaging and the ALT-70 both demonstrated high sensitivity, but specificity was improved by combining the 2 measures. These findings support the potential of thermal imaging, alone or in combination with the ALT-70 prediction model, as a diagnostic adjunct that may reduce overdiagnosis of cellulitis.

Diagnostic testing and antibiotic utilization among inpatients evaluated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

We evaluated diagnostic test and antibiotic utilization among 252 patients from 11 US hospitals who were evaluated for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia during the severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) omicron variant pandemic wave. In our cohort, antibiotic use remained high (62%) among SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and even higher among those who underwent procalcitonin testing (68%).

Patient-centered care outcomes for patients in the emergency department with a non-English language preference: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: This review highlights what is known about patient-centered care outcomes (PCCOs) for emergency department (ED) patients with non-English language preferences (NELP). METHODS: Four databases were searched and included article were written in English, presented primary evidence, published in a peer-reviewed journal, and reported PCCOs from the perspective of ED patients with NELP. PCCOs were defined using the Institute of Medicine definition, outcomes that evaluate respect and responsiveness to patient preferences, needs and values. Two reviewers assessed all articles, extracted data, and resolved discrepancies. PCCOs were grouped in categories (needs, preferences, and values) based on the definition's domains. RESULTS: Of the 6524 potentially eligible studies, 20 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 16 focused on needs; 4 on preferences and 8 on values. Within patient need, five studies found a large unmet need for language services. Within patient value, three found that language discordance negatively influenced perceptions of care. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies in this review found that not speaking English negatively influenced perceptions of care and highlighted a large unmet need for language services in the ED. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: More work needs to be done to characterize PCCOs in ED patients with NELP and develop interventions to improve care.

New horizons in understanding oral health and swallowing function within the context of frailty.

Frailty is a complex and multidimensional condition wherein declines in physiologic reserve and function place individuals in a state of heightened vulnerability and decreased resiliency. There has been growing interest in both research and clinical settings to understand how to best define, assess and characterise frailty in older adults. To this end, various models and clinical assessment tools have been used to define and measure frailty. While differences exist among these models and tools, a common unifying theme is a focus on physical function and activity. Notably absent across many available conceptual models and clinical tools are items directly related to oral and swallowing function. This is an important oversight as widespread changes to both oral and swallowing function are evident in older adults. Indeed, emerging evidence suggests many of the functional domains affected in frail older adults, such as nutrition and sarcopenia, have cyclical relationships with impairments in oral (oral hypofunction) and swallowing function (dysphagia) as well. The increasing appreciation for the interrelationships among oral hypofunction, dysphagia and frailty provides an opportunity for refinement of frailty assessment and characterisation in older adults to incorporate metrics specific to oral and swallowing function.

Satisfaction of Older Patients With Emergency Department Care: Psychometric Properties and Construct Validity of the Consumer Emergency Care Satisfaction Scale.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important indicator of quality of care, but its measurement remains challenging. The Consumer Emergency Care Satisfaction Scale (CECSS) was developed to measure patient satisfaction in the emergency department (ED). Although this is a valid and reliable tool, several aspects of the CECSS need to be improved, including the definition, dimension, and scoring of scales. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity of the CECSS and make suggestions on how to improve the tool to measure overall satisfaction with ED care. METHODS: We administered 2 surveys to older adults who presented with a fall to the ED and used electronic health record data to examine construct validity of the CECSS and ceiling effects. RESULTS: Using several criteria, we improved construct validity of the CECSS, reduced ceiling effects, and standardized scoring. CONCLUSION: We addressed several methodological issues with the CECSS and provided recommendations for improvement.

Multisite evaluation of prediction models for emergency department crowding before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a machine learning framework to forecast emergency department (ED) crowding and to evaluate model performance under spatial and temporal data drift. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained 4 datasets, identified by the location: 1-large academic hospital and 2-rural hospital, and time period: pre-coronavirus disease (COVID) (January 1, 2019-February 1, 2020) and COVID-era (May 15, 2020-February 1, 2021). Our primary target was a binary outcome that is equal to 1 if the number of patients with acute respiratory illness that were ED boarding for more than 4 h was above a prescribed historical percentile. We trained a random forest and used the area under the curve (AUC) to evaluate out-of-sample performance for 2 experiments: (1) we evaluated the impact of sudden temporal drift by training models using pre-COVID data and testing them during the COVID-era, (2) we evaluated the impact of spatial drift by testing models trained at location 1 on data from location 2, and vice versa. RESULTS: The baseline AUC values for ED boarding ranged from 0.54 (pre-COVID at location 2) to 0.81 (COVID-era at location 1). Models trained with pre-COVID data performed similarly to COVID-era models (0.82 vs 0.78 at location 1). Models that were transferred from location 2 to location 1 performed worse than models trained at location 1 (0.51 vs 0.78). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that ED boarding is a predictable metric for ED crowding, models were not significantly impacted by temporal data drift, and any attempts at implementation must consider spatial data drift.

Lopinavir/ritonavir for treatment of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Effective and widely available therapies are still needed for outpatients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for early treatment of non-hospitalized individuals diagnosed with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomized, placebo (Plb)-controlled, double-blind, multi-site decentralized clinical trial enrolled non-hospitalized adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and six or fewer days of acute respiratory infection symptoms who were randomized to either twice-daily oral LPV/r (400 mg/100 mg) or Plb for 14 days. Daily surveys on study days 1 through 16 and again on study day 28 evaluated symptoms, daily activities, and hospitalization status. The primary outcome was longitudinal change in an ordinal scale based on a combination of symptoms, activity, and hospitalization status through day 15 and was analyzed by use of a Bayesian longitudinal proportional odds logistic regression model for estimating the probability of a superior recovery for LPV/r over Plb (odds ratio >1). RESULTS: Between June 2020 and December 2021, 448 participants were randomized to receive either LPV/r (n = 216) or Plb (n = 221). The mean symptom duration before randomization was 4.3 days (SD 1.3). There were no differences between treatment groups through the first 15 days for the ordinal primary outcome (odds ratio 0.96; 95% credible interval: 0.66 to 1.41). There were 3.2% (n = 7) of LPV/r and 2.7% (n = 6) of Plb participants hospitalized by day 28. Serious adverse events did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: LPV/r did not significantly improve symptom resolution or reduce hospitalization in non-hospitalized participants with COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04372628.

Risk Factors for Dysphagia in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be at risk for dysphagia and vulnerable to associated consequences. We investigated predictors for dysphagia and its severity in a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a single hospital center. A large level I trauma center database was queried for all patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Demographics, medical information associated with COVID-19, specific to dysphagia, and interventions were collected. 947 patients with confirmed COVID-19 met the criteria. 118 (12%) were seen for a swallow evaluation. Individuals referred for evaluation were significantly older, had a lower BMI, more severe COVID-19, and higher rates of intubation, pneumonia, mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy placements, prone positioning, and ARDS. Pneumonia (OR 3.57, p = 0.004), ARDS (OR 3.57, p = 0.029), prone positioning (OR 3.99, p = 0.036), ventilation (OR 4.01, p = 0.006), and intubation (OR 4.75, p = 0.007) were significant risk factors for dysphagia. Older patients were more likely to have more severe dysphagia such that for every 1-year increase in age, the odds of severe dysphagia were 1.04 times greater (OR 1.04, p = 0.028). Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are at risk for dysphagia. We show predictive variables that should be considered when referring COVID-19 patients for dysphagia services to reduce time to intervention/evaluation.

Post-implementation usability evaluation of a human factors-based clinical decision support for pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis (Dx): PE Dx Study Part 1.

While there is promise for health IT, such as Clinical Decision Support (CDS), to improve patient safety and clinician efficiency, poor usability has hindered widespread use of these tools. Human Factors (HF) principles and methods remain the gold standard for health IT design; however, there is limited information on how HF methods and principles influence CDS usability "in the wild". In this study, we explore the usability of an HF-based CDS used in the clinical environment; the CDS was designed according to a human-centered design process, which is described in Carayon et al. (2020). In this study, we interviewed 12 emergency medicine physicians, identifying 294 excerpts of barriers and facilitators of the CDS. Sixty-eight percent of excerpts related to the HF principles applied in the human-centered design of the CDS. The remaining 32% of excerpts related to 18 inductively-created categories, which highlight gaps in the CDS design process. Several barriers were related to the physical environment and organization work system elements as well as physicians' broader workflow in the emergency department (e.g., teamwork). This study expands our understanding of the usability outcomes of HF-based CDS "in the wild". We demonstrate the value of HF principles in the usability of CDS and identify areas for improvement to future human-centered design of CDS. The relationship between these usability outcomes and the HCD process is explored in an accompanying Part 2 manuscript.

Retrospective analysis of the human-centered design process used to develop a clinical decision support in the emergency department: PE Dx Study Part 2.

With the growing implementation and use of health IT such as Clinical Decision Support (CDS), there is increasing attention on the potential negative impact of these technologies on patients (e.g., medication errors) and clinicians (e.g., increased workload, decreased job satisfaction, burnout). Human-Centered Design (HCD) and Human Factors (HF) principles are recommended to improve the usability of health IT and reduce its negative impact on patients and clinicians; however, challenges persist. The objective of this study is to understand how an HCD process influences the usability of health IT. We conducted a systematic retrospective analysis of the HCD process used in the design of a CDS for pulmonary embolism diagnosis in the emergency department (ED). Guided by the usability outcomes (e.g., barriers and facilitators) of the CDS use "in the wild" (see Part 1 of this research in the accompanying manuscript), we performed deductive content analysis of 17 documents (e.g., design session transcripts) produced during the HCD process. We describe if and how the design team considered the barriers and facilitators during the HCD process. We identified 7 design outcomes of the HCD process, for instance designing a workaround and making a design change to the CDS. We identify gaps in the current HCD process and demonstrate the need for a continuous health IT design process.

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist workforce: A multicenter survey.

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required healthcare systems and hospitals to rapidly modify standard practice, including antimicrobial stewardship services. Our study examines the impact of COVID-19 on the antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist. Design: A survey was distributed nationally to all healthcare improvement company members. Participants: Pharmacist participants were mostly leaders of antimicrobial stewardship programs distributed evenly across the United States and representing urban, suburban, and rural health-system practice sites. Results: Participants reported relative increases in time spent completing tasks related to medication access and preauthorization (300%; P = .018) and administrative meeting time (34%; P = .067) during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Time spent rounding, making interventions, performing pharmacokinetic services, and medication reconciliation decreased. Conclusion: A shift away from clinical activities may negatively affect the utilization of antimicrobials.