Screening for Deep Vein Thrombosis in Persons With COVID-19 Upon Admission to an Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of deep venous thrombosis detected by duplex screening and risk factors associated with deep venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 upon admission to an inpatient rehabilitation hospital. DESIGN: This is a retrospective review. SETTING: The setting is three freestanding inpatient rehabilitation hospitals operating as one system. PARTICIPANTS: The participants are consecutive patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation hospital without a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis or screening duplex ultrasound prior to transfer. INTERVENTIONS: A duplex ultrasound of lower limbs was performed upon admission to inpatient rehabilitation hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the percentage of admission patients with a lower limb deep venous thrombosis. Secondary factors included potential risk factors for a positive screen for deep venous thrombosis. RESULTS: A lower limb deep venous thrombosis was diagnosed in 22% (25/113) of the patients tested, with eight patients (7.1%) having a proximal deep venous thrombosis. Risk factors for screening positive for a deep venous thrombosis included being male, younger, and having been on a ventilator during the acute illness. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of deep venous thrombosis observed in these patients suggests that the risk of venous thromboembolic disorders after severe COVID-19 illness is considerable and surveillance measures of such patients should be undertaken.

Long-Term Acute Care Hospitals Extend ICU Capacity for COVID-19 Response and Recovery.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented novel challenges for the entire health-care continuum, requiring transformative changes to hospital and post-acute care, including clinical, administrative, and physical modifications to current standards of operations. Innovative use and adaptation of long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) can safely and effectively care for patients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. A framework for the rapid changes, including increasing collaboration with external health-care organizations, creating new methods for enhanced communication, and modifying processes focused on patient safety and clinical outcomes, is described for a network of 94 LTACHs. When managed and modified correctly, LTACHs can play a vital role in managing the national health-care pandemic crisis.

Screening Testing for SARS-CoV-2 upon Admission to Rehabilitation Hospitals in a High COVID-19 Prevalence Community.

BACKGROUND: While planning for the care of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients during the pandemic crisis has dominated the focus of leaders of inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), patients with injuries/illnesses unrelated to COVID-19 continue to need inpatient rehabilitation admission. To maintain a safe environment for all patients and staff, we established an admission screening plan of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to determine the presence of asymptomatic patients who were infected with the virus upon admission. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of patients who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 but were presumed to be COVID-19 negative at the time of admission to IRF in New Jersey. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of SARS-CoV-2 testing results. SETTING: Four freestanding IRFs in New Jersey operated as one system. PATIENTS: All (N = 103) patients sequentially admitted from 4 to 27 April 2020 with no symptoms or evidence of COVID-19 disease at the time of transfer from the acute hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Specimens were collected for SARS-CoV-2 analysis at the time of admission to the IRF and patients were monitored for subsequent symptom development over the next 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Results of SARS-CoV-2 testing upon admission and evidence of development of clinical signs or symptoms of COVID-19. RESULTS: Seven asymptomatic persons (6.8% of admissions) without clinical signs/symptoms of COVID-19 tested positive on admission. Of these, five developed symptoms of COVID-19, with a mean onset of 3.2 (range of 2-5) days. Five additional patients became symptomatic and tested positive within the next 3 to 10 days (mean of 5.2 days). Overall, 11.6% of admissions (12/103) had a positive test within 14 days of admission. CONCLUSIONS: Admission testing to postacute centers for SARS-CoV-2 can help identify presymptomatic or asymptomatic individuals, especially in areas where COVID-19 is prevalent. Negative results, however, do not preclude COVID-19 and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions.

Optimizing laboratory test utilization in long-term acute care hospitals.

Laboratory tests can be considered inappropriate if overused or when repeated, unnecessary "routine" testing occurs. For chronically critically ill patients treated in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs), inappropriate testing may result in unnecessary blood draws that could potentially harm patients or increase infections. A quality improvement initiative was designed to increase physician awareness of their patterns of lab utilization in the LTACH environment. Within a large network of LTACHs, 9 hospitals were identified as having higher patterns of lab utilization than other LTACHs. Meetings were held with administrative staff and physicians, who designed and implemented hospital-specific strategies to address lab utilization. Lab utilization was measured in units of lab tests ordered per inpatient day (lab UPPD) for 8 months prior to the initial meeting and 7 months after the meeting. A repeated measures mixed model determined that postintervention lab utilization improved, on average and adjusted by case mix index, by 0.37 lab UPPD (t = -3.61, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.58) compared to the preintervention period. Overall, the case mix index 8 months prior to the intervention was no different than it was 7 months after the initial meeting (t[8] = -0.96, P = 0.37). Patient safety and outcome measures, including percentage of patients weaned from a ventilator, readmission rates, central catheter utilization rates, and the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and other multidrug resistant organisms, showed no significant change. Hospital staff meetings focused on lab utilization and the development and deployment of tailored lab utilization strategies were associated with LTACHs achieving significantly lower lab utilization without negatively impacting quality outcomes.

Asthma screening of high school athletes: identifying the undiagnosed and poorly controlled.

BACKGROUND: It is believed that there are many high school-age athletes who have undiagnosed asthma or exercise-induced asthma (EIA). The screening of these athletes for EIA will allow them to be identified and treated. OBJECTIVES: 1) To obtain reliable peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) measurements and administer questionnaires to high school-age athletes to evaluate their asthma risk. 2) To identify high-risk athletes for having EIA or asthma by a free run challenge test. 3) To evaluate whether an athlete's present asthma control is adequate. 4) To evaluate these tools for their value as screening tools for asthma or EIA. METHODS: Eight hundred one student athletes from 10 suburban Pittsburgh schools were screened for more than 18 months for asthma as part of their preparticipation sports physicals. The screening included all athletes from all high school sports. The athletes were given a brief questionnaire, had PEFR measured, and then participated in a free running exercise challenge. RESULTS: Forty-six of 801 athletes had asthma or EIA, Of the remaining 755 athletes, 49 athletes were identified as having undiagnosed asthma. In the previously unrecognized athletes with EIA, the positive and negative predictive value of the questionnaire was 42% and 97%, respectively. Eighty-five percent (39 of 46) of the known asthmatic athletes, using their recommended medication, failed their free running test by a >15% drop of their PEFR. CONCLUSIONS: The free running test is a good test for identifying and assessing the athlete with EIA. The PEFR meter is not a good screening tool for EIA in the high school athlete. A questionnaire may be a good negative screening tool, but further development is needed before it can be used for widespread screening.