Exploring COVID-19 census burdens by US hospital characteristics: Implications of quality reporting at rural and critical access hospitals.

PURPOSE: By assessing longitudinal associations between COVID-19 census burdens and hospital characteristics, such as bed size and critical access status, we can explore whether pandemic-era hospital quality benchmarking requires risk-adjustment or stratification for hospital-level characteristics. METHODS: We used hospital-level data from the US Department of Health and Human Services including weekly total hospital and COVID-19 censuses from August 2020 to August 2023 and the 2021 American Hospital Association survey. We calculated weekly percentages of total adult hospital beds containing COVID-19 patients. We then calculated the number of weeks each hospital spent at Extreme (≥20% of beds occupied by COVID-19 patients), High (10%-19%), Moderate (5%-9%), and Low (<5%) COVID-19 stress. We assessed longitudinal hospital-level COVID-19 stress, stratified by 15 hospital characteristics including joint commission accreditation, bed size, teaching status, critical access hospital status, and core-based statistical area (CBSA) rurality. FINDINGS: Among n = 2582 US hospitals, the median(IQR) weekly percentage of hospital capacity occupied by COVID-19 patients was 6.7%(3.6%-13.0%). 80,268/213,383 (38%) hospital-weeks experienced Low COVID-19 census stress, 28% Moderate stress, 22% High stress, and 12% Extreme stress. COVID-19 census burdens were similar across most hospital characteristics, but were significantly greater for critical access hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: US hospitals experienced similar COVID-19 census burdens across multiple institutional characteristics. Evidence-based inclusion of pandemic-era outcomes in hospital quality reporting may not require significant hospital-level risk-adjustment or stratification, with the exception of rural or critical access hospitals, which experienced differentially greater COVID-19 census burdens and may merit hospital-level risk-adjustment considerations.

Primary hepatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: report of two cases and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Primary hepatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (PHNEC) is extremely rare. The diagnosis of PHNEC remains challenging-partly due to its rarity, and partly due to its lack of unique clinical features. Available treatment options for PHNEC include surgical resection of the liver tumor(s), radiotherapy, liver transplant, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and administration of somatostatin analogues. CASE PRESENTATION: We report two male PHNEC cases and discuss the diagnosis and treatment options. Both cases presented with abdominal pain; case two also presented with symptoms of jaundice. The initial diagnosis for both cases was poorly differentiated grade 3 small-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, based on imaging characteristics and the pathology of liver biopsies. Final diagnoses of PHNEC were arrived at by ruling out non-hepatic origins. Case one presented with a large tumor in the right liver lobe, and the patient was treated with TACE. Case two presented with tumors in both liver lobes, invasions into the left branch of hepatic portal vein, and metastasis in the hepatic hilar lymph node. This patient was ineligible for TACE and was allergic to the somatostatin analogue octreotide. This limited treatment options to supportive therapies such as albumin supplementation for liver protection. Patient one and two died at 61 and 109 days, respectively, following initial hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: We diagnosed both cases with poorly differentiated grade 3 small-cell PHNEC through imaging characteristics, immunohistochemical staining of liver biopsies, and examinations to eliminate non-hepatic origins. Neither TACE nor liver protection appeared to significantly extend survival time of the two patients, suggesting these treatments may be inadequate to improve survival of patients with poorly differentiated grade 3 small-cell PHNEC. The prognosis of poorly differentiated grade 3 small-cell PHNEC is poor due to limited and ineffective treatment options.