Observational study of organisational responses of 17 US hospitals over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has required significant modifications of hospital care. The objective of this study was to examine the operational approaches taken by US hospitals over time in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective observational study of 17 geographically diverse US hospitals from February 2020 to February 2021. OUTCOMES AND ANALYSIS: We identified 42 potential pandemic-related strategies and obtained week-to-week data about their use. We calculated descriptive statistics for use of each strategy and plotted percent uptake and weeks used. We assessed the relationship between strategy use and hospital type, geographic region and phase of the pandemic using generalised estimating equations (GEEs), adjusting for weekly county case counts. RESULTS: We found heterogeneity in strategy uptake over time, some of which was associated with geographic region and phase of pandemic. We identified a body of strategies that were both commonly used and sustained over time, for example, limiting staff in COVID-19 rooms and increasing telehealth capacity, as well as those that were rarely used and/or not sustained, for example, increasing hospital bed capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in resource intensity, uptake and duration of use. Such information may be valuable to health systems during the ongoing pandemic and future ones.

Association between resuscitation in the critical care resuscitation unit and in-hospital mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who present in shock have high expected mortality and early resuscitation is crucial to improve their outcomes. The Critical Care Resuscitation Unit (CCRU) is a specialized unit at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC) that prioritizes early resuscitation of critically ill patients. We hypothesized that lactate clearance and reduction of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score during CCRU stay would be associated with lower in-hospital mortality. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients who were admitted to the CCRU between 01/01/2018-12/31/2018 and had a diagnosis of severe shock, determined by serum lactate ≥4 mmol/L. We excluded patients who died during CCRU stay. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between lactate clearance and reduction in SOFA scores during CCRU stay and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Out of 1740 patients admitted to the CCRU in 2018, 172 (10%) had serum lactate ≥4 mmol/L. Twenty-two (13%) patients died during their CCRU stay. Our primary analysis included 129 patients with lactate clearance data and 136 patients with SOFA data. Average patients' age was 54 years, and median length of stay in the CCRU was 6 h 55 min. The average lactate and SOFA score on admission were 7.4 (3.8) mmol/L and 8.3 (4.7), respectively. Average lactate clearance was 1.9 (3.1) and average SOFA score reduction was 0.2 (2.9). In multivariable logistic regressions evaluating SOFA score and lactate separately, SOFA score reduction during CCRU stay was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.97) but lactate clearance was not (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-1.03). In forward stepwise multivariable analysis containing both SOFA score and lactate values, SOFA score clearance during CCRU stay was still associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Care in the CCRU is more effective at reducing lactate than SOFA scores in patients with severe shock. However, SOFA score reduction in the resuscitation phase during the CCRU stay was associated with decreased odds of in-hospital mortality in this group of patients. Further studies are necessary to confirm our observations.

Evaluating the impact of stay-at-home orders on the time to reach the peak burden of Covid-19 cases and deaths: does timing matter?

BACKGROUND: The economic, psychological, and social impact of pandemics and social distancing measures prompt the urgent need to determine the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), especially those considered most stringent such as stay-at-home and self-isolation mandates. This study focuses specifically on the impact of stay-at-home orders, both nationally and internationally, on the control of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis from April to May 2020 and included both countries and US states with known stay-at-home orders. Our primary exposure was the time between the date of the first reported case of COVID-19 to an implemented stay-at-home mandate for each region. Our primary outcomes were the time from the first reported case to the highest number of daily cases and daily deaths. We conducted linear regression analyses, controlling for the case rate of the outbreak in each respective region. RESULTS: For countries and US states, a longer period of time between the first reported case and stay-at-home mandates was associated with a longer time to reach both the peak daily case and death counts. The largest effect was among regions classified as the latest 10% to implement a mandate, which in the US, predicted an extra 35.3 days (95% CI: 18.2, 52.5) to the peak number of cases, and 38.3 days (95% CI: 23.6, 53.0) to the peak number of deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the association between the timing of stay-at-home orders and the time to peak case and death counts for both countries and US states. Regions in which mandates were implemented late experienced a prolonged duration to reaching both peak daily case and death counts.