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.

Comparison of hospitalist morale in a COVID-19 alternate care site (ACS) to hospitalist morale in conventional hospitals in Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Morale and burnout were concerns for hospitalists prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; these concerns were amplified as COVID-19 spread and hospitals experienced unprecedented stress. In contrast to prior literature, our study assesses both satisfaction and the importance of various factors. This study examines morale of hospitalists early in the COVID-19 pandemic in two settings: conventional hospitals and a COVID-19 Alternate Care site (ACS) in the same geographic region in Maryland. Multiple studies published early in the pandemic show low morale in COVID-19 hospitals. METHODS: In a cross-sectional survey study, we analyze data from the Hospitalist Morale Index (HMI) administered between September 2020 and March 2021 to determine the pandemic's impact on hospitalist morale. RESULTS: Surprisingly, our study found morale in the ACS was better than morale at the conventional hospitals. ACS hospitalists and conventional hospitalists were demographically similar. Our results show that a significantly higher proportion of conventional hospitalists reported burnout compared to the ACS hospitalists. General quality of life was rated significantly higher in the ACS group than the conventional group. Significantly more ACS hospitalists were invested in making their group outstanding. Five main HMI domains were examined with questions on a 5-point rating scale: Clinical Factors, Workload, Material Rewards, Leadership, and Appreciation/Acknowledgement. ACS hospitalists rated most measures higher than conventional hospitalists; largest differences were observed in Clinical Factors and Appreciation/Acknowledgement domains. Narrative comments from ACS hospitalists revealed strong identification with the mission of the ACS and pride in contributing during a crisis. One key difference between the two groups explains these findings: provider autonomy. The ACS staff chose the position and the assignment, while conventional hospitalists caring for COVID-19 patients could not readily opt out of this work. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that autonomy in assignments with risk has implications for morale and burnout.

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.

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.

Capturing the Rest: Inpatient Mammography for Nonadherent Hospitalized Women.

INTRODUCTION: More than a third of hospitalized women are overdue or nonadherent to breast cancer screening guidelines, and almost a third of them are also at high risk for developing breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of coordinating inpatient breast cancer screening mammography for these women before their discharge from the hospital. METHODS: A prospective intervention study was conducted among 101 nonadherent women aged 50-74 years who were hospitalized to a general medicine service. Sociodemographic, reproductive history, family history of breast cancer, and medical comorbidities data were collected for all patients from January 2015 to October 2016. The data were analyzed in March 2018. Fisher's exact tests and unpaired t-tests were utilized to compare the characteristics of the study population. RESULTS: Of the 101 women enrolled who were nonadherent to breast cancer screening recommendations, their mean age was 59.3 (SD=6) years, the mean 5-year Gail risk score was 1.63 (SD=0.69), and 29% of the women were African American. Almost 80% (n=79) underwent inpatient screening mammography. All women who underwent screening mammography during their inpatient stay were extremely satisfied with the experience. The convenience of having screening mammography while hospitalized was reported to be a major facilitator of completing the overdue screening. All nurses (100%) taking care of these women believed that this practice should become part of the standard of care, and most hospitalist physicians (66%) agreed that this practice is feasible. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that it is possible to coordinate mammography for hospitalized women who were overdue for screening and at high risk for developing breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT04164251.

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.

Racial Disparities are Present in the Timing of Radiographic Assessment and Surgical Treatment of Hip Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are associated with 1-year mortality rates as high as 19% to 33%. Nonwhite patients have higher mortality and lower mobility rates at 6 months postoperatively than white patients. Studies have extensively documented racial disparities in hip fracture outcomes, but few have directly assessed racial disparities in the timing of hip fracture care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Our purpose was to assess racial disparities in the care provided to patients with hip fractures. We asked, (1) do racial disparities exist in radiographic timing, surgical timing, length of hospital stay, and 30-day hospital readmission rates? (2) Does the hospital type modify the association between race and the outcomes of interest? METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 1535 patients aged 60 years or older who were admitted to the emergency department and treated surgically for a hip fracture at one of five hospitals (three community hospitals and two tertiary hospitals) in our health system from 2015 to 2017. Multivariable generalized linear models were used to assess associations between race and the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient characteristics, we found that black patients had a longer mean time to radiographic evaluation (4.2 hours; 95% confidence interval, -0.6 to 9.0 versus 1.2 hours; 95% CI, 0.1-2.3; p = 0.01) and surgical fixation (41 hours; 95% CI, 34-48 versus 34 hours 95% CI, 32-35; p < 0.05) than white patients did. Hospital type only modified the association between race and surgical timing. In community hospitals, black patients experienced a 51% (95% CI, 17%-95%; p < 0.01) longer time to surgery than white patients did; however, there were no differences in surgical timing between black and white patients in tertiary hospitals. No race-based differences were observed in the length of hospital stay and 30-day hospital readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for patient characteristics, we found that black patients experienced longer wait times to radiographic evaluation and surgical fixation than white patients. Hospitals should consider evaluating racial disparities in the timing of hip fracture care in their health systems. Raising awareness of these disparities and implementing unconscious bias training for healthcare providers may help mitigate these disparities and improve the timing of care for patients who are at a greater risk of delay. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Retrospective study of inpatient diabetes management service, length of stay and 30-day readmission rate of patients with diabetes at a community hospital.

Background: Hospitalized patients with diabetes are at risk of complications and longer length of stay (LOS). Inpatient Diabetes Management Services (IDMS) are known to be beneficial; however, their impact on patient care measures in community, non-teaching hospitals, is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate whether co-managing patients with diabetes by the IDMS team reduces LOS and 30-day readmission rate (30DR). Methods: This retrospective quality improvement cohort study analyzed LOS and 30DR among patients with diabetes admitted to a community hospital. The IDMS medical team consisted of an endocrinologist, nurse practitioner, and diabetes educator. The comparison group consisted of hospitalized patients with diabetes under standard care of attending physicians (mostly internal medicine-trained hospitalists). The relationship between study groups and outcome variables was assessed using Generalized Estimating Equation models. Results: 4,654 patients with diabetes (70.8 ± 0.2 years old) were admitted between January 2016 and May 2017. The IDMS team co-managed 18.3% of patients, mostly with higher severity of illness scores (p < 0.0001). Mean LOS in patients co-managed by the IDMS team decreased by 27%. Median LOS decreased over time in the IDMS group (p = 0.046), while no significant decrease was seen in the comparison group. Mean 30DR in patients co-managed by the IDMS decreased by 10.71%. Median 30DR decreased among patients co-managed by the IDMS (p = 0.048). Conclusions: In a community hospital setting, LOS and 30DR significantly decreased in patients co-managed by a specialized diabetes team. These changes may be translated into considerable cost savings.

Coordination of care in breast cancer survivors: an overview.

The number of breast cancer survivors in the United States is increasing. With longer survival, there has been an increase in the complexity and duration of posttreatment care. Multidisciplinary care teams are needed to participate across the broad spectrum of issues that breast cancer survivors face. In this setting, the need for well-established patterns of communication between care providers is increasingly apparent. We have created a multidisciplinary approach to the management of breast cancer survivors to improve communication and education between providers and patients. This approach could be extended to the care and management of survivors of other types of cancer.

Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Limited research exists regarding views of patients, oncology specialists, and primary care providers (PCPs) concerning breast cancer survivorship care. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively explore the needs and priorities of breast cancer survivors, oncology specialists, and PCPs. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted of survivors (21 in 5 groups), PCPs (15 in 2 groups), and oncology specialists (16 in 2 groups). One survivor group consisted of four African-Americans. Discussions used a semi-structured guide, were transcribed verbatim, and were analyzed qualitatively. Groups explored transitions to follow-up, communication, patient needs, and provider roles. RESULTS: Survivors form intense relationships with specialists for reassurance and expertise. Many believed PCPs lacked necessary oncology expertise. Survivors reported psychosocial and communication issues. African-Americans cited concerns about access to care and clinical trials, as well as taboos to discussing cancer. Specialists reported that they struggle with discharging survivors due to protective relationships. PCPs were concerned about time and training to provide survivorship care and communication problems with oncologists. Written survivorship care plans were regarded by all groups as possibly helpful, but insufficient to ease the transition. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients may experience difficulties transitioning to survivorship, including ongoing psychosocial issues. African-American patients may face additional and unique barriers to successful survivorship. Oncology specialists may have concerns about discharging cherished patients. These findings suggest a psychological component that may influence the use of written survivorship care plans. PCPs may need additional training and greater access to specialists in order to care for survivors.

Comparing care for breast cancer survivors to non-cancer controls: a five-year longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Deficiencies in care for cancer survivors may result from unclear roles for primary care providers (PCPs) and oncology specialists in follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To compare cancer survivors' care to non-cancer controls. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal, controlled study starting 366 days post-diagnosis. SUBJECTS: Stage 1-3 breast cancer survivors age 65+ diagnosed in 1998 (n = 1961) and matched non-cancer controls (n = 1961). MEASUREMENTS: Using the SEER-Medicare database, we examined the number of visits to PCPs, oncology specialists, and other physicians; receipt of influenza vaccination, cholesterol screening, colorectal cancer screening, bone densitometry, and mammography; and whether care receipt was associated with physician mix visited. RESULTS: Survivors were consistently less likely to receive influenza vaccination, cholesterol screening, colorectal cancer screening, and bone densitometry but more likely to receive mammograms than controls (all p < 0.05). Over time, colorectal cancer screening and mammography decreased and influenza vaccination increased for both groups (all p < 0.0001). Trends over time in care receipt were similar for survivors and controls. In Year 1, survivors had more visits to PCPs but fewer visits to other physicians than controls (both p < 0.05). Over time, survivors' visits to PCPs and other physicians increased and to oncology specialists decreased (all p < 0.0001). Controls' visits to PCPs increased (p < 0.0001) faster than survivors' (p = 0.003). Controls' visits to other physicians increased (p < 0.0001) at a rate similar to survivors. Survivors who visited both a PCP and oncology specialist were most likely to receive each service. CONCLUSIONS: Better coordination between PCPs and oncology specialists may improve care for older breast cancer survivors.

Prevention, screening, and surveillance care for breast cancer survivors compared with controls: changes from 1998 to 2002.

PURPOSE: To examine how care for breast cancer survivors compares with controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we examined five cohorts of stages 1 to 3 breast cancer survivors diagnosed from 1998 to 2002. For each survivor cohort (defined by diagnosis year), we calculated the number of visits to oncology specialists, primary care providers (PCPs), and other physicians and the percentage who received influenza vaccination, cholesterol screening, colorectal cancer screening, bone densitometry, and mammography during survivorship year 1 (days 366 to 730 postdiagnosis). We compared survivors' care to that of five cohorts of screening controls who were matched to survivors on age, ethnicity, sex, and region and who had a mammogram in the survivor's year of diagnosis and to that of five cohorts of comorbidity controls who were matched on age, ethnicity, sex, region, and comorbidity. We examined whether survivors' care was associated with the mix of physician specialties that were visited. RESULTS: A total of 23,731 survivors were matched with 23,731 screening controls and 23,396 comorbidity controls. There was no difference in trends over time in PCP visits between survivors and either control group. The survivors' rate of increase in other physician visits was greater than screening controls (P = .002) but was no different from comorbidity controls. Survivors were less likely to receive preventive care than screening controls but were more likely than comorbidity controls. Trends over time in survivors' care tended to be better than screening controls but were no different than comorbidity controls. Survivors who visited both a PCP and oncology specialist were most likely to receive recommended care. CONCLUSION: Involvement by both PCPs and oncology specialists can facilitate appropriate care for survivors.