Association of an Emergency Critical Care Program With Survival and Early Downgrade Among Critically Ill Medical Patients in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether implementation of an Emergency Critical Care Program (ECCP) is associated with improved survival and early downgrade of critically ill medical patients in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective cohort study using ED-visit data between 2015 and 2019. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS: Adult medical patients presenting to the ED with a critical care admission order within 12 hours of arrival. INTERVENTIONS: Dedicated bedside critical care for medical ICU patients by an ED-based intensivist following initial resuscitation by the ED team. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were inhospital mortality and the proportion of patients downgraded to non-ICU status while in the ED within 6 hours of the critical care admission order (ED downgrade <6 hr). A difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis compared the change in outcomes for patients arriving during ECCP hours (2 pm to midnight, weekdays) between the preintervention period (2015-2017) and the intervention period (2017-2019) to the change in outcomes for patients arriving during non-ECCP hours (all other hours). Adjustment for severity of illness was performed using the emergency critical care Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (eccSOFA) score. The primary cohort included 2,250 patients. The DiDs for the eccSOFA-adjusted inhospital mortality decreased by 6.0% (95% CI, -11.9 to -0.1) with largest difference in the intermediate illness severity group (DiD, -12.2%; 95% CI, -23.1 to -1.3). The increase in ED downgrade less than 6 hours was not statistically significant (DiD, 4.8%; 95% CI, -0.7 to 10.3%) except in the intermediate group (DiD, 8.8%; 95% CI, 0.2-17.4). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a novel ECCP was associated with a significant decrease in inhospital mortality among critically ill medical ED patients, with the greatest decrease observed in patients with intermediate severity of illness. Early ED downgrades also increased, but the difference was statistically significant only in the intermediate illness severity group.

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Progression to High Disease Severity in the United States.

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.

Effectiveness of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Messenger RNA Vaccines for Preventing Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11-May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7-91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3-9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8-82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6-94.8). CONCLUSION: During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Natural language processing of head CT reports to identify intracranial mass effect: CTIME algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The Mortality Probability Model (MPM) is used in research and quality improvement to adjust for severity of illness and can also inform triage decisions. However, a limitation for its automated use or application is that it includes the variable "intracranial mass effect" (IME), which requires human engagement with the electronic health record (EHR). We developed and tested a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to identify IME from CT head reports. METHODS: We obtained initial CT head reports from adult patients who were admitted to the ICU from our ED between 10/2013 and 9/2016. Each head CT head report was labeled yes/no IME by at least two of five independent labelers. The reports were then randomly divided 80/20 into training and test sets. All reports were preprocessed to remove linguistic and style variability, and a dictionary was created to map similar common terms. We tested three vectorization strategies: Term Frequency-Inverse Document frequency (TF-IDF), Word2Vec, and Universal Sentence Encoder to convert the report text to a numerical vector. This vector served as the input to a classification-tree-based ensemble machine learning algorithm (XGBoost). After training, model performance was assessed in the test set using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). We also divided the continuous range of scores into positive/inconclusive/negative categories for IME. RESULTS: Of the 1202 CT reports in the training set, 308 (25.6%) reports were manually labeled as "yes" for IME. Of the 355 reports in the test set, 108 (30.4%) were labeled as "yes" for IME. The TF-IDF vectorization strategy as an input for the XGBoost model had the best AUROC:-- 0.9625 (95% CI 0.9443-0.9807). TF-IDF score categories were defined and had the following likelihood ratios: "positive" (TF-IDF score > 0.5) LR = 24.59; "inconclusive" (TF-IDF 0.05-0.5) LR = 0.99; and "negative" (TF-IDF < 0.05) LR = 0.05. 82% of reports were classified as either "positive" or "negative". In the test set, only 4 of 199 (2.0%) reports with a "negative" classification were false negatives and only 8 of 93 (8.6%) reports classified as "positive" were false positives. CONCLUSION: NLP can accurately identify IME from free-text reports of head CTs in approximately 80% of records, adequate to allow automatic calculation of MPM based on EHR data for many applications.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound Predicts Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) detects the pulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 and may predict patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study at four hospitals from March 2020 to January 2021 to evaluate lung POCUS and clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Inclusion criteria included adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who received lung POCUS with a 12-zone protocol. Each image was interpreted by two reviewers blinded to clinical outcomes. Our primary outcome was the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission versus no ICU admission. Secondary outcomes included intubation and supplemental oxygen usage. RESULTS: N = 160 patients were included. Among critically ill patients, B-lines (94 vs 76%; P < .01) and consolidations (70 vs 46%; P < .01) were more common. For scans collected within 24 hours of admission (N = 101 patients), early B-lines (odds ratio [OR] 4.41 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.71-14.30]; P < .01) or consolidations (OR 2.49 [95% CI: 1.35-4.86]; P < .01) were predictive of ICU admission. Early consolidations were associated with oxygen usage after discharge (OR 2.16 [95% CI: 1.01-4.70]; P = .047). Patients with a normal scan within 24 hours of admission were less likely to require ICU admission (OR 0.28 [95% CI: 0.09-0.75]; P < .01) or supplemental oxygen (OR 0.26 [95% CI: 0.11-0.61]; P < .01). Ultrasound findings did not dynamically change over a 28-day scanning window after symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: Lung POCUS findings detected within 24 hours of admission may provide expedient risk stratification for important COVID-19 clinical outcomes, including future ICU admission or need for supplemental oxygen. Conversely, a normal scan within 24 hours of admission appears protective. POCUS findings appeared stable over a 28-day scanning window, suggesting that these findings, regardless of their timing, may have clinical implications.

Comparative Effectiveness of Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) Vaccines in Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations Among Adults Without Immunocompromising Conditions - United States, March-August 2021.

Three COVID-19 vaccines are authorized or approved for use among adults in the United States (1,2). Two 2-dose mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273 from Moderna and BNT162b2 from Pfizer-BioNTech, received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020 for persons aged ≥18 years and aged ≥16 years, respectively. A 1-dose viral vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2 from Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) received EUA in February 2021 for persons aged ≥18 years (3). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received FDA approval for persons aged ≥16 years on August 23, 2021 (4). Current guidelines from FDA and CDC recommend vaccination of eligible persons with one of these three products, without preference for any specific vaccine (4,5). To assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of these three products in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization, CDC and collaborators conducted a case-control analysis among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021. An additional analysis compared serum antibody levels (anti-spike immunoglobulin G [IgG] and anti-receptor binding domain [RBD] IgG) to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among 100 healthy volunteers enrolled at three hospitals 2-6 weeks after full vaccination with the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Patients with immunocompromising conditions were excluded. VE against COVID-19 hospitalizations was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 91%-95%) than for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%; 95% CI = 85%-91%) (p = 0.011); VE for both mRNA vaccines was higher than that for the Janssen vaccine (71%; 95% CI = 56%-81%) (all p<0.001). Protection for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine declined 4 months after vaccination. Postvaccination anti-spike IgG and anti-RBD IgG levels were significantly lower in persons vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine than the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Although these real-world data suggest some variation in levels of protection by vaccine, all FDA-approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization.

Sustained Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 Associated Hospitalizations Among Adults - United States, March-July 2021.

Real-world evaluations have demonstrated high effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations (1-4) measured shortly after vaccination; longer follow-up is needed to assess durability of protection. In an evaluation at 21 hospitals in 18 states, the duration of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was assessed among adults aged ≥18 years. Among 3,089 hospitalized adults (including 1,194 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,895 non-COVID-19 control-patients), the median age was 59 years, 48.7% were female, and 21.1% had an immunocompromising condition. Overall, 141 (11.8%) case-patients and 988 (52.1%) controls were fully vaccinated (defined as receipt of the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines ≥14 days before illness onset), with a median interval of 65 days (range = 14-166 days) after receipt of second dose. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization during the full surveillance period was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82%-88%) overall and 90% (95% CI = 87%-92%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19- associated hospitalization was 86% (95% CI = 82%-90%) 2-12 weeks and 84% (95% CI = 77%-90%) 13-24 weeks from receipt of the second vaccine dose, with no significant change between these periods (p = 0.854). Whole genome sequencing of 454 case-patient specimens found that 242 (53.3%) belonged to the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage and 74 (16.3%) to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) lineage. Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was sustained over a 24-week period, including among groups at higher risk for severe COVID-19; ongoing monitoring is needed as new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. To reduce their risk for hospitalization, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.

eccSOFA: SOFA illness severity score adapted to predict in-hospital mortality in emergency critical care patients.

BACKGROUND: Boarding of ICU patients in the ED is increasing. Illness severity scores may help emergency physicians stratify risk to guide earlier transfer to the ICU and assess pre-ICU interventions by adjusting for baseline mortality risk. Most existing illness severity scores are based on data that is not available at the time of the hospital admission decision or cannot be extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). We adapted the SOFA score to create a new illness severity score (eccSOFA) that can be calculated at the time of ICU admission order entry in the ED using EHR data. We evaluated this score in a cohort of emergency critical care (ECC) patients at a single academic center over a period of 3 years. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using EHR data to assess predictive accuracy of eccSOFA for estimating in-hospital mortality risk. The patient population included all adult patients who had a critical care admission order entered while in the ED of an academic medical center between 10/24/2013 and 9/30/2016. eccSOFA's discriminatory ability for in-hospital mortality was assessed using ROC curves. RESULTS: Of the 3912 patients whose in-hospital mortality risk was estimated, 2260 (57.8%) were in the low-risk group (scores 0-3), 1203 (30.8%) in the intermediate-risk group (scores 4-7), and 449 (11.5%) in the high-risk group (scores 8+). In-hospital mortality for the low-, intermediate, and high-risk groups was 4.2% (95%CI: 3.4-5.1), 15.5% (95% CI 13.5-17.6), and 37.9% (95% CI 33.4-42.3) respectively. The AUROC was 0.78 (95%CI: 0.75-0.80) for the integer score and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.72-0.77) for the categorical eccSOFA. CONCLUSIONS: As a predictor of in-hospital mortality, eccSOFA can be calculated based on variables that are commonly available at the time of critical care admission order entry in the ED and has discriminatory ability that is comparable to other commonly used illness severity scores. Future studies should assess the calibration of our absolute risk predictions.

Association Between mRNA Vaccination and COVID-19 Hospitalization and Disease Severity.

Importance: A comprehensive understanding of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination requires consideration of disease attenuation, determined as whether people who develop COVID-19 despite vaccination have lower disease severity than unvaccinated people. Objective: To evaluate the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines-mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)-and COVID-19 hospitalization, and, among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the association with progression to critical disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A US 21-site case-control analysis of 4513 adults hospitalized between March 11 and August 15, 2021, with 28-day outcome data on death and mechanical ventilation available for patients enrolled through July 14, 2021. Date of final follow-up was August 8, 2021. Exposures: COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations were evaluated between prior vaccination and (1) hospitalization for COVID-19, in which case patients were those hospitalized for COVID-19 and control patients were those hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis; and (2) disease progression among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, in which cases and controls were COVID-19 patients with and without progression to death or mechanical ventilation, respectively. Associations were measured with multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 4513 patients (median age, 59 years [IQR, 45-69]; 2202 [48.8%] women; 23.0% non-Hispanic Black individuals, 15.9% Hispanic individuals, and 20.1% with an immunocompromising condition), 1983 were case patients with COVID-19 and 2530 were controls without COVID-19. Unvaccinated patients accounted for 84.2% (1669/1983) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (cases, 15.8%; controls, 54.8%; adjusted OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13-0.18), including for sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (8.7% vs 51.7%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16) and Delta variants (21.9% vs 61.8%; aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21). This association was stronger for immunocompetent patients (11.2% vs 53.5%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) than immunocompromised patients (40.1% vs 58.8%; aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69) (P < .001) and weaker at more than 120 days since vaccination with BNT162b2 (5.8% vs 11.5%; aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.49) than with mRNA-1273 (1.9% vs 8.3%; aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.23) (P < .001). Among 1197 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, death or invasive mechanical ventilation by day 28 was associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (12.0% vs 24.7%; aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: Vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was significantly less likely among patients with COVID-19 hospitalization and disease progression to death or mechanical ventilation. These findings are consistent with risk reduction among vaccine breakthrough infections compared with absence of vaccination.

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021-April 2022.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. Results: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. Conclusions: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

External validation of the 4C Mortality Score for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in the RECOVER network.

OBJECTIVES: Estimating mortality risk in hospitalised SARS-CoV-2+ patients may help with choosing level of care and discussions with patients. The Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium Mortality Score (4C Score) is a promising COVID-19 mortality risk model. We examined the association of risk factors with 30-day mortality in hospitalised, full-code SARS-CoV-2+ patients and investigated the discrimination and calibration of the 4C Score. This was a retrospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2+ hospitalised patients within the RECOVER (REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care) network. SETTING: 99 emergency departments (EDs) across the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥18 years old, positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED, and hospitalised. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Death within 30 days of the index visit. We performed logistic regression analysis, reporting multivariable risk ratios (MVRRs) and calculated the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and mean prediction error for the original 4C Score and after dropping the C reactive protein (CRP) component. RESULTS: Of 6802 hospitalised patients with COVID-19, 1149 (16.9%) died within 30 days. The 30-day mortality was increased with age 80+ years (MVRR=5.79, 95% CI 4.23 to 7.34); male sex (MVRR=1.17, 1.05 to 1.28); and nursing home/assisted living facility residence (MVRR=1.29, 1.1 to 1.48). The 4C Score had comparable discrimination in the RECOVER dataset compared with the original 4C validation dataset (AUROC: RECOVER 0.786 (95% CI 0.773 to 0.799), 4C validation 0.763 (95% CI 0.757 to 0.769). Score-specific mortalities in our sample were lower than in the 4C validation sample (mean prediction error 6.0%). Dropping the CRP component from the 4C Score did not substantially affect discrimination and 4C risk estimates were now close (mean prediction error 0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: We independently validated 4C Score as predicting risk of 30-day mortality in hospitalised SARS-CoV-2+ patients. We recommend dropping the CRP component of the score and using our recalibrated mortality risk estimates.

Selection bias in estimating the relationship between prolonged ED boarding and mortality in emergency critical care patients.

OBJECTIVES: Studies have found that prolonged boarding time for intensive care unit (ICU) patients in the emergency department (ED) is associated with higher in-hospital mortality. However, these studies introduced selection bias by excluding patients with ICU admission orders who were downgraded and never arrived in the ICU. Consequently, they may overestimate mortality in prolonged ED boarders. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at a single center covering the period from August 14, 2015 to August 13, 2019. Adult ED patients with medical ICU admission orders and at least 6 hours of subsequent critical care in either the ED or the ICU were included. Patients were classified as having either prolonged (>6 hours) or non-prolonged (≤6 hours) ED boarding. Downgraded patients were identified, and mortality was compared, both including and excluding downgraded patients. RESULTS: Of 1862 patients, 612 (32.9%) had prolonged boarding; at 6 hours after ICU admission order entry, they were still in the ED. The remaining 1250 (67.1%) had non-prolonged boarding; at 6 hours after the ICU admission order entry, they were already in the ICU. In-hospital mortality in the non-prolonged boarding group was 18.9%. In the prolonged boarding group, 296 (48.4%) patients were downgraded in the ED and never arrived in the ICU. Including these ED downgrades, the mortality in the prolonged boarding group was 13.4% (risk difference -5.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.9% to -2.0%, P = 0.0031). When we excluded downgrades, the mortality in the prolonged boarding group increased to 17.4% (risk difference -1.5%, 95% CI -6.2% to 3.2%, P = 0.5720). The lower mortality in the prolonged group was attributable to lower severity of illness (mean emergency critical care SOFA [eccSOFA] difference: -0.8, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Excluding critical care patients who were downgraded in the ED leads to selection bias and overestimation of mortality among prolonged ED boarders.

Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary Series and Booster Doses against Omicron Variant COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization in the United States.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a primary COVID-19 vaccine series plus a booster dose with a primary series alone for the prevention of Omicron variant COVID-19 hospitalization. Design: Multicenter observational case-control study using the test-negative design to evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE). Setting: Twenty-one hospitals in the United States (US). Participants: 3,181 adults hospitalized with an acute respiratory illness between December 26, 2021 and April 30, 2022, a period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1, BA.2) predominance. Participants included 1,572 (49%) case-patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and 1,609 (51%) control patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Median age was 64 years, 48% were female, and 21% were immunocompromised; 798 (25%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus booster, 1,326 (42%) were vaccinated with a primary series alone, and 1,057 (33%) were unvaccinated. Main Outcome Measures: VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated for a primary series plus a booster and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. VE analyses were stratified by immune status (immunocompetent; immunocompromised) because the recommended vaccine schedules are different for these groups. The primary analysis evaluated all COVID-19 vaccine types combined and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. Results: Among immunocompetent patients, VE against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization for a primary series plus one booster of any vaccine product dose was 77% (95% CI: 71-82%), and for a primary series alone was 44% (95% CI: 31-54%) (p<0.001). VE was higher for a boosted regimen than a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines used in the US (BNT162b2: primary series plus booster VE 80% (95% CI: 73-85%), primary series alone VE 46% (95% CI: 30-58%) [p<0.001]; mRNA-1273: primary series plus booster VE 77% (95% CI: 67-83%), primary series alone VE 47% (95% CI: 30-60%) [p<0.001]). Among immunocompromised patients, VE for a primary series of any vaccine product against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization was 60% (95% CI: 41-73%). Insufficient sample size has accumulated to calculate effectiveness of boosted regimens for immunocompromised patients. Conclusions: Among immunocompetent people, a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing COVID-19 hospitalization due to the Omicron variant.

Clinical Severity and mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness for Omicron, Delta, and Alpha SARS-CoV-2 Variants in the United States: A Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the clinical severity of COVID-19 caused by Omicron, Delta, and Alpha SARS-CoV-2 variants among hospitalized adults and to compare the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to prevent hospitalizations caused by each variant. DESIGN: A case-control study of 11,690 hospitalized adults. SETTING: Twenty-one hospitals across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: This study included 5728 cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and 5962 controls hospitalized without COVID-19. Cases were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: Alpha (March 11 to July 3, 2021), Delta (July 4 to December 25, 2021), and Omicron (December 26, 2021 to January 14, 2022). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaccine effectiveness was calculated using a test-negative design for COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by each variant (Alpha, Delta, Omicron). Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, disease severity on the WHO Clinical Progression Ordinal Scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression. RESULTS: Vaccine effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalizations included: 85% (95% CI: 82 to 88%) for 2 vaccine doses against Alpha; 85% (95% CI: 83 to 87%) for 2 doses against Delta; 94% (95% CI: 92 to 95%) for 3 doses against Delta; 65% (95% CI: 51 to 75%) for 2 doses against Omicron; and 86% (95% CI: 77 to 91%) for 3 doses against Omicron. Among hospitalized unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, severity on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale was higher for Delta than Alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio [aPOR] 1.28, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for Omicron than Delta (aPOR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.77). Compared to unvaccinated cases, severity was lower for vaccinated cases for each variant, including Alpha (aPOR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.49), Delta (aPOR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.51), and Omicron (aPOR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalizations from Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against Omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against Delta and Alpha. Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, Omicron caused less severe disease than Delta, but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.

Clinical severity of, and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against, covid-19 from omicron, delta, and alpha SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States: prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the clinical severity of covid-19 associated with the alpha, delta, and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants among adults admitted to hospital and to compare the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent hospital admissions related to each variant. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: 21 hospitals across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 11 690 adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital: 5728 with covid-19 (cases) and 5962 without covid-19 (controls). Patients were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and, if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: alpha (11 March to 3 July 2021), delta (4 July to 25 December 2021), and omicron (26 December 2021 to 14 January 2022). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaccine effectiveness calculated using a test negative design for mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 related hospital admissions by each variant (alpha, delta, omicron). Among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, disease severity on the World Health Organization's clinical progression scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression. RESULTS: Effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 associated hospital admissions was 85% (95% confidence interval 82% to 88%) for two vaccine doses against the alpha variant, 85% (83% to 87%) for two doses against the delta variant, 94% (92% to 95%) for three doses against the delta variant, 65% (51% to 75%) for two doses against the omicron variant; and 86% (77% to 91%) for three doses against the omicron variant. In-hospital mortality was 7.6% (81/1060) for alpha, 12.2% (461/3788) for delta, and 7.1% (40/565) for omicron. Among unvaccinated patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital, severity on the WHO clinical progression scale was higher for the delta versus alpha variant (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for the omicron versus delta variant (0.61, 0.49 to 0.77). Compared with unvaccinated patients, severity was lower for vaccinated patients for each variant, including alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.33, 0.23 to 0.49), delta (0.44, 0.37 to 0.51), and omicron (0.61, 0.44 to 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: mRNA vaccines were found to be highly effective in preventing covid-19 associated hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against the delta and alpha variants. Among adults admitted to hospital with covid-19, the omicron variant was associated with less severe disease than the delta variant but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines for Preventing Covid-19 Hospitalizations in the United States.

Background: As SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. Methods: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Results: Among 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%). Conclusion: During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Critical Care Education Day: A Novel, Multidisciplinary, and Interactive Critical Care Education Session for Emergency Medicine Residents.

Critical care medicine (CCM) is central to emergency medicine (EM) resident education. We feel that the traditional lecture format is not the ideal way to teach EM critical care, which requires integration and prioritization of diagnostic workup and team-based resuscitation under time pressure. We describe a novel critical care education day where an interactive, practical, and multidisciplinary critical care educational experience was provided for EM residents using case-based small-group sessions and fast-paced simulation.

Owning the Trauma Bay: Teaching Trauma Resuscitation to Emergency Medicine Residents and Nurses through In-situ Simulation.

Audience: The following two cases were designed to address learning objectives specific to interns, junior residents, and senior residents in emergency medicine, as well as trauma-certified emergency nurses. Introduction: Traumatic and unintentional injuries account for 5.8 million deaths across the globe each year, with a high proportion of those deaths occurring within the initial hour from the time of injury. This "golden hour" begins in the pre-hospital setting yet is predominantly spent in the emergency department (ED).1 Being able to effectively manage the multidisciplinary team required to care for trauma patients is crucial to providing timely and appropriate care. In-situ simulation, where the learning case is moved out of the simulation lab and into the typical workplace, has emerged as a powerful training tool for improving care-systems and team dynamics.2,3 Multiple specialties have shown in-situ simulation to be an effective strategy to teach both educational content as well as critical procedural and communication skills.4,5 In-situ simulation training has also been applied with similar success to trauma management, allowing for the simultaneous education of different learners with different roles in trauma resuscitations.6,7 We present two in-situ simulation cases with specific educational objectives and feedback mechanisms that allow for easy implementation of a cost-effective approach to training multidisciplinary emergency medicine providers in trauma management.Educational Objectives: The core objectives of these simulations center on effective teamwork and communication during trauma resuscitation of a critically ill patient. Both cases are designed to include maneuvers that require coordinating team members' actions during a stressful situation such as rolling a vomiting patient with a head injury and applying a binder to an unstable pelvic fracture. While the cases are largely focused on improving communication, salient learning points on emergent management of intracranial hemorrhage and unstable pelvic fractures are highlighted during the encounter. In addition, this simulation module allowed for the practice of graduated level of responsibilities amongst residents in the trauma bay. Educational Methods: Two in-situ simulation cases were run with the same group of learners using standardized patient actors as patients and functional medical equipment in actual rooms in the emergency department to recreate a realistic experience. These groups were composed of emergency medicine residents with at least one intern, one junior resident, and one senior resident in each group as well as a bedside nurse, documenting nurse, and simulation instructor. Each case was followed by a group debriefing session using multiple sources of feedback. Standardized patients, bedside nursing, and simulation instructors were all incorporated into the feedback and debriefing process. Research Methods: Pre- and post-simulation surveys were given to participants to assess their confidence in participating and leading trauma resuscitations. Results: A total of 29 emergency medicine residents completed both our pre- and post-survey. We found that less than half of those surveyed felt comfortable leading trauma resuscitations. After the simulation scenarios, an overwhelming majority agreed that they felt more prepared to run trauma resuscitations as a result of the simulation experience. In their free response comments participants also remarked upon the ability of in-situ simulation to better foster realistic learning opportunities with regards to communication and resuscitation management. Discussion: Based on our survey results, we found that a large portion of our participants did not feel comfortable leading trauma resuscitations. The post-survey and the free-text responses collected during the case scenarios show that our in-situ simulation proved to be an effective way to teach various types of learners new trauma roles and optimize high-stress communication during resuscitations. The use of in-situ simulation provides an effective and easily adapted framework even for those outside of academic centers and simulation labs while also offering an opportunity for multidisciplinary growth. Regular incorporation of similar learning opportunities into resident, nursing, and staff education can lead to better communication and teamwork during in-vivo patient encounters. Topics: Trauma resuscitation, in-situ simulation, code leader education, communication training.

The Birth of a Return to work Policy for New Resident Parents in Emergency Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: With the rising number of female physicians, there will be more children than ever born in residency, and the current system is inadequate to handle this increase in new resident parents. Residency is stressful and rigorous in isolation, let alone when pregnant or with a new child. Policies that ease these stressful transitions are generally either insufficient or do not exist. Therefore, we created a comprehensive return-to-work policy for resident parents and piloted its implementation. Our policy aims to: 1) establish a clear, shared understanding of the regulatory and training requirements as they pertain to parental leave; 2) facilitate a smooth transition for new parents returning to work; and 3) summarize the local and institutional resources available for both males and females during residency training. METHOD: In Fall 2017, a task force was convened to draft a return-to-work policy for new resident parents. The task force included nine key stakeholders (i.e., residents, faculty, and administration) at our institution and was made up of three graduate medical education (GME) program directors, a vice chair of education, a designated institutional official (DIO), a chief resident, and three members of our academic department's faculty affairs committee. The task force was selected because of individual expertise in gender equity issues, mentorship of resident parents, GME, and departmental administration. RESULTS: After development, the policy was piloted from November 2017 to June 2018. Our pilot implementation period included seven new resident parents. All of these residents received schedules that met the return-to-work scheduling terms of our return-to-work policy including no overnight shifts, no sick call, and no more than three shifts in a row. Of equal importance, throughout our pilot, the emergency department schedules at all of our clinical sites remained fully staffed and our sick call pool was unaffected. CONCLUSION: Our return-to-work policy for new resident parents provides a comprehensive guide to training requirements and family leave policies, an overview of available resources, and a scheduling framework that makes for a smooth transition back to clinical duties.