Regulatory T Cells in Skin Facilitate Epithelial Stem Cell Differentiation.

The maintenance of tissue homeostasis is critically dependent on the function of tissue-resident immune cells and the differentiation capacity of tissue-resident stem cells (SCs). How immune cells influence the function of SCs is largely unknown. Regulatory T cells (Tregs) in skin preferentially localize to hair follicles (HFs), which house a major subset of skin SCs (HFSCs). Here, we mechanistically dissect the role of Tregs in HF and HFSC biology. Lineage-specific cell depletion revealed that Tregs promote HF regeneration by augmenting HFSC proliferation and differentiation. Transcriptional and phenotypic profiling of Tregs and HFSCs revealed that skin-resident Tregs preferentially express high levels of the Notch ligand family member, Jagged 1 (Jag1). Expression of Jag1 on Tregs facilitated HFSC function and efficient HF regeneration. Taken together, our work demonstrates that Tregs in skin play a major role in HF biology by promoting the function of HFSCs.

Discrete class I molecules on brain endothelium differentially regulate neuropathology in experimental cerebral malaria.

Cerebral malaria is the deadliest complication that can arise from Plasmodium infection. CD8 T-cell engagement of brain vasculature is a putative mechanism of neuropathology in cerebral malaria. To define contributions of brain endothelial cell major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I antigen-presentation to CD8 T cells in establishing cerebral malaria pathology, we developed novel H-2Kb LoxP and H-2Db LoxP mice crossed with Cdh5-Cre mice to achieve targeted deletion of discrete class I molecules, specifically from brain endothelium. This strategy allowed us to avoid off-target effects on iron homeostasis and class I-like molecules, which are known to perturb Plasmodium infection. This is the first endothelial-specific ablation of individual class-I molecules enabling us to interrogate these molecular interactions. In these studies, we interrogated human and mouse transcriptomics data to compare antigen presentation capacity during cerebral malaria. Using the Plasmodium berghei ANKA model of experimental cerebral malaria (ECM), we observed that H-2Kb and H-2Db class I molecules regulate distinct patterns of disease onset, CD8 T-cell infiltration, targeted cell death and regional blood-brain barrier disruption. Strikingly, ablation of either molecule from brain endothelial cells resulted in reduced CD8 T-cell activation, attenuated T-cell interaction with brain vasculature, lessened targeted cell death, preserved blood-brain barrier integrity and prevention of ECM and the death of the animal. We were able to show that these events were brain-specific through the use of parabiosis and created the novel technique of dual small animal MRI to simultaneously scan conjoined parabionts during infection. These data demonstrate that interactions of CD8 T cells with discrete MHC class I molecules on brain endothelium differentially regulate development of ECM neuropathology. Therefore, targeting MHC class I interactions therapeutically may hold potential for treatment of cases of severe malaria.

Blunt Head Injury in the Elderly: Analysis of the NEXUS II Injury Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Changes with aging make older patients vulnerable to blunt head trauma and alter the potential for injury and the injury patterns seen among this expanding cohort. High-quality care requires a clear understanding of the factors associated with blunt head injuries in the elderly. Our objective was to develop a detailed assessment of the injury mechanisms, presentations, injury patterns, and outcomes among older blunt head trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of patients aged 65 or greater who were enrolled in the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Head Computed Tomography validation study. We performed a detailed assessment of the demographics, mechanisms, presentations, injuries, interventions, and outcomes among older patients. RESULTS: We identified 3,659 patients aged 65 years or greater, among the 11,770 patients enrolled in the NEXUS validation study. Of these older patients, 325 (8.9%) sustained significant injuries, as compared with significant injuries in 442 (5.4%) of the 8,111 younger patients. Older females (1,900; 51.9%) outnumbered older males (1,753; 47.9%), and occult presentations (exhibiting no high-risk clinical criteria beyond age) occurred in 48 (14.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.1 to 19.1) patients with significant injuries. Subdural hematomas (377 discreet lesions in 299 patients) and subarachnoid hemorrhages (333 discreet instances in 256 patients) were the most frequent types of injuries occurring in our elderly population. A ground-level fall was the most frequent mechanism of injury among all patients (2,211; 69.6%), those sustaining significant injuries (180; 55.7%), and those who died of their injuries (37; 46.3%), but mortality rates were highest among patients experiencing a fall from a ladder (11.8%; 4 deaths among 34 cases [95% CI 3.3% to 27.5%]) and automobile versus pedestrian events (10.7%; 16 deaths among 149 cases [95% CI 6.3% to 16.9%]). Among older patients who required neurosurgical intervention for their injuries, only 16.4% (95% CI 11.1% to 22.9%) were able to return home, 32.1% (95% CI 25.1% to 39.8%) required extended facility care, and 41.8% (95% CI 34.2% to 49.7%) died from their injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Older blunt head injury patients are at high risk of sustaining serious intracranial injuries even with low-risk mechanisms of injury, such as ground-level falls. Clinical evaluation is unreliable and frequently fails to identify patients with significant injuries. Outcomes, particularly after intervention, can be poor, with high rates of long-term disability and mortality.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infections Among Emergency Health Care Personnel: Impact on Delivery of United States Emergency Medical Care, 2020.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and before vaccine availability, there were concerns that infected emergency department (ED) health care personnel could present a threat to the delivery of emergency medical care. We examined how the pandemic affected staffing levels and whether COVID-19 positive staff were potentially infectious at work in a cohort of US ED health care personnel in 2020. METHODS: The COVID-19 Evaluation of Risks in Emergency Departments (Project COVERED) project was a multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED health care personnel conducted from May to December 2020. During surveillance, health care personnel completed weekly electronic surveys and underwent periodic serology and nasal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and investigators captured weekly data on health care facility COVID-19 prevalence and health care personnel staffing. Surveys asked about symptoms, potential exposures, work attendance, personal protective equipment use, and behaviors. RESULTS: We enrolled 1,673 health care personnel who completed 29,825 person weeks of surveillance. Eighty-nine (5.3%) health care personnel documented 90 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2% to 0.4%) person weeks of missed work related to documented or concerns for COVID-19 infection. Health care personnel experienced symptoms of COVID-19 during 1,256 (4.2%) person weeks and worked at least one shift whereas symptomatic during 1,042 (83.0%) of these periods. Seventy-five (4.5%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the surveillance period, including 43 (57.3%) who indicated they never experienced symptoms; 74 (98.7%; 95% CI 90.7% to 99.9%) infected health care personnel worked at least one shift during the initial period of infection, and 71 (94.7%) continued working until laboratory confirmation of their infection. Physician staffing was not associated with the facility or community COVID-19 levels within any time frame studied (Kendall tau's 0.02, 0.056, and 0.081 for no shift, one-week time shift, and 2-week time shift, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the pandemic, COVID-19 infections in ED health care personnel were infrequent, and the time lost from the workforce was minimal. Health care personnel frequently reported for work while infected with SARS-CoV-2 before laboratory confirmation. The ED staffing levels were poorly correlated with facility and community COVID-19 burden.

Missed Opportunities to Diagnose and Treat Asymptomatic Hypertension in Emergency Departments in the United States, 2016-2019.

BACKGROUND: Fewer than one-half of U.S. adults with hypertension (HTN) have it controlled and one-third are unaware of their condition. The emergency department (ED) represents a setting to improve HTN control by increasing awareness of asymptomatic hypertension (aHTN) according to the 2013 American College of Emergency Physicians asymptomatic elevated blood pressure clinical policy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence and management of aHTN in U.S. EDs. METHODS: We examined the 2016-2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys to provide a more valid estimate of aHTN visits in U.S. EDs. aHTN is defined as adult patients with blood pressure ≥ 160/100 mm Hg at triage and discharge without trauma or signs of end organ damage. We then stratified aHTN into a 160-179/100-109 mm Hg subgroup and > 180/110 mm Hg subgroup and examined diagnosis and treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Approximately 5.9% of total visits between 2016 and 2019 met the definition for aHTN and 74% of patients were discharged home, representing an estimated 26.5 million visits. Among those discharged home, emergency physicians diagnosed 13% (95% CI 10.6-15.8%) and treated aHTN in 3.9% (95% CI 2.8-5.5%) of patients in the higher aHTN subgroup. In the lower aHTN subgroup, diagnosis and treatment decreased to 3.1% (95% CI 2.4-4.1%) and 1.2% (95% CI 0.7-2.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Millions of ED patients found to have aHTN are discharged home without diagnosis or treatment. Although management practices follow clinical policy to delay treatment of aHTN, there are missed opportunities to diagnosis aHTN.

Characteristics of Intracranial Injuries in Pediatric Patients Following Blunt Head Trauma.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric head trauma is a frequent reason for presentation to the emergency department. Despite this, there are few reports on specific characteristics and injury patterns in head injured children. The goal of this study was to evaluate head injury patterns in children with blunt head injury and their prevalence by age group. METHODS: This is a planned secondary analysis of the NEXUS II Head CT validation study. Consecutive patients with blunt head trauma were enrolled between 2006 and 2015. Demographics and criteria from 2 clinical decision instruments (NEXUS and Canadian Head CT rules) were gathered at the time of enrollment. We abstracted and cataloged injuries for pediatric patients based on radiologist report. Frequencies of injuries and severity were analyzed by developmental age group. RESULTS: A total of 1018 pediatric patients were enrolled, 128 (12.6%) of whom had an injury on computed tomography scan. Median age was 11.9 (Interquartile range 4.5-15.5) for all patients and 12 (4.8-15.5) for injured patients. Of injured patients, 49 (38.3%) had a significant injury, and 27 (21.1%) received an intervention. Teenagers had the highest rate of significant injury (50%) and intervention (30%). Injuries were most frequently noted in the temporal (46.1%), frontal (45.3%), and parietal (45.3%) regions. Subarachnoid hemorrhage (29.7%) and subdural hematoma (28.9%) were the most common injuries observed.Intraparenchymal hemorrhage and cerebral edema were more prevalent in older age groups. The most common injury mechanism overall was fall from height (24.7%). Motor vehicle accidents and nonmotorized wheeled vehicle accidents were more common in older patients. CONCLUSIONS: Serious injuries requiring intervention were rarely encountered in pediatric patients experiencing blunt head trauma. Mechanisms of injury, type of injury, and rates of intervention varied between developmental age groups.

Three-Month Symptom Profiles Among Symptomatic Adults With Positive and Negative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Tests: A Prospective Cohort Study From the INSPIRE Group.

BACKGROUND: Long-term symptoms following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease-positive [COVID+]) with adults who tested negative (COVID-), enrolled within 28 days of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SARS-CoV-2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (ie, fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email. RESULTS: Among the first 1000 participants, 722 were COVID+ and 278 were COVID-. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID+ group than the COVID- group. At 3 months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups, although were more prevalent in the COVID+ group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID+ and COVID- groups at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of COVID+ participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID- participants, had at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish long COVID. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04610515.

Severe Fatigue and Persistent Symptoms at 3 Months Following Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections During the Pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron Time Periods: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Most research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants focuses on initial symptomatology with limited longer-term data. We characterized prevalences of prolonged symptoms 3 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection across 3 variant time-periods (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study of adults with acute illness tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared fatigue severity, fatigue symptoms, organ system-based symptoms, and ≥3 symptoms across variants among participants with a positive ("COVID-positive") or negative SARS-CoV-2 test ("COVID-negative") at 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 testing. Variant periods were defined by dates with ≥50% dominant strain. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to estimate independent effects of variants adjusting for sociodemographics, baseline health, and vaccine status. RESULTS: The study included 2402 COVID-positive and 821 COVID-negative participants. Among COVID-positives, 463 (19.3%) were pre-Delta, 1198 (49.9%) Delta, and 741 (30.8%) Omicron. The pre-Delta COVID-positive cohort exhibited more prolonged severe fatigue (16.7% vs 11.5% vs 12.3%; P = .017) and presence of ≥3 prolonged symptoms (28.4% vs 21.7% vs 16.0%; P < .001) compared with the Delta and Omicron cohorts. No differences were seen in the COVID-negatives across time-periods. In multivariable models adjusted for vaccination, severe fatigue and odds of having ≥3 symptoms were no longer significant across variants. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were more common among participants infected during pre-Delta than with Delta and Omicron; however, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for vaccination status, suggesting a beneficial effect of vaccination on risk of long-term symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

Prevalence of Symptoms ≤12 Months After Acute Illness, by COVID-19 Testing Status Among Adults - United States, December 2020-March 2023.

To further the understanding of post-COVID conditions, and provide a more nuanced description of symptom progression, resolution, emergence, and reemergence after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-like illness, analysts examined data from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a prospective multicenter cohort study. This report includes analysis of data on self-reported symptoms collected from 1,296 adults with COVID-like illness who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a Food and Drug Administration-approved polymerase chain reaction or antigen test at the time of enrollment and reported symptoms at 3-month intervals for 12 months. Prevalence of any symptom decreased substantially between baseline and the 3-month follow-up, from 98.4% to 48.2% for persons who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-positive participants) and from 88.2% to 36.6% for persons who received negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-negative participants). Persistent symptoms decreased through 12 months; no difference between the groups was observed at 12 months (prevalence among COVID test-positive and COVID test-negative participants = 18.3% and 16.1%, respectively; p>0.05). Both groups reported symptoms that emerged or reemerged at 6, 9, and 12 months. Thus, these symptoms are not unique to COVID-19 or to post-COVID conditions. Awareness that symptoms might persist for up to 12 months, and that many symptoms might emerge or reemerge in the year after COVID-like illness, can assist health care providers in understanding the clinical signs and symptoms associated with post-COVID-like conditions.

Effect of the Extended Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma on the Screening Performance of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Chest Decision Instrument.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Developed to decrease unnecessary thoracic computed tomography use in adult blunt trauma patients, the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Chest clinical decision instrument does not include the extended Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (eFAST). We assessed whether eFAST improves the NEXUS Chest clinical decision instrument's diagnostic performance and may replace the chest radiograph (CXR) as a predictor variable. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of prospective data from 8 Level I trauma centers from 2011-2014. We compared performance of modified clinical decision instruments that (1) added eFAST as a predictor (eFAST-added clinical decision instrument), and (2) replaced CXR with eFAST (eFAST-replaced clinical decision instrument), in screening for blunt thoracic injuries. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred fifty-seven patients had documented computed tomography, CXR, clinical NEXUS criteria, and adequate eFAST; 624 (31.9%) patients had blunt thoracic injuries, and 126 (6.4%) had major injuries. Compared to the NEXUS Chest clinical decision instrument, the eFAST-added clinical decision instrument demonstrated unchanged screening performance for major injury (sensitivity 0.98 [0.94 to 1.00], specificity 0.28 [0.26 to 0.30]) or any injury (sensitivity 0.97 [0.95 to 0.98], specificity 0.21 [0.19 to 0.23]). The eFAST-replaced clinical decision instrument demonstrated unchanged sensitivity for major injury (sensitivity 0.93 [0.87 to 0.97], specificity 0.31 [0.29 to 0.34]) and decreased sensitivity for any injury (0.93 [0.91 to 0.951] versus 0.97 [0.953 to 0.98]). CONCLUSION: In our secondary analysis, adding eFAST as a predictor variable did not improve the diagnostic screening performance of the original NEXUS Chest clinical decision instrument; eFAST cannot replace the CXR criterion of the NEXUS Chest clinical decision instrument.

Physical Examination Sensitivity for Skull Fracture in Pediatric Patients With Blunt Head Trauma: A Secondary Analysis of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II Head Computed Tomography Validation Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the emergency department (ED) providers' ability to detect skull fractures in pediatric patients presenting with blunt head trauma. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Head computed tomography (CT) validation study. Demographics and clinical characteristics were analyzed for pediatric patients. Radiologist interpretations of head CT imaging were abstracted and cataloged. Detection of skull fractures was evaluated through provider response to specific clinical decision instrument criteria (NEXUS or Canadian head CT rules) at the time of initial patient evaluation. The presence of skull fracture was determined by formal radiologist interpretation of CT imaging. RESULTS: Between April 2006, and December 2015, 1,018 pediatric patients were enrolled. One hundred twenty-eight (12.5%) children had a notable injury reported on CT head. Skull fracture was present in most (66.4%) children with intracranial injuries. The sensitivity and specificity of provider physical examination to detect skull fractures was 18.5% (95% confidence interval 10.5% to 28.7%) and 96.6% (95.3% to 97.7%), respectively. The most common injuries associated with skull fractures were subarachnoid hemorrhage (27%) and subdural hematoma (22.3%). CONCLUSION: Skull fracture is common in children with intracranial injury after blunt head trauma. Despite this, providers were found to have poor sensitivity for skull fractures in this population, and these injuries may be missed on initial emergency department assessment.

COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Hesitancy in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Little is known about COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. We sought to determine the uptake of booster vaccines, as well as the prevalence of and reasons for booster hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey study of adult patients at 5 safety-net hospital EDs in 4 US cities from mid-January to mid-July 2022. Participants were fluent in English or Spanish and had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine. We assessed the following parameters: (1) the prevalence of nonboosted status and reasons for not getting a booster; (2) the prevalence of booster vaccine hesitancy and reasons for hesitancy; and (3) the association of hesitancy with demographic variables. RESULTS: Of 802 participants, 373 (47%) were women, 478 (60%) were non-White, 182 (23%) lacked primary care, 110 (14%) primarily spoke Spanish, and 370 (46%) were publicly insured. Of the 771 participants who completed their primary series, 316 (41%) had not received a booster vaccine; the primary reason for nonreceipt was lack of opportunity (38%). Of the nonboosted participants, 179 (57%) expressed hesitancy, citing need for more information (25%), concerns about side effects (24%), and the belief that a booster was unnecessary after the initial series (20%). In the multivariable analysis, Asian participants were less likely to be booster hesitant than White participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.93), non-English-speaking participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than English-speaking participants (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.71), and Republican participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than Democrat participants (aOR 6.07, 95% CI 4.21 to 8.75). CONCLUSION: Of almost half of this urban ED population who had not received a COVID-19 booster vaccine, more than one third stated that lack of opportunity to receive one was the primary reason. Furthermore, more than half of the nonboosted participants were booster hesitant, with many expressing concerns or a desire for more information that may be addressed with booster vaccine education.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place Order on Traumatic Brain Injuries in San Francisco, California.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, San Francisco, California issued a shelter-in-place (SIP) order in March 2020, during which emergency physicians noted a drop in trauma cases, as well as a change in traditional mechanisms of trauma. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to determine the epidemiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) pre- and post-COVID-19 SIP. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic medical record of the only trauma center in the city of San Francisco, to determine the number of and characteristics of patients with a diagnosis of head injury presenting to the emergency department between December 16, 2019 and June 16, 2020. Using chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests when appropriate, we compared pre- and post- COVID-19 lockdown epidemiology. RESULTS: There were 1246 TBI-related visits during the 6-month study period. Bi-weekly TBI cases decreased by 36.64% 2 weeks after the COVID-19 SIP and then increased to near baseline levels by June 2020. TBI patients during SIP were older (mean age: 53.3 years pre-SIP vs. 58.2 post-SIP; p < 0.001), more likely to be male (odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.81), and less likely to be 17 or younger (8.9% vs. 0.5%, pre- to post-SIP respectively, p = 0.003). Patients were less likely to be Hispanic (27.2% vs. 21.7% pre- to post-SIP, respectively, p = 0.029). The proportion of TBI visits attributable to cycling accidents increased (14.1% to 52.7%, p < 0.001), whereas those attributable to pedestrians involved in road traffic accidents decreased (37.2% to 12.7%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the changing epidemiology of TBI during the COVID-19 pandemic can aid in immediate and future disaster resource planning.

Factors Associated With Parental Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Multicenter Pediatric Emergency Department Cross-Sectional Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: During the delta surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, we sought to identify characteristics and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in parents of pediatric emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey-based study of the parents of children aged 3 to 16 years presenting to 1 of 9 pediatric EDs from June to August 2021 to assess the parental acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Using multiple variable regression, we ascertained which factors were associated with parental and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. RESULTS: Of 1,491 parents approached, 1,298 (87%) participated, of whom 50% of the parents and 27% of their children aged 12 years or older and older were vaccinated. Characteristics associated with parental COVID-19 vaccination were trust in scientists (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.65 to 7.15), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.58), college degree (aOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85), increasing parental age (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.22), a friend or family member hospitalized because of COVID-19 (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.72), and higher income (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.00). Characteristics associated with pediatric COVID-19 vaccination (children aged ≥12 years) or intended COVID-19 pediatric vaccination, once approved for use, (children aged <12 years) were parental trust in scientists (aOR 5.37, 95% CI 3.65 to 7.88), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.77), trust in the media (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.37), parental college degree (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.20), and increasing parental age (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.57). CONCLUSION: Overall COVID-19 vaccination acceptance was low. Trust in scientists had the strongest association with parental COVID-19 vaccine acceptance for both themselves and their children.

Impact of Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric on Latinx Families' Perceptions of Child Safety and Health Care Access.

BACKGROUND: Political rhetoric from the former U.S. president influences Latinx adults' feelings of safety and their decisions to seek care in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to examine the impact of political rhetoric on feelings of safety and health care access in the pediatric population. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of undocumented Latinx families (ULF), Latinx U.S. citizen families (LCF), and non-Latinx U.S. citizen families (NLF) conducted from November 2018 through February 2020 by means of interviewing a convenience sample of parents and guardians who brought their child to a pediatric clinic and two EDs in California. RESULTS: Of 705 parents approached, 449 (63.7%) agreed to participate: 138 ULF, 150 LCF, and 158 NLF. Most ULF (95%), LCF (88%), and NLF (78%) parents and guardians had heard anti-immigrant statements from the former U.S. president and most (94% ULF, 90% LCF, 86% NLF) believed these measures against immigrants were being enacted or will be enacted. More ULF (75%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 67-81%) reported that these statements made them concerned about their child's safety in the United States compared with 36% (95% CI 28-45%) and 34% (95% CI 26-43%) of LCF and NLF, respectively. More ULF 17% (95% CI 11-24%) said that these statements made them afraid to bring their child for medical care, compared with 5% (95% CI 2-10%) and 3% (95% CI 1-7%) of LCF and NLF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most parents heard statements against undocumented immigrants by the former U.S. president and most believed measures were being enacted. This rhetoric had a substantial negative impact on ULF parents in terms of safety concerns for their child and fear of accessing health care.

Symptoms of Anxiety, Burnout, and PTSD and the Mitigation Effect of Serologic Testing in Emergency Department Personnel During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Among a comprehensive range of frontline emergency department health care personnel, we assessed symptoms of anxiety and burnout, specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related stressors, and risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We also determined whether COVID-19 serologic testing of HCP decreased their self-reported anxiety. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study from May 13, 2020, to July 8, 2020, we used electronic surveys to capture participant self-reported symptoms before and after serologic testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies. Participants were physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and nonclinical ED personnel at 20 geographically diverse United States EDs. We evaluated these domains: 1) the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on overall stress and anxiety; 2) COVID-19-related work stressors; 3) burnout; and 4) PTSD risk (measured using the Primary Care-PTSD Screen for DSM-5, a 5-item screening instrument in which a score of ≥3 signifies high risk for PTSD). We also assessed perceptions of whether results of COVID-19 antibody testing decreased participants' self-reported anxiety. RESULTS: Of 1,606 participants, 100% and 88% responded to the baseline and follow-up surveys, respectively. At baseline, approximately half (46%) reported symptoms of emotional exhaustion and burnout from their work, and 308 (19.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3% to 21.1%) respondents screened positive for increased PTSD risk. Female respondents were more likely than males to screen positive (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.78). Common concerns included exposing their family and the health of coworkers diagnosed with COVID-19. After receiving antibody test results, 54% (95% CI 51.8 to 56.7) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that knowledge of their immune status had decreased their anxiety. A positive serology result indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting decreased anxiety (2.83, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.83). CONCLUSION: Symptoms of anxiety and burnout were prevalent across the spectrum of ED staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. One-fifth of ED personnel appeared to be at risk for PTSD. Increased provision of serologic testing may help to mitigate anxiety.

The Rapid Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination in Emergency Departments for Underserved Patients Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED. CONCLUSION: ED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.

Screening performance of the chest X-ray in adult blunt trauma evaluation: Is it effective and what does it miss?

BACKGROUND: Although chest x-ray (CXR) is often used as a screening tool for thoracic injury in adult blunt trauma assessment, its screening performance is unclear. Using chest CT as the referent standard, we sought to determine the screening performance of CXR for injury. METHODS: We analyzed data from the NEXUS Chest CT study, in which we prospectively enrolled blunt trauma patients older than 14 years who received chest imaging as part of their evaluation at nine level I trauma centers. For this analysis, we included patients who had both CXR and chest CT. We used CT as the referent standard and categorized injuries as clinically major or minor according to an a priori expert panel classification. RESULTS: Of 11,477 patients enrolled, 4501 had both CXR and chest CT; 1496 (33.2%) were found to have injury, of which 256 (17%) were classified as major injury. CXR missed injuries in 818 patients (54.7%), of which 63 (7.7%) were classified as major injuries. For injuries of major clinical significance, CXR had a sensitivity of 75.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.6-80.4%), specificity of 86.2% (95% CI 85.1-87.2%), negative predictive value of 98.3 (95%CI 97.9-98.6%), and positive predictive value of 24.7 (95%CI 22.9-26.7%). For any injury CXR had a sensitivity of 45.3% (95% CI 42.8-47.9%), specificity of 96.6% (95% CI 95.9-97.2%), negative predictive value of 78% (95% CI 77.2-78.8%), and positive predictive value of 86.9% (95% CI 84.5-89.0%). The most common missed major injuries were pneumothorax (30/185; 16.2%), spinal fractures (19/39; 48.7%), and hemothorax (8/70; 11.4%). The most common missed minor injuries were rib fractures (381/836; 45.6%), pulmonary contusion (203/462; 43.9%), and sternal fractures (153/229; 66.8%). CONCLUSIONS: When used alone, without other trauma screening criteria, CXR has poor screening performance for blunt thoracic injury.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students: a multicenter quantitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the United States (US) medical education system with the necessary, yet unprecedented Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) national recommendation to pause all student clinical rotations with in-person patient care. This study is a quantitative analysis investigating the educational and psychological effects of the pandemic on US medical students and their reactions to the AAMC recommendation in order to inform medical education policy. METHODS: The authors sent a cross-sectional survey via email to medical students in their clinical training years at six medical schools during the initial peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey questions aimed to evaluate students' perceptions of COVID-19's impact on medical education; ethical obligations during a pandemic; infection risk; anxiety and burnout; willingness and needed preparations to return to clinical rotations. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-one (29.5%) students responded. Nearly all students (93.7%) were not involved in clinical rotations with in-person patient contact at the time the study was conducted. Reactions to being removed were mixed, with 75.8% feeling this was appropriate, 34.7% guilty, 33.5% disappointed, and 27.0% relieved. Most students (74.7%) agreed the pandemic had significantly disrupted their medical education, and believed they should continue with normal clinical rotations during this pandemic (61.3%). When asked if they would accept the risk of infection with COVID-19 if they returned to the clinical setting, 83.4% agreed. Students reported the pandemic had moderate effects on their stress and anxiety levels with 84.1% of respondents feeling at least somewhat anxious. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) (53.5%) was the most important factor to feel safe returning to clinical rotations, followed by adequate testing for infection (19.3%) and antibody testing (16.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the education of US medical students in their clinical training years. The majority of students wanted to return to clinical rotations and were willing to accept the risk of COVID-19 infection. Students were most concerned with having enough PPE if allowed to return to clinical activities.

Prevalence of Intracranial Injury in Adult Patients With Blunt Head Trauma With and Without Anticoagulant or Antiplatelet Use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the prevalence of significant intracranial injury among adults with blunt head trauma who are receiving preinjury anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted from December 2007 to December 2015. Patients were enrolled in 3 emergency departments (EDs) in the United States. Adults with blunt head trauma who underwent neuroimaging in the ED were included. Use of preinjury aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin was recorded. Data on direct oral anticoagulants were not specifically recorded. The primary outcome was prevalence of significant intracranial injury on neuroimaging. The secondary outcome was receipt of neurosurgical intervention. RESULTS: Among 9,070 patients enrolled in this study, the median age was 53.8 years (interquartile range 34.7 to 74.3 years) and 60.7% were men. A total of 1,323 patients (14.6%) were receiving antiplatelet medications or warfarin, including 635 receiving aspirin alone, 109 clopidogrel alone, and 406 warfarin alone. Compared with that of patients without any coagulopathy, the relative risk of significant intracranial injury was 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88 to 1.87) for patients receiving aspirin alone, 0.75 (95% CI 0.24 to 2.30) for those receiving clopidogrel alone, and 1.88 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.75) for those receiving warfarin alone. The relative risk of significant intracranial injury was 2.88 (95% CI 1.53 to 5.42) for patients receiving aspirin and clopidogrel in combination. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving preinjury warfarin or a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel were at increased risk for significant intracranial injury, but not those receiving aspirin alone. Clinicians should have a low threshold for neuroimaging when evaluating patients receiving warfarin or a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel.