ABSTRACT
Introduction: The opioid epidemic is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Prior work has shown that emergency department (ED) opioid prescribing can increase the incidence of opioid use disorder in a dose-dependent manner, and systemic changes that decrease default quantity of discharge opioid tablets in the electronic health record (EHR) can impact prescribing practices. However, ED leadership may be interested in the impact of communication around the intervention as well as whether the intervention may differentially impact different types of clinicians (physicians, physician assistants [PA], and nurse practitioners). We implemented and evaluated a quality improvement intervention of an announced decrease in EHR default quantities of commonly prescribed opioids at a large, academic, urban, tertiary-care ED. Methods: We gathered EHR data on all ED discharges with opioid prescriptions from January 1, 2019-December 6, 2021, including chief complaint, clinician, and opioid prescription details. Data was captured and analyzed on a monthly basis throughout this time period. On March 29, 2021, we implemented an announced decrease in EHR default dispense quantities from 20 tablets to 12 tablets for commonly prescribed opioids. We measured pre- and post-intervention quantities of opioid tablets prescribed per discharge receiving opioids, distribution by patient demographics, and inter-clinician variability in prescribing behavior. Results: The EHR change was associated with a 14% decrease in quantity of opioid tablets per discharge receiving opioids, from 14 to 12 tablets (P = <.001). We found no statistically significant disparities in prescriptions based on self-reported patient race (P = 0.68) or gender (P = 0.65). Nurse practitioners and PAs prescribed more opioids per encounter than physicians on average and had a statistically significant decrease in opioid prescriptions associated with the EHR change. Physicians had a lesser but still significant drop in opioid prescribing in the post-intervention period. Conclusion: Decreasing EHR defaults is a robust, simple tool for decreasing opioid prescriptions, with potential for implementation in the 42% of EDs nationwide that have defaults exceeding the recommended 12-tablet supply. Considering significant inter-clinician variability, future interventions to decrease opioid prescriptions should examine the effects of combining EHR default changes with targeted interventions for clinician groups or individual clinicians.
Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid , Electronic Health Records , Emergency Service, Hospital , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Quality Improvement , Humans , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Opioid-Related Disorders/prevention & control , United States , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
Importance: Chronic symptoms reported following an infection with SARS-CoV-2, such as cognitive problems, overlap with symptoms included in the definition of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of ME/CFS-like illness subsequent to acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, changes in ME/CFS symptoms through 12 months of follow-up, and the association of ME/CFS symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 test results at the acute infection-like index illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multisite, longitudinal cohort study (Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]) enrolled participants from December 11, 2020, to August 29, 2022. Participants were adults aged 18 to 64 years with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection who received a US Food and Drug Administration-approved SARS-CoV-2 test at the time of illness and did not die or withdraw from the study by 3 months. Follow-up surveys were collected through February 28, 2023. Exposure: COVID-19 status (positive vs negative) at enrollment. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was the weighted proportion of participants with ME/CFS-like illness based on the 2015 Institute of Medicine clinical case definition using self-reported symptoms. Results: A total of 4378 participants were included in the study. Most were female (3226 [68.1%]). Mean (SD) age was 37.8 (11.8) years. The survey completion rates ranged from 38.7% (3613 of 4738 participants) to 76.3% (1835 of 4738) and decreased over time. The weighted proportion of participants identified with ME/CFS-like illness did not change significantly at 3 through 12 months of follow-up and was similar in the COVID-19-positive (range, 2.8%-3.7%) and COVID-19-negative (range, 3.1%-4.5%) groups. Adjusted analyses revealed no significant difference in the odds of ME/CFS-like illness at any time point between COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative individuals (marginal odds ratio range, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.42-1.67] to 1.18 [95% CI, 0.55-2.51]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective cohort study, there was no evidence that the proportion of participants with ME/CFS-like illness differed between those infected with SARS-CoV-2 vs those without SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 12 months after infection. A 3% to 4% prevalence of ME/CFS-like illness after an acute infection-like index illness would impose a high societal burden given the millions of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Female , Adult , Male , Prospective Studies , Middle Aged , Longitudinal Studies , Prevalence , Young Adult , United States/epidemiology , AdolescentABSTRACT
While the early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States labor market are well-established, less is known about the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Long COVID on employment. To address this gap, we analyzed self-reported data from a prospective, national cohort study to estimate the effects of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms at three months post-infection on missed workdays and return to work. The analysis included 2,939 adults in the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) study who tested positive for their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of enrollment, were employed before the pandemic, and completed a baseline and three-month electronic survey. At three months post-infection, 40.8% of participants reported at least one SARS-CoV-2 symptom and 9.6% of participants reported five or more SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. When asked about missed work due to their SARS-CoV-2 infection at three months, 7.2% of participants reported missing ≥10 workdays and 13.9% of participants reported not returning to work since their infection. At three months, participants with ≥5 symptoms had a higher adjusted odds ratio of missing ≥10 workdays (2.96, 95% CI 1.81-4.83) and not returning to work (2.44, 95% CI 1.58-3.76) compared to those with no symptoms. Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were common, affecting 4-in-10 participants at three-months post-infection, and were associated with increased odds of work loss, most pronounced among adults with ≥5 symptoms at three months. Despite the end of the federal Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 and efforts to "return to normal", policymakers must consider the clinical and economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on people's employment status and work absenteeism, particularly as data characterizing the numerous health and well-being impacts of Long COVID continue to emerge. Improved understanding of risk factors for lost work time may guide efforts to support people in returning to work.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Male , Adult , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Prospective Studies , Return to Work/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology , Employment , Self Report , Pandemics , Absenteeism , Young AdultABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , United States/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , COVID-19 Testing , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel/psychology , Delivery of Health Care , Emergency Service, HospitalABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Estimates of the prevalence of drug-related out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) vary, ranging from 1.8% to 10.0% of medical OHCA. However, studies conducted prior to the recent wave of fentanyl deaths likely underestimate the current prevalence of drug-related OHCA. We evaluated recent trends in drug-related OHCA, hypothesizing that the proportion of presumed drug-related OHCA treated by emergency medical services (EMS) has increased since 2015. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of OHCA patients treated by EMS providers in San Francisco, California between 2015 and 2023. Participants included OHCA cases in which resuscitation was attempted by EMS. The study exposure was the year of arrest. Our primary outcome was the occurrence of drug-related OHCA, defined as the EMS impression of OHCA caused by a presumed or known overdose of medication(s) or drug(s). RESULTS: From 2015 to 2023, 5044 OHCA resuscitations attended by EMS (average 561 per year) met inclusion criteria. The median age was 65 (IQR 50-79); 3508 (69.6%) were male. The EMS impression of arrest etiology was drug-related in 446/5044 (8.8%) of OHCA. The prevalence of presumed drug-related OHCA increased significantly each year from 1% in 2015 to 17.6% in 2023 (p-value for trend = 0.0001). After adjustment, presumed drug-related OHCA increased by 30% each year from 2015-2023. CONCLUSION: Drug-related OHCA is an increasingly common etiology of OHCA. In 2023, one in six OHCA was presumed to be drug related. Among participants less than 60 years old, one in three OHCA was presumed to be drug related.
Subject(s)
Drug Overdose , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/etiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/chemically induced , Male , San Francisco/epidemiology , Female , Retrospective Studies , Middle Aged , Emergency Medical Services/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Drug Overdose/epidemiology , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/statistics & numerical data , PrevalenceABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Service, Hospital , Health Personnel , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Male , Adult , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & controlABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: While Black individuals experienced disproportionately increased firearm violence and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, less is known about community level disparities. We sought to evaluate national community race and ethnicity differences in 2020 and 2021 rates of penetrating trauma. METHODS: We linked the 2018-2021 National Emergency Medical Services Information System databases to ZIP Code demographics. We stratified encounters into majority race/ethnicity communities (>50% White, Black, or Hispanic/Latino). We used logistic regression to compare penetrating trauma for each community in 2020 and 2021 to a combined 2018-2019 historical baseline. Majority Black and majority Hispanic/Latino communities were compared to majority White communities for each year. Analyses were adjusted for household income. RESULTS: We included 87,504,097 encounters (259,449 penetrating traumas). All communities had increased odds of trauma in 2020 when compared to 2018-2019, but this increase was largest for Black communities (aOR 1.4, [1.3-1.4]; White communities - aOR 1.2, [1.2-1.3]; Hispanic/Latino communities - aOR 1.1. [1.1-1.2]). There was a similar trend of increased penetrating trauma in 2021 for Black (aOR 1.2, [1.2-1.3]); White (aOR 1.2, [1.1-1.2]); Hispanic/Latino (aOR 1.1, [1.1-1.1]). Comparing penetrating trauma in each year to White communities, Black communities had higher odds of trauma in all years (2018/2019 - aOR 3.0, [3.0-3.1]; 2020 - aOR 3.3, [3.3-3.4]; 2021 - aOR 3.3, [3.2-3.2]). Hispanic/Latino also had more trauma each year but to a lesser degree (2018/2019 - aOR 2.0, [2.0-2.0]; 2020 - aOR 1.8, [1.8-1.9]; 2021 - aOR 1.9, [1.8-1.9]). CONCLUSION: Black communities were most impacted by increased penetrating trauma rates in 2020 and 2021 even after adjusting for income.
Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services , Health Status Disparities , Wounds, Penetrating , Humans , Ethnicity , Hispanic or Latino , Pandemics , White People , Wounds, Penetrating/epidemiology , Wounds, Penetrating/therapy , Black or African American , IncomeABSTRACT
To further the understanding of post-COVID conditions, and provide a more nuanced description of symptom progression, resolution, emergence, and reemergence after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-like illness, analysts examined data from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a prospective multicenter cohort study. This report includes analysis of data on self-reported symptoms collected from 1,296 adults with COVID-like illness who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a Food and Drug Administration-approved polymerase chain reaction or antigen test at the time of enrollment and reported symptoms at 3-month intervals for 12 months. Prevalence of any symptom decreased substantially between baseline and the 3-month follow-up, from 98.4% to 48.2% for persons who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-positive participants) and from 88.2% to 36.6% for persons who received negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-negative participants). Persistent symptoms decreased through 12 months; no difference between the groups was observed at 12 months (prevalence among COVID test-positive and COVID test-negative participants = 18.3% and 16.1%, respectively; p>0.05). Both groups reported symptoms that emerged or reemerged at 6, 9, and 12 months. Thus, these symptoms are not unique to COVID-19 or to post-COVID conditions. Awareness that symptoms might persist for up to 12 months, and that many symptoms might emerge or reemerge in the year after COVID-like illness, can assist health care providers in understanding the clinical signs and symptoms associated with post-COVID-like conditions.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Acute Disease/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome/epidemiology , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of empiric calcium for patients with undifferentiated cardiac arrest has come under increased scrutiny, including a randomized controlled trial that was stopped early due to a trend towards harm with calcium administration. However, small sample sizes and non-significant findings have hindered precise effect estimates. In this analysis we evaluate the association of calcium administration with survival in a large retrospective cohort of patients with cardiac arrest treated in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of medical records from two academic hospitals (one quaternary care center, one county trauma center) in San Francisco between 2011 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were patients aged greater than or equal to 18 years old who received treatment for cardiac arrest during their ED course. Our primary exposure was the administration of calcium while in the ED and the main outcome was survival to hospital admission. The association between calcium and survival to admission was estimated using a multivariable log-binomial regression, and also with two propensity score models. RESULTS: We examined 781 patients with cardiac arrest treated in San Francisco EDs between 2011 and 2019 and found that calcium administration was associated with decreased survival to hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66-0.82). These findings remained significant after adjustment for patient age, sex, whether the cardiac arrest was witnessed, and including an interaction term for shockable cardiac rhythms (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.50-0.72) and non-shockable cardiac rhythms (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.76-0.99). Risk ratios for the association between calcium and survival to hospital admission were also similar between two propensity score-based models: nearest neighbor propensity matching model (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68-0.89) and inverse propensity weighted regression adjustment model (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.67-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Calcium administration as part of ED-directed treatment for cardiac arrest was associated with lower survival to hospital admission. Given the lack of statistically significant outcomes from smaller, more methodologically robust evaluations on this topic, we believe these findings have an important role to serve in confirming previous results and allowing for more precise effect estimates. Our data adds to the growing body evidence against the empiric use of calcium in cardiac arrest.
Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Humans , Aged , Retrospective Studies , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Calcium , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital , Emergency Medical Services/methodsABSTRACT
Background: While prior work examining severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern focused on hospitalization and death, less is known about differences in clinical presentation. We compared the prevalence of acute symptoms across pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a cohort study enrolling symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive participants. We determined the association between the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron time periods and the prevalence of 21 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute symptoms. Results: We enrolled 4113 participants from December 2020 to June 2022. Pre-Delta vs Delta vs Omicron participants had increasing sore throat (40.9%, 54.6%, 70.6%; P < .001), cough (50.9%, 63.3%, 66.7%; P < .001), and runny noses (48.9%, 71.3%, 72.9%; P < .001). We observed reductions during Omicron in chest pain (31.1%, 24.2%, 20.9%; P < .001), shortness of breath (42.7%, 29.5%, 27.5%; P < .001), loss of taste (47.1%, 61.8%, 19.2%; P < .001), and loss of smell (47.5%, 55.6%, 20.0%; P < .001). After adjustment, those infected during Omicron had significantly higher odds of sore throat vs pre-Delta (odds ratio [OR], 2.76; 95% CI, 2.26-3.35) and Delta (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.69-2.28). Conclusions: Participants infected during Omicron were more likely to report symptoms of common respiratory viruses, such as sore throat, and less likely to report loss of smell and taste. Trial registration: NCT04610515.
ABSTRACT
Background: The prevalence, incidence, and interrelationships of persistent symptoms after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection vary. There are limited data on specific phenotypes of persistent symptoms. Using latent class analysis (LCA) modeling, we sought to identify whether specific phenotypes of COVID-19 were present 3 months and 6 months post-infection. Methods: This was a multicenter study of symptomatic adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 with prospectively collected data on general symptoms and fatigue-related symptoms up to 6 months postdiagnosis. Using LCA, we identified symptomatically homogenous groups among COVID-positive and COVID-negative participants at each time period for both general and fatigue-related symptoms. Results: Among 5963 baseline participants (4504 COVID-positive and 1459 COVID-negative), 4056 had 3-month and 2856 had 6-month data at the time of analysis. We identified 4 distinct phenotypes of post-COVID conditions (PCCs) at 3 and 6 months for both general and fatigue-related symptoms; minimal-symptom groups represented 70% of participants at 3 and 6 months. When compared with the COVID-negative cohort, COVID-positive participants had higher occurrence of loss of taste/smell and cognition problems. There was substantial class-switching over time; those in 1 symptom class at 3 months were equally likely to remain or enter a new phenotype at 6 months. Conclusions: We identified distinct classes of PCC phenotypes for general and fatigue-related symptoms. Most participants had minimal or no symptoms at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. Significant proportions of participants changed symptom groups over time, suggesting that symptoms present during the acute illness may differ from prolonged symptoms and that PCCs may have a more dynamic nature than previously recognized. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Focusing on potential missed injury rates and sensitivity of low-risk of injury predictions, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of physician gestalt in predicting clinically significant injury (CSI) in the abdomen and pelvis among blunt trauma patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We collected gestalt data on physicians caring for adult blunt trauma patients who received abdominal/pelvic computed tomography (CT) at three Level I and one Level II trauma centers. The primary outcome of CSI was defined as injury on abdominal/pelvic CT requiring hospitalization or intervention. Physicians evaluating trauma patients estimated the likelihood of CSI prior to abdominal/pelvic CT review (response choices: <2%, 2%-10%, 11%-20%, 21%-40%, >40%). We evaluated potential missed injury rates (prevalence of CSI) and sensitivity for prediction categories, as well as calibration and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for overall physician gestalt. RESULTS: Of 2030 patients, 402 (20%) had an injury on abdominal/pelvic CT and 270 (13%) had CSI. The <2% risk of CSI gestalt cutoff had a potential missed injury rate of 5.6% and a sensitivity of 95.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.7%-97.3%). The 0%-10% cutoff of CSI gestalt had a potential missed injury rate of 6.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-7.9%) and a sensitivity of 75.2% (95% CI 69.5%-80.1%). With an overall AUROC of 0.699 (95% CI 0.679-0.719), physician gestalt was moderately accurate and calibrated for the midranges of predicted risk but poorly calibrated at the extremes. CONCLUSIONS: Physician gestalt for the prediction of adult abdominal and pelvic CSI is moderately accurate and calibrated. However, the potential missed CSI rate and low sensitivity of the low perceived risk of injury cutoffs indicate that gestalt by itself is insufficient to direct selective abdominal/pelvic CT use in adult blunt trauma patient evaluation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Most research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants focuses on initial symptomatology with limited longer-term data. We characterized prevalences of prolonged symptoms 3 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection across 3 variant time-periods (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study of adults with acute illness tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared fatigue severity, fatigue symptoms, organ system-based symptoms, and ≥3 symptoms across variants among participants with a positive ("COVID-positive") or negative SARS-CoV-2 test ("COVID-negative") at 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 testing. Variant periods were defined by dates with ≥50% dominant strain. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to estimate independent effects of variants adjusting for sociodemographics, baseline health, and vaccine status. RESULTS: The study included 2402 COVID-positive and 821 COVID-negative participants. Among COVID-positives, 463 (19.3%) were pre-Delta, 1198 (49.9%) Delta, and 741 (30.8%) Omicron. The pre-Delta COVID-positive cohort exhibited more prolonged severe fatigue (16.7% vs 11.5% vs 12.3%; P = .017) and presence of ≥3 prolonged symptoms (28.4% vs 21.7% vs 16.0%; P < .001) compared with the Delta and Omicron cohorts. No differences were seen in the COVID-negatives across time-periods. In multivariable models adjusted for vaccination, severe fatigue and odds of having ≥3 symptoms were no longer significant across variants. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were more common among participants infected during pre-Delta than with Delta and Omicron; however, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for vaccination status, suggesting a beneficial effect of vaccination on risk of long-term symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Prospective Studies , Fatigue/epidemiology , Fatigue/etiologyABSTRACT
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of initiating treatment for alcohol use disorder with extended-release naltrexone and case management services in the emergency department (ED) and measure the intervention's impact on daily alcohol consumption and quality of life. METHODS: This is a 12-week prospective open-label single-arm study of a multimodal treatment for alcohol use disorder consisting of monthly extended-release naltrexone injections and case management services initiated at an urban academic ED. Participants were actively drinking adult patients in ED with known or suspected alcohol use disorder and an AUDIT-C score more than 4. The main feasibility outcomes included the rates of participant enrollment, retention in the study, and continuing treatment after study completion. Efficacy outcomes were the change in daily alcohol consumption (drinks per day; 14 g ethanol per drink), measured by a 14-day timeline followback, and the change in quality of life measured with a single-item Kemp quality of life scale. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-nine patients were approached, and 32 were enrolled (18%). Of the 32 enrolled patients, 25 (78%) completed all visits, and 22 (69%) continued naltrexone after the trial. The mean baseline daily alcohol consumption was 7.6 drinks per day (interquartile range, 4.5, 13.4), and the mean quality of life was 3.6 (SD 1.7) on a 7-point scale. The median daily alcohol consumption change was -7.5 drinks per day (Hodges-Lehmann 95% confidence interval -8.6, -5.9). The mean quality of life change was 1.2 points (95% confidence interval 0.5, 1.9; P<.01). CONCLUSION: We found that initiation of treatment of alcohol use disorder with extended-release naltrexone and case management is feasible in an ED setting and observed significant reductions in drinking with improved quality of life in the short term. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to further validate these findings.
Subject(s)
Alcoholism , Naltrexone , Adult , Humans , Naltrexone/therapeutic use , Alcoholism/drug therapy , Narcotic Antagonists/therapeutic use , Case Management , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life , Alcohol DrinkingABSTRACT
Importance: Long-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use. Objective: To compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form-Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis. Results: Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19-positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19-negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19-positive group vs the COVID-19-negative group only for social participation (ß = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P < .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19-positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: ß = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P < .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: ß = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, participants in both the COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , Adult , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Male , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Prospective Studies , Disease ProgressionABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In response to the ongoing opioid overdose crisis, US officials urged the expansion of access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversal. Since then, emergency medical services' (EMS) dispensing of naloxone kits has become an emerging harm reduction strategy. METHODS: We created a naloxone training and low-barrier distribution program in San Francisco: Project FRIEND (First Responder Increased Education and Naloxone Distribution). The team assembled an advisory committee of stakeholders and subject-matter experts, worked with local and state EMS agencies to augment existing protocols, created training curricula, and developed a naloxone-distribution data collection system. Naloxone kits were labeled for registration and data tracking. Emergency medical technicians and paramedics were asked to distribute naloxone kits to any individuals (patient or bystander) they deemed at risk of experiencing or witnessing an opioid overdose, and to voluntarily register those kits. RESULTS: Training modalities included a video module (distributed to over 700 EMS personnel) and voluntary, in-person training sessions, attended by 224 EMS personnel. From September 25, 2019-September 24, 2020, 1,200 naloxone kits were distributed to EMS companies. Of these, 232 kits (19%) were registered by EMS personnel. Among registered kits, 146 (63%) were distributed during encounters for suspected overdose, and 103 (44%) were distributed to patients themselves. Most patients were male (n = 153, 66%) and of White race (n = 124, 53%); median age was 37.5 years (interquartile range 31-47). CONCLUSION: We describe a successful implementation and highlight the feasibility of a low-threshold, leave-behind naloxone program. Collaboration with multiple entities was a key component of the program's success.
Subject(s)
Drug Overdose , Opiate Overdose , Humans , Male , Adult , Female , Naloxone/therapeutic use , Narcotic Antagonists/therapeutic use , San Francisco , Drug Overdose/drug therapyABSTRACT
Importance: Although the general US population had fewer emergency department (ED) visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, patterns of use among high users are unknown. Objectives: To examine natural trends in ED visits among high users of health and social services during an extended period and assess whether these trends differed during COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study combined data from 9 unique cohorts, 1 for each fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) from 2012 to 2021, and used mixed-effects, negative binomial regression to model ED visits over time and assess ED use among the top 5% of high users of multiple systems during COVID-19. Data were obtained from the Coordinated Care Management System, a San Francisco Department of Public Health platform that integrates medical and social information with service use. Exposures: Fiscal year 2020 was defined as the COVID-19 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measured variables were age, gender, language, race and ethnicity, homelessness, insurance status, jail health encounters, mental health and substance use diagnoses, and mortality. The main outcome was annual mean ED visit counts. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were used to describe changes in ED visit rates both over time and in COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19 years. Results: Of the 8967 participants, 3289 (36.7%) identified as White, 3005 (33.5%) as Black, and 1513 (16.9%) as Latinx; and 7932 (88.5%) preferred English. The mean (SD) age was 46.7 (14.2) years, 6071 (67.7%) identified as men, and 7042 (78.5%) had experienced homelessness. A statistically significant decrease was found in annual mean ED visits among high users for every year of follow-up until year 8, with the largest decrease occurring in the first year of follow-up (IRR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.40-0.43). However, during the pandemic, ED visits decreased 25% beyond the mean reduction seen in prepandemic years (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.79). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, multiple cohorts of the top 5% of high users of multiple health care systems in San Francisco had sustained annual decreases in ED visits from 2012 to 2021, with significantly greater decreases during COVID-19. Further research is needed to elucidate pandemic-specific factors associated with these findings and understand how this change in use was associated with health outcomes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Delivery of Health Care , Social WorkABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Health Personnel , Humans , Patient Care , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To test whether the differences across sex and race in the treatment of and outcomes for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) have changed over a recent decade. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with a diagnosis of STEMI or NSTEMI in California from 2005 to 2015 using the Office of State Health Planning and Development dataset. Using multivariable linear regression with county-fixed effects, we measured the baseline and change over time in the proportions of patients with STEMI or NSTEMI who underwent appropriately-timed coronary angiography (day of admission and within 3 days of admission, respectively) and survived at 1 year according to sex and race (Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White) and adjusting for comorbidities, payor, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: We analyzed 159,068 STEMI and 294,068 NSTEMI presentations. In 2005, 50.0% of 12,329 men and 35.7% of 6,939 women with STEMI and 45.0% of 14,379 men and 33.1% of 10,674 women with NSTEMI underwent timely angiography. In 2015, 76.7% of 6,257 men and 66.8% of 2,808 women with STEMI underwent timely angiography and 56.3% of 13,889 men and 45.9% of 9,334 women with NSTEMI underwent timely angiography. In 2005, 1-year survival was 82.3% for men and 69.6% for women after STEMI; in 2013, 1-year survival was 88.1% for men and 79.1% for women. In the multivariable model, the baseline difference was 1.1 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2 to 1.9), and survival increased for women compared with men by 0.3 percentage points per year (95% CI 0.2 to 0.5). In 2005, 46.0% (5,878) of 12,789 White patients and 31.2% (330) of 1,057 Black patients with STEMI underwent timely angiography; in 2015 75.2% of 3,928 White patients and 69.2% of 522 Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI. In the multivariable model, this difference was 6.4 percentage points at baseline (95% CI 4.5 to 8.3), and the probability of undergoing timely angiography for Black patients increased by 0.3 percentage points per year (95% CI -0.1 to 0.6). CONCLUSION: Despite overall improvements in the treatment of and outcomes for STEMI and NSTEMI, disparities persist in the treatment of and outcomes for both the conditions, particularly for women.