Availability and use of institutional support programs for emergency department healthcare personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic placed health care personnel (HCP) at risk for stress, anxiety, burnout, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To address this, hospitals developed programs to mitigate risk. The objectives of the current study were to measure the availability and use of these programs in a cohort of academic emergency departments (EDs) in the United States early in the pandemic and identify factors associated with program use. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of ED HCP in 21 academic EDs in 15 states between June and September 2020. Site investigators provided data on the availability of 28 programs grouped into 9 categories. Individual support programs included: financial, workload mitigation, individual COVID-19 testing, emotional (e.g., mental health hotline), and instrumental (e.g., childcare) Clinical work support programs included: COVID-19 team communication (e.g., debriefing critical incident), patient-family communication facilitation, patient services (e.g., social work, ethics consultation), and system-level exposure reduction. Participants provided corresponding data on whether they used the programs. We used generalized linear mixed models clustered on site to measure the association between demographic and facility characteristics and program use. RESULTS: We received 1,541 survey responses (96% response rate) from emergency physicians or advanced practice providers, nurses, and nonclinical staff. Program availability in each of the 9 categories was high (>95% of hospitals). Program use was variable, with clinical work support programs used more frequently (28-50% of eligible HCP across categories) than individual employee support programs (6-13% of eligible HCP across categories). Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected their stress and anxiety, and 12% were at elevated risk for PTSD. Program use did not significantly differ for HCP who reported symptoms of anxiety and/or stress compared to those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Early in the pandemic, support programs were widely available to ED HCP, but program use was low. Future work will focus on identifying barriers and facilitators to use and specific programs most likely to be effective during periods of highest occupational stress.

Race, Ethnicity, and Delayed Time to COVID-19 Testing Among US Health Care Workers.

Importance: Access to COVID-19 testing is critical to reducing transmission and supporting early treatment decisions; when made accessible, the timeliness of testing may also be an important metric in mitigating community spread of the infection. While disparities in transmission and outcomes of COVID-19 have been well documented, the extent of timeliness of testing and the association with demographic factors is unclear. Objectives: To evaluate demographic factors associated with delayed COVID-19 testing among health care personnel (HCP) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Preventing Emerging Infections Through Vaccine Effectiveness Testing study, a multicenter, test-negative, case-control vaccine effectiveness study that enrolled HCP who had COVID-19 symptoms and testing between December 2020 and April 2022. Data analysis was conducted from March 2022 to Junne 2023. Exposure: Displaying COVID-19-like symptoms and polymerase chain reaction testing occurring from the first day symptoms occurred up to 14 days after symptoms occurred. Main Outcomes and Measures: Variables of interest included patient demographics (sex, age, and clinical comorbidities) and COVID-19 characteristics (vaccination status and COVID-19 wave). The primary outcome was time from symptom onset to COVID-19 testing, which was defined as early testing (≤2 days) or delayed testing (≥3 days). Associations of demographic characteristics with delayed testing were measured while adjusting for clinical comorbidities, COVID-19 characteristics, and test site using multivariable modeling to estimate relative risks and 95% CIs. Results: A total of 5551 HCP (4859 female [82.9%]; 1954 aged 25-34 years [35.2%]; 4233 non-Hispanic White [76.3%], 370 non-Hispanic Black [6.7%], and 324 non-Hispanic Asian [5.8%]) were included in the final analysis. Overall, 2060 participants (37.1%) reported delayed testing and 3491 (62.9%) reported early testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White HCP, delayed testing was higher among non-Hispanic Black HCP (adjusted risk ratio, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.10-1.27) and for non-Hispanic HCP of other races (adjusted risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.33). Sex and age were not associated with delayed testing. Compared with clinical HCP with graduate degrees, all other professional and educational groups had significantly delayed testing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of HCP, compared with non-Hispanic White HCP and clinical HCP with graduate degrees, non-Hispanic Black HCP, non-Hispanic HCP of other races, and HCP all other professional and education backgrounds were more likely to have delayed COVID-19 testing. These findings suggest that time to testing may serve as a valuable metric in evaluating sociodemographic disparities in the response to COVID-19 and future health mitigation strategies.

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

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

Trends in Health Care Coverage and Out-Of-Pocket Cost Barriers: A Gender Comparison.

Objective: The presence of disparities in access to health care and insurance coverage can have a tremendous impact on health care outcomes. Programs like the Affordable Care Act were implemented to improve health care access and to address the existing inequities. The objective of this study was to identify any disparities that exist between males and females regarding health care coverage and out-of-pocket cost to health care. Methods: This analysis was a cross-sectional study using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data collected between 2013 and 2018. The primary predictor was sex assigned at birth (with the binary option of male vs. female). The primary outcome was adequate health coverage. Survey participants who indicated that they had health insurance with no out-of-pocket cost barriers to receiving medical care were considered to have adequate health coverage, while participants who did not meet these criteria were considered to have inadequate health coverage. Covariates measured were age, race/ethnicity, educational level, employment status, and annual household income. SAS survey procedures and weighting methods were used to measure the association between the sex and adequate health coverage, after controlling for covariates. Results: The data spanning 6 years included 2,249,749 adults, of whom 1,898,097 (84.4%) had adequate health coverage. Females made up 55.8% (N = 1,256,243) of the total sample. About 32.6% (N = 733,216) survey participants were aged ≥65 years. Most respondents, 77.6%, were White (Non-Hispanic). Across the 6-year period, females were more likely to have health insurance but with out-of-pocket costs that served as a barrier to their medical care (adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI from 2013 to 2018 were 1.36 [1.29-1.43], 1.38 [1.32-1.46], 1.31 [1.24-1.38], 1.33 [1.26-1.40], and 1.32 [1.25-1.40], respectively). Conclusions: Females were more likely than males to indicate an out-of-pocket cost barrier to medical care despite having health insurance.

Effectiveness of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among U.S. Healthcare personnel, September 2022-May 2023.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose. RESULTS: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

Factors associated with the decision to receive bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination among health care personnel.

COVID-19 vaccination is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 complications, but uptake has been low. Our objective in this study was to compare the importance of factors reported to influence the decision to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2022 and April 2023 in a 20-hospital vaccine effectiveness study in the United States (n = 1656). Compared with those who had not received the booster, the factors most likely to be reported to be important were concerns about contracting COVID-19 (84.0% of those who had received the bivalent booster vs. 47.5% of those who had not, difference 36.6% points (PP), 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.1 to 41.1%), spreading infection to family members (89.2% vs. 62.8%, difference 26.3 PP, 95% CI 22.3 to 30.4%), and spreading infection to colleagues at work (85.5% vs. 59.4%, difference 26.1 PP, 95% CI 21.7 to 30.5%). HCP who had received the booster more frequently cited the primary literature (61.7% vs. 31.8%, difference 29.9 PP, 95% CI 24.6 to 35.2%) and employer recommendations (48.3% vs. 29.8%, difference 18.5 PP, 95% CI 13.2 to 23.9%) as influencing their decision. This analysis provides insight into factors for targeting future vaccine messaging.

Influence of Body Mass Index on the Evaluation and Management of Pediatric Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department.

Introduction: Childhood obesity is a serious concern in the United States, with over one third of the pediatric population classified as obese. Abdominal pain is one of the most common chief complaints among pediatric emergency department (ED) visits. We hypothesized that overweight and obese children being evaluated in the ED for abdominal pain would have higher resource utilization than their normal and underweight peers. Methods: This was a retrospective review of pediatric patients <18 years who presented with abdominal pain to the ED of a tertiary care center from January 1, 2014-September 3, 2020. Patients were excluded if they did not have both a height and weight recorded. We categorized patients as underweight (body mass index [BMI] <5th percentile); normal weight (BMI 5th to <85th percentile), overweight (BMI 85th to <95th percentile); or obese (BMI ≥95th percentile). Descriptive statistics were used to examine the study population. We used chi-square tests to examine the differences in patient characteristics between normal/underweight patients and overweight/obese patients. The Kruskal-Wallis test was completed for examining differences in the medians. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine visit characteristics associated with overweight/obese patients, including ED interventions, testing, and length of stay (LOS). Results: Of the 184 subjects included in the analysis, nine (4.9%) were underweight, 108 (58.7%) were normal weight, 21 (11.4%) were overweight, and 46 (25.0%) were obese. Patients with a BMI of ≥85th percentile were older (median 15 vs 13 years, P = 0.01). They were otherwise similar in demographics. There was no significant difference between normal/underweight and overweight/obese subjects in disposition (37% vs 43% discharge, P = 0.38), 72-hour return (7% vs 6%, P = 0.82), ED LOS (median 4.42 vs 3.95 hours, P = 0.195), or inpatient LOS (median 42.0 vs 34.2 hours, P = 0.06). There were no statistically significant differences in total number of ED tests or interventions received by overweight/obese patients compared to normal/underweight patients, and each subject received a median of six tests (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7) and two interventions (IQR 1-3). Conclusion: Among pediatric patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain, we found that patient characteristics and ED resource utilization (including testing, intervention, disposition, and LOS) did not differ significantly across BMI categories.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022.

Background: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. Methods: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. Conclusions: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Outcomes Associated With Rural Emergency Department Provider-to-Provider Telehealth for Sepsis Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that provider-to-provider tele-emergency department care is associated with more 28-day hospital-free days and improved Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline adherence in rural emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: Multicenter (n=23), propensity-matched, cohort study using medical records of patients with sepsis from rural hospitals in an established, on-demand, rural video tele-ED network in the upper Midwest between August 2016 and June 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day hospital-free days, with secondary outcomes of 28-day inhospital mortality and SSC guideline adherence. RESULTS: A total of 1,191 patients were included in the analysis, with tele-ED used for 326 (27%). Tele-ED cases were more likely to be transferred to another hospital (88% versus 8%, difference 79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 75% to 83%). After matching and regression adjustment, tele-ED cases did not have more 28-day hospital-free days (difference 0.07 days more for tele-ED, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.17) or 28-day inhospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.60). Adherence with both the SSC 3-hour bundle (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.22) and complete bundle (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.60) were similar. An a priori-defined subgroup of patients treated by advanced practice providers suggested that the mortality was lower in the cohort with tele-ED use (aOR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.73) despite no significant difference in complete SSC bundle adherence (aOR 2.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 15.86). CONCLUSION: Rural emergency department patients treated with provider-to-provider tele-ED care in a mature network appear to have similar clinical outcomes to those treated without.

Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

Investigating Healthcare Provider Bias Toward Patients Who Use Drugs Using a Survey-based Implicit Association Test: Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Negative bias against people who use illicit drugs adversely affects the care that they receive throughout the hospital. We hypothesized that emergency providers would display stronger negative bias toward these patients due to life-threatening contexts in which they treat this population. We also hypothesized that negative implicit bias would be associated with negative explicit bias. METHODS: Faculty, nurses, and trainees at a midwestern tertiary care academic hospital were invited (June 26, 2019-September 5, 2019) to complete an online implicit association test and explicit bias survey. RESULTS: Mean implicit association test results did not vary across demographics (n = 79). There were significant differences in explicit bias scores between departments regarding whether patients who use drugs deserve quality healthcare access (P = 0.017). We saw no significant associations between implicit and explicit bias scores. CONCLUSION: Though limited by sample size, the results indicate that emergency and obstetrics/gynecology providers display more negative explicit bias toward this patient population than other providers.

Firework injuries remain high in years after legalisation: its impact on children.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of Senate Bill 489 passed in May 2017, allowing the sale and use of fireworks in Iowa 1 June to 8 July and 10 December to 3 January, on hospital presentations for firework injuries in the state. To identify the public health implications of this law, we conducted a detailed subanalysis of hospital presentations to the two level I trauma centres. METHODS: Hospital presentations for firework injuries from 1 June 2014 to 31 July 2019 were identified using the Iowa Hospital Admission database and registries and medical records of Iowa's two level 1 trauma centres. Trauma centres' data were reviewed to obtain demographics, injury information and hospital course. Prefirework and postfirework legalisation state data were compared using negative binomial regression analysis. Trauma centre data detailing injuries were compared using χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests as appropriate. RESULTS: Emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions for firework injuries increased in Iowa post-legalisation (B-estimate=0.598±0.073, p<0.001 and B-estimate=0.612±0.322, p=0.058, respectively). ED visits increased postlegalisation in July (73.6% vs 64.5%; p=0.008), reflecting an increase in paediatric admissions (81.8% vs 62.5%; p=0.006). Trauma centres' data showed similar trends. The most common injury site across both study periods was the hands (48.5%), followed by the eyes (34.3%) and face (28.3%). Amputations increased from 0 prelegalisation to 16.2% postlegalisation. CONCLUSION: Firework legalisation led to an increase in the number of admissions and more severe injuries.

Emergency department personnel patient care-related COVID-19 risk.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors. RESULTS: Over 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses. CONCLUSIONS: Among unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Adapted Helping Babies Breathe approach to neonatal resuscitation in Haiti: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Helping Babies Breathe (HBB) is an American Academy of Pediatrics neonatal resuscitation program designed to reduce neonatal mortality in low resource settings. The 2017 neonatal mortality rate in Haiti was 28 per 1000 live births and an estimated 85 % of Haitian women deliver at home. Given this, the Community Health Initiative implemented an adapted HBB (aHBB) in Haiti to evaluate neonatal mortality. METHODS: Community Health Workers taught an aHBB program to laypeople, which didn't include bag-valve-mask ventilation. Follow-up after delivery assessed for maternal and neonatal mortality and health. RESULTS: Analysis included 536 births of which 84.3 % (n=452) were attended by someone trained in aHBB. The odds of neonatal mortality was not significantly different among the two groups (aOR=0.48 [0.16-1.44]). Composite outcome of neonatal health as reported by the mother (subjective morbidity and mortality) was significantly lower in aHBB attended births (aOR=0.31 [0.14-0.70]). CONCLUSION: This analysis of the aHBB program indicates that community training to laypersons in low resource settings may reduce neonatal ill-health but not neonatal mortality. This study is likely underpowered to find a difference in neonatal mortality. Further work is needed to evaluate which components of the aHBB program are instrumental in improving neonatal health.

Effectiveness of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine among U.S. Health Care Personnel.

BACKGROUND: The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). RESULTS: The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Mobile Crisis Outreach and Emergency Department Utilization: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health and substance use disorder (MHSUD) patients in the emergency department (ED) have been facing increasing lengths of stay due to a shortage of inpatient beds. Previous research indicates mobile crisis outreach (MCO) reduces long ED stays for MHSUD patients. Our objective was to assess the impact of MCO contact on future ED utilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to a large Midwest university ED with an MHSUD chief complaint from 2015-2018. We defined the exposure as those who had MCO contact and any MHSUD-related ED visit within 30 days of MCO contact. The MCO patients were 2:1 propensity score-matched by demographic data and comorbidities matched to patients with no MCO contact. Outcomes were all-cause and psychiatric-specific reasons for return to the ED within one year of the index ED visit. We report descriptive statistics and odds ratios (OR) to describe the difference between the two groups, and hazard ratios (HR) to estimate the risk of return ED visit. RESULTS: The final sample included 106 MCO and 196 non-MCO patients. The MCO patients were more likely to be homeless (OR 14.8; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.87, 117), less likely to have adequate family or social support (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31, 0.84), and less likely to have a hospital bed requested for them in the index visit by ED providers (OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29, 0.88). For those who returned to the ED, the median time for all-cause return to the ED was 28 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-93 days) for the MCO patients and 88 days (IQR: 20-164 days) for non-MCO patients. The risk of all-cause return to the ED was greater among MCO patients (67%) compared to non-MCO patients (49%) (adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI, 1.22, 2.27). CONCLUSION: The MCO patients had less family and social support; however, they were less likely to require hospitalization for each visit, likely due to MCO involvement. Patients with MCO contact presented to the ED more frequently than non-MCO patients, which implies a strong linkage between the ED and MCO in our community. An effective referral to community service from the ED and MCO and collaboration could be the next step to improve healthcare utilization.

Outcomes Associated with Lower Doses of Ketamine by Emergency Medical Services for Profound Agitation.

INTRODUCTION: Ketamine is commonly used to treat profound agitation in the prehospital setting. Early in ketamine's prehospital use, intubation after arrival in the emergency department (ED) was frequent. We sought to measure the frequency of ED intubation at a Midwest academic medical center after prehospital ketamine use for profound agitation, hypothesizing that intubation has become less frequent as prehospital ketamine has become more common and prehospital dosing has improved. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving ketamine in the prehospital setting for profound agitation and transported to a midwestern, 60,000-visit, Level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2017-March 1, 2021. We report descriptive analyses of patient-level prehospital clinical data and ED outcomes. The primary outcome was proportion of patients intubated in the ED. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients received ketamine in the prehospital setting (69% male, mean age 36 years). Of the 42 (54%) admitted patients, 15 (36% of admissions) were admissions to the intensive care unit. Overall, 12% (95% confidence interval [CI]), 4.5-18.6%)] of patients were intubated, and indications included agitation (n = 4), airway protection not otherwise specified (n = 4), and respiratory failure (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Endotracheal intubation in the ED after prehospital ketamine use for profound agitation in our study sample was found to be less than previously reported.

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Among Health Care Personnel - 33 U.S. Sites, January-March 2021.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection.

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

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

Diagnosed and Undiagnosed COVID-19 in US Emergency Department Health Care Personnel: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the percentage of diagnosed and undiagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among a sample of US emergency department (ED) health care personnel before July 2020. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of ED health care personnel in 20 geographically diverse university-affiliated EDs from May 13, to July 8, 2020, including case counts of prior laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses among all ED health care personnel, and then point-in-time serology (with confirmatory testing) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in a sample of volunteers without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Health care staff were categorized as clinical (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) and nonclinical (clerks, social workers, and case managers). Previously undiagnosed infection was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 serology or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction result among health care personnel without prior diagnosis. RESULTS: Diagnosed COVID-19 occurred in 2.8% of health care personnel (193/6,788), and the prevalence was similar for nonclinical and clinical staff (3.8% versus 2.7%; odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.2). Among 1,606 health care personnel without previously diagnosed COVID-19, 29 (1.8%) had evidence of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most (62%; 18/29) who were seropositive did not think they had been infected, 76% (19/25) recalled COVID-19-compatible symptoms, and 89% (17/19) continued to work while symptomatic. Accounting for both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections, 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 7.5%) of ED health care personnel were estimated to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 38% of those infections undiagnosed. CONCLUSION: In late spring and early summer 2020, the estimated prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was 4.6%, and greater than one third of infections were undiagnosed. Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose substantial risk for transmission to other staff and patients.