Ideal Postdischarge Follow-Up After Severe Pneumonia or Acute Respiratory Failure: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Clinicians in Diverse Settings.

BACKGROUND: Most patients discharged after hospitalization for severe pneumonia or acute respiratory failure receive follow-up care from primary care clinicians, yet guidelines are sparse. RESEARCH QUESTION: What do primary care clinicians consider to be ideal follow-up care after hospitalization for severe pneumonia or acute respiratory failure and what do they perceive to be barriers and facilitators to providing ideal follow-up? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted, via videoconferencing, semistructured interviews of 20 primary care clinicians working in diverse settings from five US states and Washington, DC. Participants described postdischarge visits, ongoing follow-up, and referrals for patients recovering from hospitalizations for pneumonia or respiratory failure bad enough to be hospitalized and to require significant oxygen support or seeking treatment at the ICU. Barriers and facilitators were probed using the capability, opportunity, motivation, behavior framework. Interview summaries and rigorous and accelerated data reduction analysis techniques were used. RESULTS: Core elements of primary care follow-up after severe pneumonia or acute respiratory failure included safety assessment, medication management, medical specialty follow-up, integrating the hospitalization into the primary care relationship, assessing mental and physical well-being, rehabilitation follow-up, and social context of recovery. Clinicians described specific practices as well as barriers and facilitators at multiple levels to optimal care. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that at least seven core elements are common in follow-up care after severe pneumonia or acute respiratory failure, and conventional systems include barriers and facilitators to delivering what primary care clinicians consider to be optimal follow-up care. Future research could leverage identified barriers and facilitators to develop implementation tools that enhance the delivery of robust follow-up care for severe pneumonia or acute respiratory failure.

Financial hardship after COVID-19 infection among US Veterans: a national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests an association between COVID-19 infection and certain financial hardships in the shorter term and among single-state and privately insured samples. Whether COVID-19 is associated with financial hardship in the longer-term or among socially vulnerable populations is unknown. Therefore, we examined whether COVID-19 was associated with a range of financial hardships 18 months after initial infection among a national cohort of Veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)-the largest national integrated health system in the US. We additionally explored the association between Veteran characteristics and financial hardship during the pandemic, irrespective of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, telephone-based survey. Out of 600 Veterans with COVID-19 from October 2020 through April 2021 who were invited to participate, 194 Veterans with COVID-19 and 194 matched comparators without a history of infection participated. Financial hardship outcomes included overall health-related financial strain, two behavioral financial hardships (e.g., taking less medication than prescribed due to cost), and seven material financial hardships (e.g., using up most or all savings). Weighted generalized estimating equations were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of financial hardship by COVID-19 status, and to assess the relationship between infection and Veteran age, VHA copay status, and comorbidity score, irrespective of COVID-19 status. RESULTS: Among 388 respondents, 67% reported at least one type of financial hardship since March 2020, with 21% reporting behavioral hardships and 64% material hardships; 8% reported severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain. Compared with uninfected matched comparators, Veterans with a history of COVID-19 had greater risks of severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain (RR: 4.0, CI: 1.4-11.2), taking less medication due to cost (RR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.0-8.6), and having a loved one take time off work to care for them (RR: 1.9, CI: 1.1-3.6). Irrespective of COVID-19 status, Veterans aged < 65 years had a greater risk of most financial hardships compared with Veterans aged ≥ 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Health-related financial hardships such as taking less medication due to cost and severe-to-extreme health-related financial strain were more common among Veterans with a history of COVID-19 than among matched comparators. Strategies are needed to address health-related financial hardship after COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05394025, registered 05-27-2022.

Mobile App-Based Mindfulness Intervention for Addressing Psychological Distress Among Survivors of Hospitalization for COVID-19 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress symptoms are present and persistent among many patients who survive a critical illness like COVID-19. RESEARCH QUESTION: Could a self-directed mobile app-delivered mindfulness intervention be feasibly and rapidly implemented within a clinical trials network to reduce distress symptoms? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted between January 2021 and May 2022 at 29 US sites and included survivors of hospitalization due to COVID-19-related illness with elevated symptoms of depression at discharge. Participants were randomized to intervention or usual care control. The intervention consisted of four themed weeks of daily audio, video, and text content. All study procedures were virtual. The primary outcome was depression symptoms assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale), quality of life (EQ-5D), and adherence. We used general linear models to estimate treatment arm differences in outcomes over time. RESULTS: Among 56 randomized participants (mean age ± SD, 51.0 ± 13.2 years; 38 female [67.9%]; 14 Black participants [25%]), 45 (intervention: n = 23 [79%]; control: n = 22 [81%]) were retained at 6 months. There was no difference in mean improvement between intervention and control participants at 3 months in Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (-0.5 vs 0.1), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (-0.3 vs 0.1), or EQ-5D (-0.03 vs 0.02) scores, respectively; 6-month results were similar. Only 15 participants (51.7%) initiated the intervention, whereas the mean number ± SD of the 56 prescribed intervention activities completed was 12.0 ± 15.2. Regulatory approvals delayed trial initiation by nearly a year. INTERPRETATION: Among survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization with elevated psychological distress symptoms, a self-directed mobile app-based mindfulness intervention had poor adherence. Future psychological distress interventions mobilized at broad scale should focus efforts on patient engagement and regulatory simplification to enhance success. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04581200; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Extended versus Standard Proning Duration for COVID-19-associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Target Trial Emulation Study.

Rationale: Prone positioning for ⩾16 hours in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) improves survival. However, the optimal duration of proning is unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning duration on patients with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ARDS. Methods: Data were extracted from a five-hospital electronic medical record registry. Patients who were proned within 72 hours of mechanical ventilation were categorized as receiving extended (⩾24 h) versus standard (16-24 h) proning based on the first proning session length. We used a target trial emulation design to estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality and secondary outcomes of ventilator liberation and intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. Analytically, we used inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox or Fine-Gray regression models. Results: A total of 314 patients were included; 234 received extended proning, and 80 received standard-duration proning. Patients who received extended proning were older, had greater comorbidity, were more often at an academic hospital, and had shorter time from admission to mechanical ventilation. After IPTW, characteristics were well balanced. Unadjusted 90-day mortality in the extended versus standard proning groups was 39% versus 58%. In doubly robust IPTW analyses, we found no significant effects of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.95 [0.51-1.77]), ventilator liberation (subdistribution hazard, 1.60 [0.97-2.64], or ICU discharge (subdistribution hazard, 1.31 [0.82-2.10]). Conclusions: Using target trial emulation, we found no significant effect of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality, ventilator liberation, or ICU discharge. However, given the imprecision of estimates, further study is justified.

Regional variation in financial hardship among US veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Geographic variation in hardship, especially health-related hardship, was identified prior to and during the pandemic, but we do not know whether this variation is consistent among Veterans Health Administration (VHA)-enrolled veterans, who reported markedly high rates of financial hardship during the pandemic, despite general and veteran-specific federal policy efforts aimed at reducing hardship. In a nationwide, regionally stratified sample of VHA-enrolled veterans, we examined whether the prevalence of financial hardship during the pandemic varied by US Census region. We found veterans in the South, compared with those in other census regions, reported higher rates of severe-to-extreme financial strain, using up all or most of their savings, being unable to pay for necessities, being contacted by collections, and changing their employment due to the kind of work they could perform. Regional variation in veteran financial hardship demonstrates a need for further research about the role and interaction of federal and state financial-assistance policies in shaping risks for financial hardship as well as potential opportunities to mitigate risks among veterans and reduce variation across regions.

Impact of High-Dose Early Mobilization on Outcomes for Patients with Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the TEAM Trial.

Rationale: Patients with diabetes represent almost 20% of all ICU admissions and might respond differently to high-dose early active mobilization. Objectives: To assess whether diabetes modified the relationship between the dose of early mobilization on clinical outcomes in the TEAM trial. Methods: All TEAM trial patients were included. The primary outcome was days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180. Secondary outcomes included 180-day mortality and long-term functional outcomes at Day 180. Logistic and median regression models were used to explore the effect of high-dose early mobilization on outcomes by diabetes status. Measurements and Main Results: All 741 patients from the original trial were included. Of these, 159 patients (21.4%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes had fewer days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180 (124 [0-153] vs. 147 [82-164]; P = 0.013) and higher 180-day mortality (30% vs. 18%; P = 0.044). In patients receiving high-dose early mobilization, the number of days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180 was 73.0 (0.0-144.5) in patients with diabetes and 146.5 (95.8-163.0) in patients without diabetes (P value for interaction = 0.108). However, in patients with diabetes, high-dose early mobilization increased the odds of mortality at 180 days (adjusted odds ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-7.61; P value for interaction = 0.001). Conclusions: In this secondary analysis of the TEAM trial, in patients with diabetes, a high-dose early mobilization strategy did not significantly decrease the number of days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180, but it increased 180-day mortality.

Does nurse use of a standardized flowsheet to document communication with advanced providers provide a mechanism to detect pulse oximetry failures? A retrospective study of electronic health record data.

BACKGROUND: Pulse oximetry guides clinical decisions, yet does not uniformly identify hypoxemia. We hypothesized that nursing documentation of notifying providers, facilitated by a standardized flowsheet for documenting communication to providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), may increase when hypoxemia is present, but undetected by the pulse oximeter, in events termed "occult hypoxemia." OBJECTIVE: To compare nurse documentation of provider notification in the 4 h preceding cases of occult hypoxemia, normal oxygenation, and evident hypoxemia confirmed by an arterial blood gas reading. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health record data from patients with COVID-19 at five hospitals in a healthcare system with paired SpO2 and SaO2 readings (measurements within 10 min of oxygen saturation levels in arterial blood, SaO2, and by pulse oximetry, SpO2). We applied multivariate logistic regression to assess if having any nursing documentation of provider notification in the 4 h prior to a paired reading confirming occult hypoxemia was more likely compared to a paired reading confirming normal oxygen status, adjusting for characteristics significantly associated with nursing documentation. We applied conditional logistic regression to assess if having any nursing documentation of provider notification was more likely in the 4-hour window preceding a paired reading compared to the 4-hour window 24 h earlier separately for occult hypoxemia, visible hypoxemia, and normal oxygenation. RESULTS: There were data from 1910 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had 44,972 paired readings and an average of 26.5 (34.5) nursing documentation of provider notification events. The mean age was 63.4 (16.2). Almost half (866/1910, 45.3 %) were White, 701 (36.7 %) were Black, and 239 (12.5 %) were Hispanic. Having any nursing documentation of provider notification was 46 % more common in the 4 h before an occult hypoxemia paired reading compared to a normal oxygen status paired reading (OR 1.46, 95 % CI: 1.28-1.67). Comparing the 4 h immediately before the reading to the 4 h one day preceding the paired reading, there was a higher likelihood of having any nursing documentation of provider notification for both evident (OR 1.45, 95 % CI 1.24-1.68) and occult paired readings (OR 1.26, 95 % CI 1.04-1.53). CONCLUSION: This study finds that nursing documentation of provider notification significantly increases prior to confirmed occult hypoxemia, which has potential in proactively identifying occult hypoxemia and other clinical issues. There is potential value to encouraging standardized documentation of nurse concern, including communication to providers, to facilitate its inclusion in clinical decision-making.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Long-Term Depression Symptoms among Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Prior research demonstrates that SARS-COV-2 infection can be associated with a broad range of mental health outcomes including depression symptoms. Veterans, in particular, may be at elevated risk of increased depression following SARS-COV-2 infection given their high rates of pre-existing mental and physical health comorbidities. However, few studies have tried to isolate SARS-COV-2 infection associations with long term, patient-reported depression symptoms from other factors (e.g., physical health comorbidities, pandemic-related stress). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between SARS-COV-2 infection and subsequent depression symptoms among United States Military Veterans. DESIGN: Survey-based non-randomized cohort study with matched comparators. PARTICIPANTS: A matched-dyadic sample from a larger, stratified random sample of participants with and without known to SARS-COV-2 infection were invited to participate in a survey evaluating mental health and wellness 18-months after their index infection date. Sampled participants were stratified by infection severity of the participant infected with SARS-COV-2 (hospitalized or not) and by month of index date. A total of 186 participants in each group agreed to participate in the survey and had sufficient data for inclusion in analyses. Those in the uninfected group who were later infected were excluded from analyses. MAIN MEASURES: Participants were administered the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 as part of a phone interview survey. Demographics, physical and mental health comorbidities were extracted from VHA administrative data. KEY RESULTS: Veterans infected with SARS-COV-2 had significantly higher depression symptoms scores compared with those uninfected. In particular, psychological symptoms (e.g., low mood, suicidal ideation) scores were elevated relative to the comparator group (MInfected = 3.16, 95%CI: 2.5, 3.8; MUninfected = 1.96, 95%CI: 1.4, 2.5). Findings were similar regardless of history of depression. CONCLUSION: SARS-COV-2 infection was associated with more depression symptoms among Veterans at 18-months post-infection. Routine evaluation of depression symptoms over time following SARS-COV-2 infection is important to facilitate adequate assessment and treatment.

Risk of Potentially Preventable Hospitalizations After SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: Research demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization. However, no prior studies have assessed the association between SARS-CoV-2 and potentially preventable hospitalizations-that is, hospitalizations for conditions that can usually be effectively managed in ambulatory care settings. Objective: To examine whether SARS-CoV-2 is associated with potentially preventable hospitalization in a nationwide cohort of US veterans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used an emulated target randomized trial design with monthly sequential trials to compare risk of a potentially preventable hospitalization among veterans with SARS-CoV-2 and matched comparators without SARS-CoV-2. A total of 189 136 US veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021, and 943 084 matched comparators were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from May 10, 2023, to January 26, 2024. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a first potentially preventable hospitalization in VHA facilities, VHA-purchased community care, or Medicare fee-for-service care. Extended Cox models were used to examine adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) of potentially preventable hospitalization among veterans with SARS-CoV-2 and comparators during follow-up periods of 0 to 30, 0 to 90, 0 to 180, and 0 to 365 days. The start of follow-up was defined as the date of each veteran's first positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, with the same index date applied to their matched comparators. Results: The 1 132 220 participants were predominantly men (89.06%), with a mean (SD) age of 60.3 (16.4) years. Most veterans were of Black (23.44%) or White (69.37%) race. Veterans with SARS-CoV-2 and comparators were well-balanced (standardized mean differences, all <0.100) on observable baseline clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Overall, 3.10% of veterans (3.81% of those with SARS-CoV-2 and 2.96% of comparators) had a potentially preventable hospitalization during 1-year follow-up. Risk of a potentially preventable hospitalization was greater among veterans with SARS-CoV-2 than comparators in 4 follow-up periods: 0- to 30-day AHR of 3.26 (95% CI, 3.06-3.46); 0- to 90-day AHR of 2.12 (95% CI, 2.03-2.21); 0- to 180-day AHR of 1.69 (95% CI, 1.63-1.75); and 0- to 365-day AHR of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.40-1.48). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, an increased risk of preventable hospitalization in veterans with SARS-CoV-2, which persisted for at least 1 year after initial infection, highlights the need for research on ways in which SARS-CoV-2 shapes postinfection care needs and engagement with the health system. Solutions are needed to mitigate preventable hospitalization after SARS-CoV-2.

Self-Reported Everyday Functioning After COVID-19 Infection.

Importance: Changes in everyday functioning are crucial to assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19 infection. Objective: To examine the impact of COVID-19 infection on everyday functioning 18 months after infection among veterans with and without histories of COVID-19 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the US Veterans Affairs (VA) and included 186 veterans who had COVID-19 between October 2020 and April 2021 (ie, COVID-19 cohort) and 186 matched comparators who did not have documented COVID-19 infections (ie, control cohort). This match balanced the risk of COVID-19 based on 39 variables measured in the 24 months before infection or match, using principles of target trial emulation. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023. Exposure: First documented COVID-19. Main Outcome and Measures: The differences in self-reported everyday functioning 18 months after COVID-19 infection were estimated and compared with their matched comparators. Within-matched pair logistic and linear regressions assessed differences in outcomes and were weighted to account for sampling and nonresponse. Results: Among the 186 matched pairs of participants, their weighted mean age was 60.4 (95% CI, 57.5 to 63.2) years among veterans in the COVID-19 cohort (weighted sample, 91 459 of 101 133 [90.4%] male; 30 611 [30.3%] Black or African American veterans; 65 196 [64.4%] White veterans) and 61.1 (95% CI, 57.8 to 64.4) years among their comparators in the control cohort (91 459 [90.4%] male; 24 576 [24.3%] Black or African American veterans; 70 157 [69.4%] White veterans). A high proportion of veterans in the COVID-19 cohort (weighted percentage, 44.9% [95% CI, 34.2% to 56.2%]) reported that they could do less than what they felt they could do at the beginning of 2020 compared with the control cohort (weighted percentage, 35.3%; [95% CI, 25.6% to 46.4%]; within-matched pair adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.52 [95% CI, 0.79 to 2.91]). There was no association of documented COVID-19 infection with fatigue, substantial pain, limitations in either activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, severely curtailed life-space mobility, employment, or mean health-related quality of life on a utility scale. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of veterans with and without documented COVID-19, many reported a substantial loss of everyday functioning during the pandemic regardless of whether or not they had a documented infection with COVID-19. Future work with larger samples is needed to validate the estimated associations.

Tackling Brain and Muscle Dysfunction in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Survivors: NHLBI Workshop Report.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with long-term impairments in brain and muscle function that significantly impact the quality of life of those who survive the acute illness. The mechanisms underlying these impairments are not yet well understood, and evidence-based interventions to minimize the burden on patients remain unproved. The NHLBI of the NIH assembled a workshop in April 2023 to review the state of the science regarding ARDS-associated brain and muscle dysfunction, to identify gaps in current knowledge, and to determine priorities for future investigation. The workshop included presentations by scientific leaders across the translational science spectrum and was open to the public as well as the scientific community. This report describes the themes discussed at the workshop as well as recommendations to advance the field toward the goal of improving the health and well-being of ARDS survivors.

Inequities in Indirect Cost Rates Between Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Other Institutions.

PURPOSE: Federal research grants provide support for the indirect costs (IDCs) of research infrastructure that are not specific to particular research projects but are nonetheless essential to enable research. Institutions independently negotiate IDC rates. The authors sought to identify whether inequities exist in negotiated IDC rates between historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other universities (non-HBCUs). METHOD: In 2023, the authors analyzed mean negotiated IDC rates between the top 20 HBCUs (in fiscal year [FY] 2021 research expenditures) and 3 non-HBCU comparison groups: the top 40 non-HBCUs in FY 2021 research expenditures, metropolitan statistical area (MSA)-matched non-HBCUs (among the top 200 institutions by FY 2021 research expenditures), and FY 2021 research expenditure-matched non-HBCUs. RESULTS: The authors found that the top 20 HBCUs' mean IDC rates (50.0%) were, after adjustment, 8.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7, 11.2) lower than those of the top 40 non-HBCUs (58.5%). The mean IDC rates of top HBCUs (n = 14, 48.4%) were, after adjustment, 6.3 percentage points (95% CI 3.1, 9.4) lower than those of MSA-matched non-HBCUs (n = 23, 55.3%). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean IDC rates between the top 20 HBCUs (50.0%) and expenditure-matched non-HBCUs (n = 31; 48.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Inequities in negotiated IDC rates between top HBCUs and non-HBCUs likely both reflect and may contribute to the persistence of institution-level inequities in federally funded research. Proactive investments in HBCUs' research infrastructures are likely needed to ameliorate these funding inequities and support the role of HBCUs in providing opportunity for underrepresented groups in biomedical sciences.

Post-intensive cardiac care outpatient long-term outreach clinic (PICCOLO clinic): Defining health care needs and outcomes among coronary care unit survivors.

Objective: Patients who survive critical illness endure complex physical and mental health conditions, referred to as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). The University of Michigan's post-intensive cardiac care outpatient long-term outreach (PICCOLO) clinic is designed for patients recently admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU). The long-term goal of this clinic is to understand post-CCU patients' needs and design targeted interventions to reduce their morbidity and mortality post-discharge. As a first step toward this goal, we aimed to define the post-discharge needs of CCU survivors. Design setting particpants: We retrospectively reviewed case-mix data (including rates of depression, PTSD, disability, and cognitive abnormalities) and health outcomes for patients referred to the PICCOLO clinic from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021 at Michigan Medicine. Results: Of the 134 referred patients meeting inclusion criteria, 74 (55 %) patients were seen in the PICCOLO clinic within 30 days of discharge. Patients seen in the clinic frequently screened positive for depression (PHQ-2 score ≥3, 21.4 %) and cognitive impairment (MOCA <26, 38.8 %). Further, patients also reported high rates of physical difficulty (mean WHODAS 2.0 score 28.4 %, consistent with moderate physical difficulty). Consistent with medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients, CCU survivors experience PICS. Conclusion: This work highlights the feasibility of an outpatient care model and the need to leverage information gathered from this care model to develop treatment strategies and pathways to address symptoms of PICS in CCU survivors, including depression, cognitive impairment, and physical disability.

Changes in Outpatient Health Care Use After COVID-19 Infection Among Veterans.

Importance: The association of COVID-19 infection with outpatient care utilization is unclear. Many studies reported population surveillance studies rather than comparing outpatient health care use between COVID-19-infected and uninfected cohorts. Objective: To compare outpatient health care use across 6 categories of care (primary care, specialty care, surgery care, mental health, emergency care, and diagnostic and/or other care) between veterans with or without COVID-19 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs primary care patients, veterans with COVID-19 infection were matched to a cohort of uninfected veterans. Data were obtained from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Fee-for-Service Carrier/Physician Supplier file from January 2019 through December 2022. Data analysis was performed from September 2022 to April 2023. Exposure: COVID-19 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the count of outpatient visits after COVID-19 infection. Negative binomial regression models compared outpatient use over a 1-year preinfection period, and peri-infection (0-30 days), intermediate (31-183 days), and long-term (184-365 days) postinfection periods. Results: The infected (202 803 veterans; mean [SD] age, 60.5 [16.2] years; 178 624 men [88.1%]) and uninfected (202 803 veterans; mean [SD] age, 60.4 [16.5] years; 178 624 men [88.1%]) cohorts were well matched across all covariates. Outpatient use in all categories (except surgical care) was significantly elevated during the peri-infection period for veterans with COVID-19 infection compared with the uninfected cohort, with an increase in all visits of 5.12 visits per 30 days (95% CI, 5.09-5.16 visits per 30 days), predominantly owing to primary care visits (increase of 1.86 visits per 30 days; 95% CI, 1.85-1.87 visits per 30 days). Differences in outpatient use attenuated over time but remained statistically significantly higher at 184 to 365 days after infection (increase of 0.25 visit per 30 days; 95% CI, 0.23-0.27 visit per 30 days). One-half of the increased outpatient visits were delivered via telehealth. The utilization increase was greatest for veterans aged 85 years and older (6.1 visits, 95% CI, 5.9-6.3 visits) vs those aged 20 to 44 years (4.8 visits, 95% CI, 4.7-4.8 visits) and unvaccinated veterans (4.5 visits, 95% CI, 4.3-4.6 visits) vs vaccinated veterans (3.2 visits; 95% CI, 3.4-4.8 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that outpatient use increased significantly in the month after infection, then attenuated but remained greater than the uninfected cohorts' use through 12 months, which suggests that there are sustained impacts of COVID-19 infection.

In-person peer support for critical care survivors: The ICU REcovery Solutions cO-Led through surVivor Engagement (ICURESOLVE) pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peer support is a promising intervention to mitigate post-ICU disability, however there is a paucity of rigorously designed studies. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish feasibility of an in-person, co-designed, peer-support model. METHODS: Prospective, randomised, adaptive, single-centre pilot trial with blinded outcome assessment, conducted at a university-affiliated hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Intensive care unit survivors (and their nominated caregiver, where survivor and caregiver are referred to as a dyad), >18 years of age, able to speak and understand English and participate in phone surveys, were eligible. Participants were randomised to the peer-support model (six sessions, fortnightly) or usual care (no follow-up or targeted information). Two sequential models were piloted: 1. Early (2-3 weeks post hospital discharge) 2. Later (4-6 weeks post hospital discharge). Primary outcome was feasibility of implementation measured by recruitment, intervention attendance, and outcome completion. Secondary outcomes included post-traumatic stress and social support. RESULTS: Of the 231 eligible patients, 80 participants were recruited. In the early model we recruited 38 participants (28 patients, 10 carers; 18 singles, 10 dyads), with an average (standard deviation) age of 60 (18) years; 55 % were female. Twenty-two participants (58 %) were randomised to intervention. Participants in the early intervention model attended a median (interquartile range) of 0 (0-1) sessions (total 24 sessions), with 53% (n = 20) completing the main secondary outcome of interest (Impact of Event Scale) at the baseline and 37 % (n = 14) at the follow-up. For the later model we recruited 42 participants (32 patients, 10 carers; 22 singles, 10 dyads), with an average (standard deviation) age of 60.4 (15.4) years; 50 % were female. Twenty-one participants (50 %) were randomised to intervention. The later intervention model attended a median (interquartile range) of 1 (0-5) sessions (total: 44 sessions), with the main secondary outcome impact of events scale (IES-R) completed by 41 (98 %) participants at baseline and 29 (69 %) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, a peer-support model that required in-person attendance delivered in a later posthospital phase of recovery appeared more feasible than an early model. Further research should investigate alternative modes of intervention delivery to improve feasibility (ACTRN12621000737831).

Ethnic Disparities in Deep Sedation of Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the United States: Secondary Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Trial.

Rationale: Patients identified as Hispanic, the largest minority group in the United States, are more likely to die from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) than non-Hispanic patients. Mechanisms to explain this disparity remain unidentified. However, Hispanic patients may be at risk of overexposure to deep sedation because of language differences between patients and clinicians, and deep sedation is associated with higher ARDS mortality.Objective: We examined associations between Hispanic ethnicity and exposure to deep sedation among patients with ARDS.Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted of patients enrolled in the control arm of a randomized trial of neuromuscular blockade for ARDS across 48 U.S. hospitals. Exposure to deep sedation was measured over the first 5 days that a patient was alive and received mechanical ventilation. Multilevel mixed-effects models were used to evaluate associations between Hispanic ethnicity and exposure to deep sedation, controlling for patient characteristics.Results: Patients identified as Hispanic had approximately five times the odds of deep sedation (odds ratio, 4.98; 95% confidence interval, 2.02-12.28; P < 0.0001) on a given day, compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Hospitals with at least one enrolled Hispanic patient kept all enrolled patients deeply sedated longer than hospitals without any enrolled Hispanic patients (85.8% of ventilator-days vs. 65.5%; P < 0.001).Conclusions: Hispanic patients are at higher risk of exposure to deep sedation than non-Hispanic White patients. There is an urgent need to understand and address disparities in sedation delivery.

Could an integrated model of health and social care after critical illness reduce socioeconomic disparities in outcomes? A Bayesian analysis.

Background: There is limited evidence to understand what impact, if any, recovery services might have for patients across the socioeconomic spectrum after critical illness. We analysed data from a multicentre critical care recovery programme to understand the impact of this programme across the socioeconomic spectrum. Methods: The setting for this pre-planned secondary analysis was a critical care rehabilitation programme-Intensive Care Syndrome: Promoting Independence and Return to Employment. Data were collected from five hospital sites running this programme. We utilised a Bayesian approach to analysis and explore any possible effect of the InS:PIRE intervention on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) across the socioeconomic gradient. A Bayesian quantile, non-linear mixed effects regression model, using a compound symmetry covariance structure, accounting for multiple timepoints was utilised. The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) was used to measure socioeconomic status and HRQoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L. Results: In the initial baseline cohort of 182 patients, 55% of patients were male, the median age was 58 yr (inter-quartile range: 50-66 yr) and 129 (79%) patients had two or more comorbidities at ICU admission. Using the neutral prior, there was an overall probability of intervention benefit of 100% (ß=0.71, 95% credible interval: 0.34-1.09) over 12 months to those in the SIMD≤3 cohort, and an 98.6% (ß=-1.38, 95% credible interval: -2.62 to -0.16) probability of greater benefit (i.e. a steeper increase in improvement) at 12 months in the SIMD≤3 vs SIMD≥4 cohort in the EQ-visual analogue scale. Conclusions: Using multicentre data, this re-analysis suggests, but does not prove, that an integrated health and social care intervention is likely to improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient after critical illness, with a potentially greater benefit for those from deprived communities. Future research designed to prospectively analyse how critical care recovery programmes could potentially improve outcomes across the socioeconomic gradient is warranted.