Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test: a comparison of accuracy.

We conducted a single-center study at a free community testing site in Baltimore City to assess the accuracy of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. Self-administered BinaxNOW RATs were compared with clinician-performed RATs and against a reference lab molecular testing as the gold standard. Of the 953 participants, 14.9% were positive for SARS- CoV-2 as determined by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity were similar for both self- and clinician-performed RATs (sensitivity: 83.9% vs 88.2%, P = 0.40; specificity: 99.8% vs 99.6%, P = 0.6). Subgroup comparisons based on age and race yielded similar results. Notably, 5.2% (95% CI: 1.5% to 9.5%) of positive results were potentially missed due to participant misinterpretation of the self-test card. However, the false-positive rate for RATs was reassuringly comparable in accuracy to clinician-administered tests. These findings hold significant implications for physicians prescribing treatment based on patient-reported, self-administered positive test results. Our study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, underscoring their comparable accuracy to clinician-performed RATs, and endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Further studies using other rapid antigen test brands are warranted.IMPORTANCEAccurate and accessible COVID-19 testing is crucial for effective disease control and management. A recent single-center study conducted in Baltimore City examined the reliability of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. The study found that self-administered RATs yielded similar sensitivity and specificity to clinician-performed tests, demonstrating their comparable accuracy. These findings hold significant implications for physicians relying on patient-reported positive test results for treatment decisions. The study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Furthermore, the study highlights the need for further research using different rapid antigen test brands to enhance generalizability. Ensuring affordable and widespread access to self-tests is crucial, particularly in preparation for future respiratory virus seasons and potential waves of reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the Omicron variant.

Feasibility of and Experience with Free State Funded Telehealth Based Patient Self-referral for COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for COVID-19 has been underutilized due to logistical challenges, lack of access and variable treatment awareness among patients and healthcare professionals. The use of telehealth during the pandemic provides an opportunity to increase access to COVID-19 care. METHODS: This is a single-center descriptive study of telehealth-based patient self-referral for mAb therapy between March 1, 2021, to October 31, 2021 at Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (BCCFH). RESULTS: Among the 1001 self-referral patients, the mean age was 47, and most were female (57%) white (66%), and had a primary care provider (62%). During the study period, self-referrals increased from 14 per month in March to 427 in October resulting in a 30-fold increase. About 57% of self-referred patients received a telehealth visit, and of those 82% of patients received mAb infusion therapy. The median time from self-referral to onsite infusion was 2 days (1-3 IQR). DISCUSSION: Our study shows the integration of telehealth with a self-referral process improved access to mAb infusion. A high proportion of self-referrals were appropriate and led to timely treatment. This approach helped those without traditional avenues for care and avoided potential delay for patients seeking referral from their PCPs.

Accuracy of Expired BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Tests.

The widespread existence of expired antigen testing kits in households and potential coronavirus outbreaks necessitates evaluating the reliability of these expired kits. Our study examined BinaxNOW COVID-19 rapid antigen tests 27 months postmanufacture and 5 months past their FDA extended expiration dates, using SARS-CoV-2 variant XBB.1.5 viral stock. We conducted testing at two concentrations, the limit of detection (LOD) and 10 times the LOD. One hundred expired and unexpired kits were tested at each concentration for a total of 400 antigen tests. At the LOD (2.32 × 102 50% tissue culture infective dose/mL [TCID50/mL]), both expired and unexpired tests displayed 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.38% to 100%), with no statistical difference (95% CI, -3.92% to 3.92%). Similarly, at 10 times the LOD, unexpired tests retained 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 96.38% to 100%), while expired tests exhibited 99% sensitivity (95% CI, 94.61% to 99.99%), demonstrating a statistically insignificant 1% difference (95% CI, -2.49% to 4.49%; P = 0.56). Expired rapid antigen tests had fainter lines than the unexpired tests at each viral concentration. The expired rapid antigen tests at the LOD were only just visible. These findings carry significant implications for waste management, cost efficiency, and supply chain resilience in pandemic readiness efforts. They also provide critical insights for formulating clinical guidelines for interpreting results from expired kits. In light of expert warnings of a potential outbreak of a severity rivaling the Omicron variant, our study underscores the importance of maximizing the utility of expired antigen testing kits in managing future health emergencies. IMPORTANCE The study examining the reliability of expired antigen testing kits in the context of COVID-19 has significant real-world implications. By demonstrating that these expired kits retain their sensitivity in detecting the virus, this work provides evidence that expired kits can still be utilized, reducing waste and optimizing resources in health care systems. These findings are especially crucial in light of potential future coronavirus outbreaks and the need to be prepared. The study's outcomes have the potential to contribute to waste management efforts, cost efficiency, and supply chain resilience, ensuring that diagnostic tests remain readily available for effective public health interventions. Furthermore, it provides critical insights for formulating clinical guidelines on interpreting results from expired kits, enhancing the accuracy of testing outcomes, and supporting informed decision-making. Ultimately, this work holds great importance in maximizing the utility of expired antigen testing kits, safeguarding public health, and enhancing pandemic readiness on a global scale.

High Sensitivity and NPV for BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test in Children at a Mass Testing Site during Prevalent Delta Variant Period.

SARS-CoV-2 continues to develop new, increasingly infectious variants including delta and omicron. We evaluated the efficacy of the Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test against Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in 1,054 pediatric participants presenting to a high-volume Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing site while the delta variant was predominant. Both tests utilized anterior nares swabs. Participants were grouped by COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. 5.2% of samples tested positive by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. For all participants, sensitivity of the BinaxNOW was 92.7% (95% CI 82.4%-98.0%), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 97.0%-98.8%). For symptomatic participants, positive predictive value (PPV) was 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%-86.7%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.2% (95% CI 98.2%-100%). Among asymptomatic participants, PPV was 71.4% (95% CI 53.7%-85.4%) and NPV was 99.7% (95% CI 99.0%-100%). Our reported sensitivity and NPV are higher than other pediatric studies, potentially because of higher viral load from the delta variant, but specificity and PPV are lower. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of nearly 92% in both symptomatic and asymptomatic children when performed at a high-throughput setting during the more transmissible delta variant dominant period. The test may play an invaluable role in asymptomatic screening and keeping children safe in school.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and diagnosis in COVID-19: Practice patterns and outcomes at 33 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Early reports of increased thrombosis risk with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in venous thromboembolism (VTE) management. Real-world data on the prevalence, efficacy and harms of these changes informs best practices. OBJECTIVE: Define practice patterns and clinical outcomes related to VTE diagnosis, prevention, and management in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) using a multi-hospital US sample. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 1121 patients admitted to 33 hospitals, exposure was dose of anticoagulant prescribed for VTE prophylaxis (standard, intensified, therapeutic), and primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]); secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and bleeding events. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site and adjusted for risk factors were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for confounding by indication. RESULTS: 1121 patients (mean age 60 ± 18, 47% female) admitted with COVID-19 between February 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to 33 US hospitals were included. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 86%. Forty-seven patients (4.2%) had PE, 51 (4.6%) had DVT, and 23 (2.1%) had ATE. Forty-six patients (4.1%) had major bleeding and 46 (4.1%) had clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Compared to standard prophylaxis, adjusted odds of VTE were 0.67 (95% CI 0.21-2.1) with no prophylaxis, 1.0 (95% CI 0.06-17) with intensified, and 3.0 (95% CI 0.89-10) with therapeutic. Adjusted odds of bleeding with no prophylaxis were 5.6 (95% CI 3.0-11) and 5.3 (95% CI 3.0-10) with therapeutic (no events on intensified dosing). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a 3-fold increased odds of VTE and 5-fold increased odds of bleeding. While higher bleeding rates with high-intensity prophylaxis were likely due to full-dose anticoagulation, we conclude that high thrombosis rates were due to clinical concern for thrombosis before formal diagnosis.

Evaluation of Four Point of Care (POC) Antigen Assays for the Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Variant Omicron.

Ensuring SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics that can reliably detect emerging variants has been an ongoing challenge. Due to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, point-of-care (POC) antigen tests have become more widely used. This study aimed at (i) comparing the analytical sensitivity (LOD) of 4 POC antigen assays, BD Veritor, Abbott BinaxNow, Orasure InteliSwab and Quidel QuickVue, for the Omicron versus the Delta variant and (ii) verifying the reproducible detection of Omicron by the 4 antigen assays. The LOD for all four assays were evaluated using Omicron and Delta virus stocks quantified for infectivity and genome copies. The four assays detected all replicates of Omicron and Delta dilutions at 104 and 105 TCID50/mL, respectively. We quantified both viral stocks using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), which revealed that the Omicron stock had equivalent copies of the N gene to Delta at a one log lower infectious virus. The Abbott BinaxNow and Orasure InteliSwab had the highest analytical sensitivity for Omicron while the Orasure InteliSwab and the Quidel QuickVue had the highest analytical sensitivity for Delta. When 14 SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR positive nasal/nasopharyngeal swab samples (12 Omicron and 2 Delta, mean Ct = 19.1), were tested by the four assays, only the QuickVue detected all samples. Antigen test positivity correlated with recovery of infectious virus on cell culture in 9 out of 13 tested specimens from symptomatic, asymptomatic, unvaccinated, and vaccinated individuals. Although our study confirms the reduced analytical sensitivity of antigen testing compared to molecular methods, the Omicron variant was detectable by the four evaluated rapid antigen tests. IMPORTANCE In the manuscript, we report an evaluation of the capability of 4 point of care (POC) antigen assays, the BD Veritor, Abbott BinaxNow, Orasure InteliSwab and Quidel QuickVue to detect the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, and we compared their analytical sensitivity for Omicron versus Delta. In this analysis we found that all four assays detected Omicron and Delta at 104 and 105 TCID50/mL, respectively. We further quantified the viral stocks used by droplet digital (ddPCR) and found that the Omicron stock had equivalent copies of the N gene to Delta at a one log lower infectious virus titer and that an increased RNA to infectious virus ratio may be contributing to discrepancies in limit of detection in Omicron compared to Delta. We evaluated 14 SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR positive nasal/nasopharyngeal swab samples (12 Omicron and 2 Delta), with an average cycle threshold value of 19.1, and only the QuickVue showed 100% agreement.

Recruitment, Readiness, and Retention of Providers at a Field Hospital During the Pandemic.

In response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the State of Maryland established a 250-bed emergency response field hospital at the Baltimore Convention Center to support the existing health care infrastructure. To operationalize this hospital with 65 full-time equivalent clinicians in less than 4 weeks, more than 300 applications were reviewed, 186 candidates were interviewed, and 159 clinicians were credentialed and onboarded. The key steps to achieve this undertaking involved employing multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel, mass outreach, streamlined candidate tracking, pre-interview screening, utilizing all available expertise, expedited credentialing, and focused onboarding. To ensure staff preparedness, the leadership developed innovative team models, applied principles of effective team building, and provided "just in time" training on COVID-19 and non-COVID-19-related topics to the staff. The leadership focused on staff safety and well-being, offered appropriate financial remuneration, and provided leadership opportunities that allowed retention of staff.

Treating an Epidemic During a Pandemic: Experience Treating Opioid Use Disorder at the Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to addiction treatment has plummeted. At the same time, patients with opioid use disorder are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and experience worse outcomes. The Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (BCCFH), a state-run COVID-19 disaster hospital operated by Johns Hopkins Medicine and the University of Maryland Medical System, continues to operate 14 months into the pandemic to serve as an overflow unit for the state's hospitals. BCCFH staff observed the demand for opioid use disorder care and developed admission criteria, a pharmacy formulary, and case management procedures to meet this need. This article describes generalized lessons from the BCCFH experience treating substance use disorder during a pandemic.

Implementation and Accuracy of BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Test in Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Populations in a High-Volume Self-Referred Testing Site.

Rapid antigen tests are simple to perform and provide results within 15 min. We describe our implementation and assess performance of the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Test (Abbott Laboratories) in 6,099 adults at a self-referred walk-up testing site. Participants were grouped by self-reported COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. Most (89%) were asymptomatic, of whom 17% reported potential exposure. Overall test sensitivity compared with reference laboratory reverse-transcription [RT] PCR testing was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75%, 86%). It was higher in symptomatic (87%; 95% CI 80%, 91%) than asymptomatic (71%; 95% CI 61%, 80%) individuals. Sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 66%, 91%) for asymptomatic individuals with potential exposure and 64% (95% CI 51%, 76%) for those with no exposure. Specificity was greater than 99% for all groups. BinaxNOW has high accuracy among symptomatic individuals and is below the FDA threshold for emergency use authorization in asymptomatic individuals. Nonetheless, rapid antigen testing quickly identifies positive among those with symptoms and/or close contact exposure and could expedite isolation and treatment. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of 87% in symptomatic and 71% asymptomatic individuals when performed by health care workers in a high-throughput setting. The performance may expedite isolation decisions or referrals for time-sensitive monoclonal antibody treatment in communities where timely COVID PCR tests are unavailable.

Lessons Learned From Implementing Rehabilitation at a COVID-19 Field Hospital.

ABSTRACT: Rehabilitation experts play an important role in preventing hospital-acquired debility, increasing patients' abilities to safely perform activities of daily living, and facilitating discharge to the home setting for patients with COVID-19. Surges in COVID-19 hospitalization rates combined with increases in length of hospital stay and decreases in postacute care placements have necessitated the opening of COVID-19 field hospitals around the country. Most field hospitals lack the resources to offer a full suite of rehabilitation services, but there are opportunities for small teams of rehabilitation experts to increase their reach by using innovative strategies. This article describes the implementation of a small team of rehabilitation experts in a COVID-19 field hospital and strategies used by this team to maximize patient activity and mobility, facilitate timely discharge, and maximize the number of patients discharged to the home setting. Strategies include training nonclinical staff to assist with activity and mobility promotion and using a rehabilitation triage system to determine needs of individual patients and facilitate efficient resource utilization. The authors reflect on successful aspects of these strategies, as well as barriers to rehabilitation implementation, and make recommendations for other field hospitals seeking to implement rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic or future health crises.

Upregulation of pulmonary tissue factor, loss of thrombomodulin and immunothrombosis in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with thrombotic and microvascular complications. The cause of coagulopathy in the disease is incompletely understood. METHODS: A single-center cross-sectional study including 66 adult COVID-19 patients (40 moderate, 26 severe disease), and 9 controls, performed between 04/2020 and 10/2020. Markers of coagulation, endothelial cell function [angiopoietin-1,-2, P-selectin, von Willebrand Factor Antigen (WF:Ag), von Willebrand Factor Ristocetin Cofactor, ADAMTS13, thrombomodulin, soluble Endothelial cell Protein C Receptor (sEPCR), Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor], neutrophil activation (elastase, citrullinated histones) and fibrinolysis (tissue-type plasminogen activator, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1) were evaluated using ELISA. Tissue Factor (TF) was estimated by antithrombin-FVIIa complex (AT/FVIIa) and microparticles-TF (MP-TF). We correlated each marker and determined its association with severity. Expression of pulmonary TF, thrombomodulin and EPCR was determined by immunohistochemistry in 9 autopsies. FINDINGS: Comorbidities were frequent in both groups, with older age associated with severe disease. All patients were on prophylactic anticoagulants. Three patients (4.5%) developed pulmonary embolism. Mortality was 7.5%. Patients presented with mild alterations in the coagulogram (compensated state). Biomarkers of endothelial cell, neutrophil activation and fibrinolysis were elevated in severe vs moderate disease; AT/FVIIa and MP-TF levels were higher in severe patients. Logistic regression revealed an association of D-dimers, angiopoietin-1, vWF:Ag, thrombomodulin, white blood cells, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and hemoglobin levels with severity, with ANC and vWF:Ag identified as independent factors. Notably, postmortem specimens demonstrated epithelial expression of TF in the lung of fatal COVID-19 cases with loss of thrombomodulin staining, implying in a shift towards a procoagulant state. INTERPRETATION: Coagulation dysregulation has multifactorial etiology in SARS-Cov-2 infection. Upregulation of pulmonary TF with loss of thrombomodulin emerge as a potential link to immunothrombosis, and therapeutic targets in the disease. FUNDING: John Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Infection Prevention Considerations for a Multi-Mission Convention Center Field Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The state of Maryland identified its first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on March 5, 2020. The Baltimore Convention Center (BCCFH) quickly became a selected location to set up a 250-bed inpatient field hospital and alternate care site. In contrast to other field hospitals throughout the United States, the BCCFH remained open throughout the pandemic and took on additional COVID-19 missions, including community severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic testing, monoclonal antibody infusions for COVID-19 outpatients, and community COVID-19 vaccinations.To prevent the spread of pathogens during operations, infection prevention and control guidelines were essential to ensure the safety of staff and patients. Through multi-agency collaboration, use of infection prevention best practices, and answering what we describe as PPE-ESP, an operational framework was established to reduce infection risks for those providing or receiving care at the BCCFH during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tocilizumab for the Treatment of COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Patients: A Matched Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no single treatment that mitigates all harms caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 antagonist, may have a role as an adjunctive immune-modulating therapy. METHODS: This was an observational retrospective study of hospitalized adult patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The intervention group comprised patients who received tocilizumab; the comparator arm was drawn from patients who did not receive tocilizumab. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality censored at 28 days; secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at discharge, time to clinical improvement, and rates of secondary infections. Marginal structural Cox models via inverse probability treatment weights were applied to estimate the effect of tocilizumab. A time-dependent propensity score-matching method was used to generate a 1:1 match for tocilizumab recipients; infectious diseases experts then manually reviewed these matched charts to identify secondary infections. RESULTS: This analysis included 90 tocilizumab recipients and 1669 controls. Under the marginal structural Cox model, tocilizumab was associated with a 62% reduced hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.70) and no change in time to clinical improvement (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.87). The 1:1 matched data set also showed a lower mortality rate (27.8% vs 34.4%) and reduced hazards of death (aHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.88). Elevated inflammatory markers were associated with reduced hazards of death among tocilizumab recipients compared with controls. Secondary infection rates were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab may provide benefit in a subgroup of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who have elevated biomarkers of hyperinflammation, without increasing the risk of secondary infection.

Geographically Localized Medicine House-Staff Teams and Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Geographically localized care teams may demonstrate improved communication between team members and patients, potentially enhancing coordination of care. However, the impact of geographically localized team on patient experience scores is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare experience scores of patients on resident teams home clinical units with patients assigned to them off of their home units over a 10-year period. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to any of the 4 chief resident staffed internal medicine inpatient service were included. Patients admitted to the house-staff teams' home clinical unit comprised the exposure group and their patients off of their home units comprised the control patients. MEASUREMENT: Top-box experience scores calculated from the physician Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare and Provider Systems (HCAHPS) and Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: There were 3012 patients included in the study. There were no significant differences in experience scores with physician communication, nursing communication, pain, or discharge planning between the 2 groups. Patients did not report satisfaction more often with the time physicians spent with them on localized teams (48.6% vs 47.5%; P = .54) or that staff were better at working together (63.2% vs 61.3%; P = .29). This did not change during a 45-month period when the proportion of patients on home units exceeded 75% and multidisciplinary rounds were started. CONCLUSION: Patients cared for by geographically localized teams did not have better patient experience. Other factors such as physician communication skills or limited time spent in direct care may overshadow the impact of having localized teams. Further research is needed to better understand organizational, team, and individual factors impacting patient experience.

Patient isolation for infection control and patient experience.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitalized patients placed in isolation due to a carrier state or infection with resistant or highly communicable organisms report higher rates of anxiety and loneliness and have fewer physician encounters, room entries, and vital sign records. We hypothesized that isolation status might adversely impact patient experience as reported through Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys, particularly regarding communication. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of HCAHPS survey results over 5 years. SETTING: A 1,165-bed, tertiary-care, academic medical center. PATIENTS: Patients on any type of isolation for at least 50% of their stay were the exposure group. Those never in isolation served as controls. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, race, gender, payer, severity of illness, length of stay and clinical service were used to examine associations between isolation status and "top-box" experience scores. Dose response to increasing percentage of days in isolation was also analyzed. RESULTS: Patients in isolation reported worse experience, primarily with staff responsiveness (help toileting 63% vs 51%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.77; P = .0009) and overall care (rate hospital 80% vs 73%; aOR, 0.78; P < .0001), but they reported similar experience in other domains. No dose-response effect was observed. CONCLUSION: Isolated patients do not report adverse experience for most aspects of provider communication regarded to be among the most important elements for safety and quality of care. However, patients in isolation had worse experiences with staff responsiveness for time-sensitive needs. The absence of a dose-response effect suggests that isolation status may be a marker for other factors, such as illness severity. Regardless, hospitals should emphasize timely staff response for this population.

Does Patient Experience Predict 30-Day Readmission? A Patient-Level Analysis of HCAHPS Data.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-level studies have found an inverse relationship between patient experience and readmissions. However, based on typical survey response time, it is unclear if patients are able to respond to surveys before they get readmitted and whether being readmitted might be a driver of poor experience scores (reverse causation). OBJECTIVE: Using patient-level Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCHAPS) and Press Ganey data to examine the relationship between readmissions and experience scores and to distinguish between patients who responded before or after a subsequent readmission. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 10-year HCAHPS data. SETTING: Single tertiary care academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients readmitted within 30 days of an index hospitalization who received an HCAHPS survey linked to index admission comprised the exposure group. This group was divided into those who responded prior to readmission and those who responded after readmission. Nonreadmitted patients comprised the control group. ANALYSIS: Multivariable-logistic regression to analyze the association between HCHAPS and Press Ganey scores and 30-readmission status, adjusted for patient factors. RESULTS: Only 15.8% of the readmitted patients responded to the survey prior to readmission, and their scores were not significantly different from the nonreadmitted patients. The patients who responded after readmission were significantly more dissatisfied with physicians (doctors listened 73.0% vs 79.2%, aOR 0.75, P < .0001), staff responsiveness, (call button 50.0% vs 59.1%, aOR 0.71, P < .0001) pain control, discharge plan, noise, and cleanliness of the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that poor patient experience may be due to being readmitted, rather than being predictive of readmission.

Is enhanced recovery enough for reducing 30-d readmissions after surgery?

BACKGROUND: Few enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) include processes related to the hospital to home transfer. Little has been reported regarding readmissions in enhanced recovery programs. This study evaluates readmissions and identifies areas to optimize ERPs to prevent readmissions. METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective study at a single tertiary care center. Patients in an ERP for colorectal surgery were compared with a similar cohort who underwent surgery before protocol implementation. We evaluated 30-d readmission, compliance to enhanced recovery protocol, and diagnoses and patient care experiences related to transition of care. RESULTS: Readmission rates (17.6% versus 19.4%; P = 0.55) were similar. There was significant reduction in index hospitalization length of stay (5.3 versus 7.0 d; P < 0.001) and postoperative surgical site infection (7.3% versus 16.6%; P = 0.01). Although enhanced recovery was associated with reduced readmissions for surgical site infections (31% versus 50.7%, P = 0.02), there was a trend toward increased readmissions for small bowel obstruction-ileus (31% versus 19.1%, P = 0.13). ERPs did not impact perceptions of care transitions; however, those who were readmitted rated their transition lower than those that were not. CONCLUSIONS: Although ERPs did not reduce readmissions, the program was associated with reduced length of stay and surgical site infections. ERPs did not influence perceptions of the transition to home. Transition process measures aimed at reducing readmission and improving patient outcomes, including use of transition guides, remote vital sign and symptom monitoring, and early clinical follow-up have not traditionally been part of ERP protocols but should be considered.