Healthcare team resilience during COVID-19: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Resilience, in the field of Resilience Engineering, has been identified as the ability to maintain the safety and the performance of healthcare systems and is aligned with the resilience potentials of anticipation, monitoring, adaptation, and learning. In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic challenged the resilience of US healthcare systems due to the lack of equipment, supply interruptions, and a shortage of personnel. The purpose of this qualitative research was to describe resilience in the healthcare team during the COVID-19 pandemic with the healthcare team situated as a cognizant, singular source of knowledge and defined by its collective identity, purpose, competence, and actions, versus the resilience of an individual or an organization. METHODS: We developed a descriptive model which considered the healthcare team as a unified cognizant entity within a system designed for safe patient care. This model combined elements from the Patient Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) and the Advanced Team Decision Making (ADTM) models. Using a qualitative descriptive design and guided by our adapted model, we conducted individual interviews with healthcare team members across the United States. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and extracted codes were organized within the adapted model framework. RESULTS: Five themes were identified from the interviews with acute care professionals across the US (N = 22): teamwork in a pressure cooker, consistent with working in a high stress environment; healthcare team cohesion, applying past lessons to present challenges, congruent with transferring past skills to current situations; knowledge gaps, and altruistic behaviors, aligned with sense of duty and personal responsibility to the team. Participants' described how their ability to adapt to their environment was negatively impacted by uncertainty, inconsistent communication of information, and emotions of anxiety, fear, frustration, and stress. Cohesion with co-workers, transferability of skills, and altruistic behavior enhanced healthcare team performance. CONCLUSION: Working within the extreme unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19 affected the ability of the healthcare team to anticipate and adapt to the rapidly changing environment. Both team cohesion and altruistic behavior promoted resilience. Our research contributes to a growing understanding of the importance of resilience in the healthcare team. And provides a bridge between individual and organizational resilience.

Declaration on infection prevention and management in global surgery.

Surgeons in their daily practice are at the forefront in preventing and managing infections. However, among surgeons, appropriate measures of infection prevention and management are often disregarded. The lack of awareness of infection and prevention measures has marginalized surgeons from this battle. Together, the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery (GAIS), the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), and the Panamerican Trauma Society (PTS) have jointly completed an international declaration, highlighting the threat posed by antimicrobial resistance globally and the need for preventing and managing infections appropriately across the surgical pathway. The authors representing these surgical societies call all surgeons around the world to participate in this global cause by pledging support for this declaration for maintaining the effectiveness of current and future antibiotics.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. Objective: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Intervention: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Results: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Artificial Intelligence-enabled Decision Support in Surgery: State-of-the-art and Future Directions.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize state-of-the-art artificial intelligence-enabled decision support in surgery and to quantify deficiencies in scientific rigor and reporting. BACKGROUND: To positively affect surgical care, decision-support models must exceed current reporting guideline requirements by performing external and real-time validation, enrolling adequate sample sizes, reporting model precision, assessing performance across vulnerable populations, and achieving clinical implementation; the degree to which published models meet these criteria is unknown. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were searched from their inception to September 21, 2022 for articles describing artificial intelligence-enabled decision support in surgery that uses preoperative or intraoperative data elements to predict complications within 90 days of surgery. Scientific rigor and reporting criteria were assessed and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. RESULTS: Sample size ranged from 163-2,882,526, with 8/36 articles (22.2%) featuring sample sizes of less than 2000; 7 of these 8 articles (87.5%) had below-average (<0.83) area under the receiver operating characteristic or accuracy. Overall, 29 articles (80.6%) performed internal validation only, 5 (13.8%) performed external validation, and 2 (5.6%) performed real-time validation. Twenty-three articles (63.9%) reported precision. No articles reported performance across sociodemographic categories. Thirteen articles (36.1%) presented a framework that could be used for clinical implementation; none assessed clinical implementation efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence-enabled decision support in surgery is limited by reliance on internal validation, small sample sizes that risk overfitting and sacrifice predictive performance, and failure to report confidence intervals, precision, equity analyses, and clinical implementation. Researchers should strive to improve scientific quality.

Impact of Digital Health upon the Surgical Patient Experience: The Patient as Consumer.

The adoption of digital health services in surgical care delivery is changing the patient experience. The goal of patient-generated health data monitoring incorporated with patient-centered education and feedback is to optimally prepare patients for surgery and personalize postoperative care to improve outcomes that matter to both patients and surgeons. Challenges include the need for the adoption of new methods for implementation and evaluation and equitable application of surgical digital health interventions, with considerations for accessibility as well as the development of new diagnostics and decision support that include the needs and characteristics of all populations served.

Re-Aiming Equity Evaluation in Clinical Decision Support: A Scoping Review of Equity Assessments in Surgical Decision Support Systems.

OBJECTIVE: We critically evaluated the surgical literature to explore the prevalence and describe how equity assessments occur when using clinical decision support systems. BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) systems are increasingly used to facilitate surgical care delivery. Despite formal recommendations to do so, equity evaluations are not routinely performed on CDS systems and underrepresented populations are at risk of harm and further health disparities. We explored surgical literature to determine frequency and rigor of CDS equity assessments and offer recommendations to improve CDS equity by appending existing frameworks. METHODS: We performed a scoping review up to Augus 25, 2021 using PubMed and Google Scholar for the following search terms: clinical decision support, implementation, RE-AIM, Proctor, Proctor's framework, equity, trauma, surgery, surgical. We identified 1415 citations and 229 abstracts met criteria for review. A total of 84 underwent full review after 145 were excluded if they did not assess outcomes of an electronic CDS tool or have a surgical use case. RESULTS: Only 6% (5/84) of surgical CDS systems reported equity analyses, suggesting that current methods for optimizing equity in surgical CDS are inadequate. We propose revising the RE-AIM framework to include an Equity element (RE 2 -AIM) specifying that CDS foundational analyses and algorithms are performed or trained on balanced datasets with sociodemographic characteristics that accurately represent the CDS target population and are assessed by sensitivity analyses focused on vulnerable subpopulations. CONCLUSION: Current surgical CDS literature reports little with respect to equity. Revising the RE-AIM framework to include an Equity element (RE 2 -AIM) promotes the development and implementation of CDS systems that, at minimum, do not worsen healthcare disparities and possibly improve their generalizability.

Surgical Infection Society Guidelines: 2022 Updated Guidelines for Antibiotic Use in Open Extremity Fractures.

Background: Open fractures, defined as fractures communicating with the environment through a skin wound, cause substantial morbidity after traumatic injury. Current evidence supports administration of prophylactic systemic antibiotic agents to patients with open extremity fractures to decrease infectious complications. Methods: The Therapeutic and Guidelines Committee of The Surgical Infection Society convened to revise guidelines for antibiotic use in open fractures. PubMed was queried for pertinent studies. Evaluation of the published evidence was performed using the GRADE framework. All committee members voted to accept or reject each recommendation. Results: In type I or II open extremity fractures, we recommend against administration of extended-spectrum antibiotic coverage compared with gram-positive coverage alone to decrease infections complications, hospital length of stay or mortality. In type III open extremity fractures, we recommend antibiotic therapy for no more than 24 hrs after injury, in the absence of clinical signs of active infection, to decrease infectious complications, hospital length of stay or mortality, and we recommend against extended antimicrobial coverage beyond gram-positive organisms to decrease infectious complications, hospital length of stay or mortality. In type III open extremity fractures with associated bone loss, we recommend antibiotic therapy in addition to systemic therapy to decrease infectious complications. Conclusions: Although antibiotic agents remain a standard of care for infection prevention after open extremity fractures, our findings and surveys of clinical practice patterns clearly show that additional robust clinical trials are needed to provide stronger corroborating evidence.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials. Objective: To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis. Interventions: Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results: Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28). Conclusions and Relevance: Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Analysis of Outcomes Associated With Outpatient Management of Nonoperatively Treated Patients With Appendicitis.

Importance: In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs. Objective: To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. Exposures: Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared. Results: Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. EXPOSURES: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. RESULTS: Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

Patient and Provider Preferences for Monitoring Surgical Wounds Using an mHealth App: A Formative Qualitative Analysis.

Background: Surgical site infections complicate approximately 10% of all inpatient operations and account for nearly 20% of surgical re-admissions. Post-operative hospitalizations have become shorter over time, yet limited resources exist for patients to use at their home to communicate surgical wound problems with their medical providers. This study evaluated the attitudes of patients and providers towards using a remote wound monitoring application. Methods: This formative descriptive qualitative study reports the result of analysis of the interview content of five patients and five providers from a colorectal surgery clinic at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted in the clinic setting, were recorded, and professionally transcribed. Two of the authors independently reviewed and coded the transcribed interviews to identify themes across all 10 interviews. After independent coding, authors reviewed findings to reconcile and streamline the primary themes representing attitudes of patients and providers toward remote wound monitoring. Results: Five primary codes were found across our interviews: current barriers, infection types, workflow, interest in surgical site infection (SSI) monitoring, application considerations, and requested application features. We subcoded "symptom clarification" and "positive anticipation" under "interest in SSI monitoring," as well as "anticipated issues" and "application features" under "application considerations." From these codes, we synthesized findings into three overarching themes: smartphone app for remote wound monitoring has potential to improve patient-provider communication, specific wound evaluation processes are acceptable to patients and providers, and new collaboration with telehealth service is a welcome addition for interdisciplinary team management. Conclusions: A prospective approach to the development of a remote wound monitoring application enables a user-centric development process. Our analysis shows a readiness from both patients and providers to implement remote wound monitoring for identifying potential SSIs and coordinating surgical wound care within the community.

Applying Implementation Science in Surgical Infection Quality Improvement.

Background: Medical knowledge is constantly growing at an exponential rate. Despite this growth, it is estimated to take 17 years for medical innovation to reach the bedside and improve clinical care. Implementation science is the scientific study of methods to facilitate the update of evidence-based practice and research into regular use and policy. Discussion: Implementation science offers theories, models, and frameworks aimed at decreasing the time it takes to get medical innovation to the patient and to sustain the care improvements. Implementation science principles center around five main fundamental concepts that include information diffusion, dissemination, implementation, adoption, and sustainability. Understanding these fundamental concepts allow clinicians to prepare for an implementation by asking the correct questions such as: Are we ready for change?; What is our current process that we want to change?; Who needs to be involved in the implementation?; and How do we measure success? This article describes a successful catheter-associated urinary tract infection quality improvement program implemented using implementation science principles. Conclusion: Implementation science offers many proven tools and strategies to implement new evidence-based medicine and medical innovations into common practice. Clinicians are often the leaders of change and should develop an understanding of implementation science fundamentals to allow successful implementation of quality improvement and research initiatives.

Surgery and the Smartphone: Can Technology Improve Equitable Access to Surgical Care?

Unfortunately, many patients in the United States experience disparities in access to surgical care, including geographic constraints, limited transportation and time, and financial hardships. Living in a "surgical care desert" results in a delay in care, driving up health care costs and reducing quality of care. In the age of COVID-19, patient access to health care has been further diminished by physical distancing guidelines, naturally increasing the need for innovative telehealth solutions. In this review, we focus on using smartphones for mobile health technology (mHealth) in the delivery of surgical care. This study is aimed at a general surgical audience that may be interested in exploring how mHealth can improve both access and health care quality for surgical patients and their families. We review the current uses of mHealth by surgeons for surgical site infection, new models of the perioperative surgical home, acute care surgical triage, remote patient monitoring devices, and evaluation and management of surgical consultations in the patient's home. We also review institutional and governmental barriers to the adoption of mHealth and offer some preliminary solutions that may aid the surgeon who wishes to implement this technology in their day-to-day practice.

Where did the patients go? Changes in acute appendicitis presentation and severity of illness during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic restricted movement of individuals and altered provision of health care, abruptly transforming health care-use behaviors. It serves as a natural experiment to explore changes in presentations for surgical diseases including acute appendicitis. The objective was to determine if the pandemic was associated with changes in incidence of acute appendicitis compared to a historical control and to determine if there were associated changes in disease severity. METHODS: The study is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of adults (N = 956) presenting with appendicitis in nonpandemic versus pandemic time periods (December 1, 2019-March 10, 2020 versus March 11, 2020-May 16, 2020). Corresponding time periods in 2018 and 2019 composed the historical control. Primary outcome was mean biweekly counts of all appendicitis presentations, then stratified by complicated (n = 209) and uncomplicated (n = 747) disease. Trends in presentations were compared using difference-in-differences methodology. Changes in odds of presenting with complicated disease were assessed via clustered multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: There was a 29% decrease in mean biweekly appendicitis presentations from 5.4 to 3.8 (rate ratio = 0.71 [0.51, 0.98]) after the pandemic declaration, with a significant difference in differences compared with historical control (P = .003). Stratified by severity, the decrease was significant for uncomplicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.47-0.91]) when compared with historical control (P = .03) but not for complicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.52-1.52]); (P = .49). The odds of presenting with complicated disease did not change (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [95% confidence interval 0.83-2.25]). CONCLUSION: The pandemic was associated with decreased incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis without an accompanying increase in complicated disease. Changes in individual health care-use behaviors may underlie these differences, suggesting that some cases of uncomplicated appendicitis may resolve without progression to complicated disease.