Evaluation of an outreach programme for patients with COVID-19 in an integrated healthcare delivery system: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems implemented programmes to manage outpatients with COVID-19. The goal was to expedite patients' referral to acute care and prevent overcrowding of medical centres. We sought to evaluate the impact of such a programme, the COVID-19 Home Care Team (CHCT) programme. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Northern California. PARTICIPANTS: Adult members before COVID-19 vaccine availability (1 February 2020-31 January 2021) with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests. INTERVENTION: Virtual programme to track and treat patients with 'CHCT programme'. OUTCOMES: The outcomes were (1) COVID-19-related emergency department visit, (2) COVID-19-related hospitalisation and (3) inpatient mortality or 30-day hospice referral. MEASURES: We estimated the average effect comparing patients who were and were not treated by CHCT. We estimated propensity scores using an ensemble super learner (random forest, XGBoost, generalised additive model and multivariate adaptive regression splines) and augmented inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: There were 98 585 patients with COVID-19. The majority were followed by CHCT (n=80 067, 81.2%). Patients followed by CHCT were older (mean age 43.9 vs 41.6 years, p<0.001) and more comorbid with COmorbidity Point Score, V.2, score ≥65 (1.7% vs 1.1%, p<0.001). Unadjusted analyses showed more COVID-19-related emergency department visits (9.5% vs 8.5%, p<0.001) and hospitalisations (3.9% vs 3.2%, p<0.001) in patients followed by CHCT but lower inpatient death or 30-day hospice referral (0.3% vs 0.5%, p<0.001). After weighting, there were higher rates of COVID-19-related emergency department visits (estimated intervention effect -0.8%, 95% CI -1.4% to -0.3%) and hospitalisation (-0.5%, 95% CI -0.9% to -0.1%) but lower inpatient mortality or 30-day hospice referral (-0.5%, 95% CI -0.7% to -0.3%) in patients followed by CHCT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite CHCT following older patients with higher comorbidity burden, there appeared to be a protective effect. Patients followed by CHCT were more likely to present to acute care and less likely to die inpatient.

Trends in Outpatient Visits and Hospital and Intensive Care Unit Admissions of Adults With COVID-19 in an Integrated US Health Care System, March 2020 to January 2022.

This cohort study of patients at a single integrated health system examines trends in COVID-19­related treatment location and mortality.

Tobacco Smoking and Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Disease Severity Among Adults in an Integrated Healthcare System in California.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between tobacco smoking status and SARS-CoV-2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity is highly debated. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of >2.4 million adults in a large healthcare system to evaluate whether smoking is associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease severity. AIMS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of 2,427,293 adults in KPNC from March 5, 2020 (baseline) to December 31, 2020 (pre-vaccine) included smoking status (current, former, never), socio-demographics, and comorbidities from the electronic health record. SARS-CoV-2 infection (identified by a positive PCR test) and COVID-19 severity (hospitalization, ICU admission or death ≤ 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis) were estimated in time-to-event analyses using Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusting for covariates. Secondary analyses examined COVID-19 severity among patients with COVID-19 using logistic regression. RESULTS: During the study, 44,270 patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Current smoking was associated with lower adjusted rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR = 0.64 95% CI: 0.61-0.67), COVID-19-related hospitalization (aHR = 0.48 95% CI: 0.40-0.58), ICU admission (aHR = 0.62 95% CI: 0.42-0.87), and death (aHR = 0.52 95% CI: 0.27-0.89) than never-smoking. Former smoking was associated with a lower adjusted rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR = 0.96 95% CI: 0.94-0.99) and higher adjusted rates of hospitalization (aHR = 1.10 95% CI: 1.03-1.08) and death (aHR = 1.32 95% CI: 1.11-1.56) than never-smoking. Logistic regression analyses among patients with COVID-19 found lower odds of hospitalization for current versus never-smoking and higher odds of hospitalization and death for former versus never-smoking. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest US study to date on smoking and COVID-19, current and former smoking showed lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than never-smoking, while a history of smoking was associated with higher risk of severe COVID-19. IMPLICATIONS: In this cohort study of 2.4 million adults, adjusting for socio-demographics and medical comorbidities, current tobacco smoking was associated with a lower risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 illness compared to never-smoking. A history of smoking was associated with a slightly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a modestly higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness compared to never-smoking. The lower observed COVID-19 risk for current versus never-smoking deserves further investigation. Results support prioritizing individuals with smoking-related comorbidities for vaccine outreach and treatments as they become available.

Prognostic Accuracy of Presepsis and Intrasepsis Characteristics for Prediction of Cardiovascular Events After a Sepsis Hospitalization.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis survivors face increased risk for cardiovascular complications; however, the contribution of intrasepsis events to cardiovascular risk profiles is unclear. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) and Intermountain Healthcare (IH) integrated healthcare delivery systems. SUBJECTS: Sepsis survivors (2011-2017 [KPNC] and 2018-2020 [IH]) greater than or equal to 40 years old without prior cardiovascular disease. DESIGN: Data across KPNC and IH were harmonized and grouped into presepsis (demographics, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease scores, comorbidities) or intrasepsis factors (e.g., laboratory values, vital signs, organ support, infection source) with random split for training/internal validation datasets (75%/25%) within KPNC and IH. Models were bidirectionally, externally validated between healthcare systems. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Changes to predictive accuracy (C-statistic) of cause-specific proportional hazards models predicting 1-year cardiovascular outcomes (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation events) were compared between models that did and did not contain intrasepsis factors. Among 39,590 KPNC and 16,388 IH sepsis survivors, 3,503 (8.8%) at Kaiser Permanente (KP) and 600 (3.7%) at IH experienced a cardiovascular event within 1-year after hospital discharge, including 996 (2.5%) at KP and 192 (1.2%) IH with an atherosclerotic event first, 564 (1.4%) at KP and 117 (0.7%) IH with a heart failure event, 2,310 (5.8%) at KP and 371 (2.3%) with an atrial fibrillation event. Death within 1 year after sepsis occurred for 7,948 (20%) KP and 2,085 (12.7%) IH patients. Combined models with presepsis and intrasepsis factors had better discrimination for cardiovascular events (KPNC C-statistic 0.783 [95% CI, 0.766-0.799]; IH 0.763 [0.726-0.801]) as compared with presepsis cardiovascular risk alone (KPNC: 0.666 [0.648-0.683], IH 0.660 [0.619-0.702]) during internal validation. External validation of models across healthcare systems showed similar performance (KPNC model within IH data C-statistic: 0.734 [0.725-0.744]; IH model within KPNC data: 0.787 [0.768-0.805]). CONCLUSIONS: Across two large healthcare systems, intrasepsis factors improved postsepsis cardiovascular risk prediction as compared with presepsis cardiovascular risk profiles. Further exploration of sepsis factors that contribute to postsepsis cardiovascular events is warranted for improved mechanistic and predictive models.

Outcomes After Implementation of a Benzodiazepine-Sparing Alcohol Withdrawal Order Set in an Integrated Health Care System.

Importance: Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a common inpatient diagnosis managed primarily with benzodiazepines. Concerns about the adverse effects associated with benzodiazepines have spurred interest in using benzodiazepine-sparing treatments. Objective: To evaluate changes in outcomes after implementation of a benzodiazepine-sparing AWS inpatient order set that included adjunctive therapies (eg, gabapentin, valproic acid, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine). Design, Setting, and Participants: This difference-in-differences quality improvement study was conducted among 22 899 AWS adult hospitalizations from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2019, in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health care delivery system. Data were analyzed from September 2020 through November 2021. Exposures: Implementation of the benzodiazepine-sparing AWS order set on October 1, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted rate ratios for medication use, inpatient mortality, length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and nonelective readmission within 30 days were calculated comparing postimplementation and preimplementation periods among hospitals with and without order set use. Results: Among 904 540 hospitalizations in the integrated health care delivery system during the study period, AWS was present in 22 899 hospitalizations (2.5%), occurring among 16 323 unique patients (mean [SD] age, 57.1 [14.8] years; 15 764 [68.8%] men). Of these hospitalizations, 12 889 (56.3%) used an order set for alcohol withdrawal. Among hospitalizations with order set use, any benzodiazepine use decreased after implementation from 6431 hospitalizations (78.1%) to 2823 hospitalizations (60.7%) (P < .001), with concomitant decreases in the mean (SD) total dosage of lorazepam before vs after implementation (19.7 [38.3] mg vs 6.0 [9.1] mg; P < .001). There were also significant changes from before to after implementation in the use of adjunctive medications, including gabapentin (2413 hospitalizations [29.3%] vs 2814 hospitalizations [60.5%]; P < .001), clonidine (1476 hospitalizations [17.9%] vs 2208 hospitalizations [47.5%]; P < .001), thiamine (6298 hospitalizations [76.5%] vs 4047 hospitalizations [87.0%]; P < .001), valproic acid (109 hospitalizations [1.3%] vs 256 hospitalizations [5.5%]; P < .001), and phenobarbital (412 hospitalizations [5.0%] vs 292 hospitalizations [6.3%]; P = .003). Compared with AWS hospitalizations without order set use, use of the benzodiazepine-sparing order set was associated with decreases in intensive care unit use (adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.89; P = .003) and hospital length of stay (ARR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that implementation of a benzodiazepine-sparing AWS order set was associated with decreased use of benzodiazepines and favorable trends in outcomes. These findings suggest that further prospective research is needed to identify the most effective treatments regimens for patients hospitalized with alcohol withdrawal.

Validation of Respiratory Rate-Oxygenation Index in Patients With COVID-19-Related Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVES: The respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index is a fraction of oxygen saturation, Fio2, and respiratory rate that has been validated to predict receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). This study aimed to validate ROX in a cohort of inpatients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure. DESIGN: Retrospective validation of the ROX index. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and 95% CIs of ROX for invasive mechanical ventilation any time during hospitalization. SETTING: Twenty-one hospitals of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated healthcare delivery system. PATIENTS: We identified adults with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction test within 3 weeks of, or during, hospitalization between February 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. We calculated ROX at 12 hours after HFNC initiation. We grouped patients as low (≥ 4.88), intermediate (< 4.88 and ≥ 3.85), or high (< 3.85) risk using previously published thresholds. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1,847 patients who had no limitation of life support. Of these, 525 (31.7%) received invasive mechanical ventilation any time during hospitalization and 511 died (27.7%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 12-hour ROX threshold (< 3.85) predicting invasive mechanical ventilation were 32.3% (95% CI, 28.5-36.3%), 89.8% (95% CI, 88.0-91.4%), 59.4% (95% CI, 53.8-64.9%), and 74.1% (95% CI, 71.8-76.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-hour ROX index has a positive predictive value (59.4%) using threshold of less than 3.85 for COVID-19 patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation. Our health system has embedded ROX into the electronic health record to prioritize rounding during periods of inpatient surge.

Development of a healthcare system COVID Hotspotting Score in California: an observational study with prospective validation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the value of health systems data as indicators of emerging COVID-19 activity. DESIGN: Observational study of health system indicators for the COVID Hotspotting Score (CHOTS) with prospective validation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An integrated healthcare delivery system in Northern California including 21 hospitals and 4.5 million members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The CHOTS incorporated 10 variables including four major (cough/cold calls, emails, new positive COVID-19 tests, COVID-19 hospital census) and six minor (COVID-19 calls, respiratory infection and COVID-19 routine and urgent visits, and respiratory viral testing) indicators assessed with change point detection and slope metrics. We quantified cross-correlations lagged by 7-42 days between CHOTS and standardised COVID-19 hospital census using observational data from 1 April to 31 May 2020 and two waves of prospective data through 21 March 2021. RESULTS: Through 30 September 2020, peak cross-correlation between CHOTS and COVID-19 hospital census occurred with a 28-day lag at 0.78; at 42 days, the correlation was 0.69. Lagged correlation between medical centre CHOTS and their COVID-19 census was highest at 42 days for one facility (0.63), at 35 days for nine facilities (0.52-0.73), at 28 days for eight facilities (0.28-0.74) and at 14 days for two facilities (0.73-0.78). The strongest correlation for individual indicators was 0.94 (COVID-19 census) and 0.90 (new positive COVID-19 tests) lagged 1-14 days and 0.83 for COVID-19 calls and urgent clinic visits lagged 14-28 days. Cross-correlation was similar (0.73) with a 35-day lag using prospective validation from 1 October 2020 to 21 March 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Passively collected health system indicators were strongly correlated with forthcoming COVID-19 hospital census up to 6 weeks before three successive COVID-19 waves. These tools could inform communities, health systems and public health officials to identify, prepare for and mitigate emerging COVID-19 activity.

Racial Disparities in COVID-19 Testing and Outcomes : Retrospective Cohort Study in an Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities exist in outcomes after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contribution of race/ethnicity in SARS-CoV-2 testing, infection, and outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (1 February 2020 to 31 May 2020). SETTING: Integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. PARTICIPANTS: Adult health plan members. MEASUREMENTS: Age, sex, neighborhood deprivation index, comorbid conditions, acute physiology indices, and race/ethnicity; SARS-CoV-2 testing and incidence of positive test results; and hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality. RESULTS: Among 3 481 716 eligible members, 42.0% were White, 6.4% African American, 19.9% Hispanic, and 18.6% Asian; 13.0% were of other or unknown race. Of eligible members, 91 212 (2.6%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 3686 had positive results (overall incidence, 105.9 per 100 000 persons; by racial group, White, 55.1; African American, 123.1; Hispanic, 219.6; Asian, 111.7; other/unknown, 79.3). African American persons had the highest unadjusted testing and mortality rates, White persons had the lowest testing rates, and those with other or unknown race had the lowest mortality rates. Compared with White persons, adjusted testing rates among non-White persons were marginally higher, but infection rates were significantly higher; adjusted odds ratios [aORs] for African American persons, Hispanic persons, Asian persons, and persons of other/unknown race were 2.01 (95% CI, 1.75 to 2.31), 3.93 (CI, 3.59 to 4.30), 2.19 (CI, 1.98 to 2.42), and 1.57 (CI, 1.38 to 1.78), respectively. Geographic analyses showed that infections clustered in areas with higher proportions of non-White persons. Compared with White persons, adjusted hospitalization rates for African American persons, Hispanic persons, Asian persons, and persons of other/unknown race were 1.47 (CI, 1.03 to 2.09), 1.42 (CI, 1.11 to 1.82), 1.47 (CI, 1.13 to 1.92), and 1.03 (CI, 0.72 to 1.46), respectively. Adjusted analyses showed no racial differences in inpatient mortality or total mortality during the study period. For testing, comorbid conditions made the greatest relative contribution to model explanatory power (77.9%); race only accounted for 8.1%. Likelihood of infection was largely due to race (80.3%). For other outcomes, age was most important; race only contributed 4.5% for hospitalization, 12.8% for admission illness severity, 2.3% for in-hospital death, and 0.4% for any death. LIMITATION: The study involved an insured population in a highly integrated health system. CONCLUSION: Race was the most important predictor of SARS-CoV-2 infection. After infection, race was associated with increased hospitalization risk but not mortality. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.