Influence of ICU Surge and Capacity on COVID Mortality Across U.S. States and Regions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To describe the influence of COVID-19 caseload surges and overall capacity in the intensive care unit (ICU) on mortality among US population and census divisions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the national COVID ActNow database between January 1, 2021 until March 1, 2022. The main outcome used was COVID-19 weekly mortality rates, which were calculated and incorporated into several generalized estimation of effects models with predictor variables that included ICU bed capacity, as well as ICU capacity used by COVID cases while adjusting for ratios of vaccinations in populations, case density, and percentage of the population over the age of 65. RESULTS: Each 1% increase in general ICU capacity is correlated with approximately 5 more weekly deaths from COVID-19 per 100,000 population and each percentage increase in the number of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU resulted in approximately 10 more COVID-19 deaths per week per 100,000 population. Significant differences in ability to handle caseload surges were observed across US census divisions. CONCLUSIONS: A strong association was observed between COVID-19 ICU surges, overall ICU surge, and increased mortality. Further research is needed to reveal best practices and public health measures to prevent ICU overcrowding amidst future pandemics and disaster responses.

Looking back on forward-looking COVID models.

Covid Act Now (CAN) developed an epidemiological model that takes various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) into account and predicts viral spread and subsequent health outcomes. In this study, the projections of the model developed by CAN were back-tested against real-world data, and it was found that the model consistently overestimated hospitalizations and deaths by 25%-100% and 70%-170%, respectively, due in part to an underestimation of the efficacy of NPIs. Other COVID models were also back-tested against historical data, and it was found that all models generally captured the potential magnitude and directionality of the pandemic in the short term. There are limitations to epidemiological models, but understanding these limitations enables these models to be utilized as tools for data-driven decision-making in viral outbreaks. Further, it can be valuable to have multiple, independently developed models to mitigate the inaccuracies of or to correct for the incorrect assumptions made by a particular model.

A Scoping Review of Emergency Department Discharge Risk Stratification.

INTRODUCTION: Although emergency department (ED) discharge presents patient-safety challenges and opportunities, the ways in which EDs address discharge risk in the general ED population remains disparate and largely uncharacterized. In this study our goal was to conduct a review of how EDs identify and target patients at increased risk at time of discharge. METHODS: We conducted a literature search to explore how EDs assess patient risk upon discharge, including a review of PubMed and gray literature. After independently screening articles for inclusion, we recorded study characteristics including outcome measures, patient risk factors, and tool descriptions. Based on this review and discussion among collaborators, major themes were identified. RESULTS: PubMed search yielded 384 potentially eligible articles. After title and abstract review, we screened 235 for potential inclusion. After full text and reference review, supplemented by Google Scholar and gray literature reviews, we included 30 articles for full review. Three major themes were elucidated: 1) Multiple studies include retrospective risk assessment, whereas the use of point-of-care risk assessment tools appears limited; 2) of the point-of-care tools that exist, inputs and outcome measures varied, and few were applicable to the general ED population; and 3) while many studies describe initiatives to improve the discharge process, few describe assessment of post-discharge resource needs. CONCLUSION: Numerous studies describe factors associated with an increased risk of readmission and adverse events after ED discharge, but few describe point-of-care tools used by physicians for the general ED population. Future work is needed to investigate standardized tools that assess ED discharge risk and patients' needs upon ED discharge.

Comparison of physician- and pharmacist-managed warfarin sodium treatment in open heart surgery patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of pharmacists and physicians in obtaining therapeutic anticoagulation on initiation of warfarin sodium therapy immediately following prosthetic cardiac valve insertion. Secondary objectives were the percentage of days with an international normalized ratio (INR) greater than four, the percentage of days with an INR less than two, the time to stabilize the INR within the therapeutic range, and the percentage of patients experiencing at least one major bleed. METHODS: This study was a before and after comparison using a retrospective chart review of patients who received warfarin sodium following cardiac valve surgery. Physicians dosed independently and pharmacists used a warfarin sodium nomogram to manage patients. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients (physician group, n=130; pharmacist group, n=97) satisfied the inclusion criteria. No differences were found between the two groups in the percentage of days in the therapeutic range (P=0.27), the percentage of days with INR less than two (P=0.06), the percentage of patients discharged before their INR stabilized (P=0.91) or the percentage of patients with a major bleed (P=0.72). The pharmacist group had 5.9% fewer days (P<0.001) with an INR greater than four than the physician group. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriately trained pharmacists appear equally safe and effective as physicians when managing warfarin sodium therapy in patients who have undergone cardiac valve replacement.