Patient-Provider Discussion About Lung Cancer Screening by Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Equitable Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Physician-patient discussions regarding lung cancer screening (LCS) are uncommon and its racial and ethnic disparities are under-investigated. We examined the racial and ethnic disparities in the trends and frequency of LCS discussion among the LCS-eligible United States (US) population. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Health Information National Trends Survey from 2014 to 2020. LCS-eligible individuals were defined as adults aged 55 to 80 years old who have a current or former smoking history. We estimated the trends and frequency of LCS discussions and adjusted the probability of having an LCS discussion by racial and ethnic groups. RESULTS: Among 2136 LCS-eligible participants (representing 22.7 million US adults), 12.9% (95% CI, 10.9%-15%) reported discussing LCS with their providers in the past year. The frequency of LCS discussion was lowest among non-Hispanic White participants (12.3%, 95% CI, 9.9%-14.7%) compared to other racial and ethnic groups (14.1% in Hispanic to 15.3% in non-Hispanic Black). A significant increase over time was only observed among non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1% in 2014 to 22.1% in 2020; P = .05) and non-Hispanic Whites (8.5% in 2014 to 14% in 2020; P = .02). In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Black participants (14.6%, 95% CI, 12.3%-16.7%) had a significantly higher probability of LCS discussion than non-Hispanic Whites (12.1%, 95% CI, 11.4%-12.7%). CONCLUSION: Patient-provider LCS discussion was uncommon in the LCS-eligible US population. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to have LCS discussions than other racial and ethnic groups. There is a need for more research to clarify the discordance between LCS discussions and the actual screening uptake in this population.

Rhythm in sport: Adapted rhythmic training to optimize timing and enhance performance in athletes.

Precise timing, the ability to control exactly when something should be done, integrates physical characteristics like strength, power, and technique into highly skilled sporting actions. Despite timing's indispensability to peak athletic performance, there exist few timing-specific training methods. The authors present a new training approach which adapts exercises from drummers, the elite timing experts, to athletes. This progressive series of rhythmic exercises cultivates a detailed, 'top down' cognitive framework of time which promises to enhance movement precision and efficiency. Use cases demonstrate broad applications of this new training approach across individual and team sports.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainment of guideline-recommended depression screening for patients with breast cancer in medical oncology: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Implementation of guideline-recommended depression screening in oncology presents numerous challenges. Implementation strategies that are responsive to local context may be critical elements of adoption and sustainment. We evaluated barriers and facilitators to implementation of a depression screening program for breast cancer patients in a community medical oncology setting as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we employed qualitative methods to evaluate clinician, administrator, and patient perceptions of the program using semi-structured interviews. We used a team-coding approach for the data; thematic development focused on barriers and facilitators to implementation using a grounded theory approach. The codebook was refined through open discussions of subjectivity and unintentional bias, coding, and memo applications (including emergent coding), and the hierarchical structure and relationships of themes. RESULTS: We conducted 20 interviews with 11 clinicians/administrators and 9 patients. Five major themes emerged: (1) gradual acceptance and support of the intervention and workflow; (2) compatibility with system and personal norms and goals; (3) reinforcement of the value of and need for adaptability; (4) self-efficacy within the nursing team; and (5) importance of identifying accountable front-line staff beyond leadership "champions." CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a high degree of acceptability and feasibility due to the selection of appropriate implementation strategies, alignment of norms and goals, and a high degree of workflow adaptability. These findings will be uniquely helpful in generating actionable, real-world knowledge to inform the design, implementation, and sustainment of guideline-recommended depression screening programs in oncology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02941614.

Emotional Distress, Anxiety, and General Health Status in Patients With Newly Identified Small Pulmonary Nodules: Results From the Watch the Spot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and emotional distress have not been studied in large, diverse samples of patients with pulmonary nodules. RESEARCH QUESTION: How common are anxiety and distress in patients with newly identified pulmonary nodules, and what factors are associated with these outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study surveyed participants in the Watch the Spot Trial, a large, pragmatic clinical trial of more vs less intensive strategies for radiographic surveillance of patients with small pulmonary nodules. The survey included validated instruments to measure patient-centered outcomes such as nodule-related emotional distress (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and anxiety (Six-Item State Anxiety Inventory) 6 to 8 weeks following nodule identification. Mixed-effects models were used to compare outcomes between study arms following adjustment for potential confounders and clustering within enrollment site, while also examining a limited number of prespecified explanatory factors, including nodule size, mode of detection, type of ordering clinician, and lack of timely notification prior to contact by the study team. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 34,699 patients; 2,049 individuals completed the baseline survey (5.9%). Respondents and nonrespondents had similar demographic and nodule characteristics, although more respondents were non-Hispanic and White. Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores indicated mild, moderate, or severe distress in 32.2%, 9.4%, and 7.2% of respondents, respectively, with no difference in scores between study arms. Following adjustment, greater emotional distress was associated with larger nodule size and lack of timely notification by a clinician; distress was also associated with younger age, female sex, ever smoking, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Anxiety was associated with lack of timely notification, ever smoking, and female sex. INTERPRETATION: Almost one-half of respondents experienced emotional distress 6 to 8 weeks following pulmonary nodule identification. Strategies are needed to mitigate the burden of distress, especially in younger, female, ever smoking, and minoritized patients, and those with larger nodules. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02623712; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

The impact of timing of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19-related respiratory failure.

PURPOSE: Optimal timing of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure is unclear. We hypothesized that a strategy of IMV as opposed to continuing high flow oxygen or non-invasive mechanical ventilation each day after reaching a high FiO2 threshold would be associated with worse in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Using data from Kaiser Permanente Northern/Southern California's 36 medical centers, we identified patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure who reached ≥80% FiO2 on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation. Exposure was IMV initiation each day after reaching high FiO2 threshold (T0). We developed propensity scores with overlap weighting for receipt of IMV each day adjusting for confounders. We reported relative risk of inpatient death with 95% Confidence Interval. RESULTS: Of 28,035 hospitalizations representing 21,175 patient-days, 5758 patients were included (2793 received and 2965 did not receive IMV). Patients receiving IMV had higher unadjusted mortality (63.6% versus 18.2%, P < 0.0001). On each day after reaching T0 through day >10, the adjusted relative risk was higher for those receiving IMV compared to those not receiving IMV (Relative Risk>1). CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of IMV on each day after patients reach high FiO2 threshold was associated with higher inpatient mortality after adjusting for time-varying confounders. Remaining on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation does not appear to be harmful compared to IMV. Prospective evaluation is needed.

Contemporary care patterns in the management of small renal masses.

OBJECTIVES: Incidental small renal masses (SRMs) now account for the majority of new diagnoses of renal cancers. Although there are established management guidelines, referral and management patterns can vary. We aimed to explore identification, practice patterns, and management of identified SRMs in an integrated health system. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: We identified patients with a newly diagnosed SRM measuring 3 cm or less from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. These patients were flagged at the time of radiographic identification to ensure adequate notification of findings. Diagnostic modality, referral, and treatment patterns were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 519 patients with SRMs, 65% were found on abdominal CT and 22% on renal/abdominal ultrasounds. Within 6 months, 70% of patients consulted with a urologist. Initial management patterns were as follows: active surveillance (60%), partial/radical nephrectomy (18%), and ablation (4%). Among 312 patients on surveillance, 14% eventually received treatment. The majority of patients (69.4%) did not receive guideline-recommended chest imaging for initial staging. Urologist visit within 6 months of SRM diagnosis was associated with increased adherence to staging (P = .003) and subsequent surveillance imaging (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary analysis of an integrated health system's experience, referral to a urologist was associated with guideline-concordant staging and surveillance imaging. Frequent utilization of active surveillance with a low rate of progression to active treatment was noted in both groups. These findings shed light on care patterns upstream of urologic evaluation and support the need for clinical pathways to be implemented at the time of radiologic diagnosis.

Survival Differences by Comorbidity Burden among Patients with Stage I/II Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer after Thoracoscopic Resection.

We sought to compare overall survival (OS) by comorbidity burden among patients with stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received thoracoscopic resection. Utilizing data from the National Cancer Database, we conducted a survival analysis among patients aged 50+ with stage I/II NSCLC who received thoracoscopic resection between 2010 and 2017. The comorbidity burden was measured by the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI, 0, 1, 2+). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare overall survival relative to the CCI (CCI of 0 as the referent). Subgroup analyses were conducted considering sex, age groups, days from diagnosis to surgery, facility type, laterality, and type of surgery. For this study, 61,760 patients were included, with a mean age of 69.1 years (SD: 8.5). Notably, 51.2% had a CCI of 0, 31.8% had a CCI of 1, and 17.0% had a CCI of 2+. Most participants were non-Hispanic White (87.5%), and 56.9% were female. We found that an increase in the CCI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (CCI 1 vs. 0 aHR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.20-1.28; CCI 2+ vs. 0 aHR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.45-1.57; p-trend < 0.01). Our subgroup analysis according to sex suggested that the association between CCI and risk of death was stronger in women.

Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

LInezolid Monitoring to MInimise Toxicity (LIMMIT1): A multicentre retrospective review of patients receiving linezolid therapy and the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Linezolid is a broad-spectrum antimicrobial with limited use due to toxicity. This study aimed to evaluate linezolid toxicity in a large multicentre cohort. Secondary objectives were to identify factors contributing to toxicity, including the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). METHODS: Patients administered linezolid between January 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Data were collected on patient characteristics, linezolid therapy and outcomes. Descriptive statistics were performed on all patients, and statistical comparisons were undertaken between those who did and did not experience linezolid toxicity. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to identify any covariates that correlated with toxicity. RESULTS: Linezolid was administered to 1050 patients; of these, 381 did not meet the inclusion criteria and 47 were excluded as therapy ceased for non-toxicity reasons. There were 105 of 622 (16.9%) patients assessed to have linezolid toxicity. Patients who experienced toxicity displayed a higher baseline creatinine (96.5 µmol/L vs. 79 µmol/L; P = 0.025), lower baseline platelet count (225 × 109/L vs. 278.5 × 109/L; P = 0.002) and received a longer course (median 21 vs. 14 days; P < 0.001) than those who did not. Linezolid TDM was performed in 144 patients (23%). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that TDM-guided appropriate dose adjustment significantly reduced the odds of linezolid toxicity (aOR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.21-0.96; P = 0.038) and a treatment duration > 28 days was no longer significantly associated with toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that linezolid treatment-limiting toxicity remains a problem and suggests that TDM-guided dose optimisation may reduce the risk of toxicity and facilitate prolonged courses beyond 28 days.

Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging was recommended in 2013, making approximately 8 million Americans eligible for LCS. The demographic characteristics and outcomes of individuals screened in the United States have not been reported at the population level. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the outcomes among people screened and entered in the American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry compared with those of trial participants? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a cohort study of individuals undergoing baseline LDCT imaging for LCS between 2015 and 2019. Predictors of adherence to annual screening were computed. LDCT scan interpretations by Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) score, cancer detection rates (CDRs), and stage at diagnosis were compared with National Lung Cancer Screening Trial data. RESULTS: Adherence was 22.3%, and predictors of poor adherence included current smoking status and Hispanic or Black race. On baseline screening, 83% of patients showed negative results and 17% showed positive screening results. The overall CDR was 0.56%. The percentage of people with cancer detected at baseline was higher in the positive Lung-RADS categories at 0.4% for Lung-RADS category 3, 2.6% for Lung-RADS category 4A, 11.1% for Lung-RADS category 4B, and 19.9% for Lung-RADS category 4X. The cancer stage distribution was similar to that observed in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial, with 53.5% of patients receiving a diagnosis of stage I cancer and 14.3% with stage IV cancer. Underreporting into the registry may have occurred. INTERPRETATION: This study revealed both the positive aspects of CT scan screening for lung cancer and the challenges that remain. Findings on CT imaging were correlated accurately with lung cancer detection using the Lung-RADS system. A significant stage shift toward early-stage lung cancer was present. Adherence to LCS was poor and likely contributes to the lower than expected cancer detection rate, all of which will impact the outcomes of patients undergoing screening for lung cancer.

Anakinra or high-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 pneumonia patients who deteriorate on low-dose dexamethasone: an observational study of comparative effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether escalating to high-dose corticosteroids or anakinra compared with continuing low-dose corticosteroids reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 whose respiratory function deteriorated while receiving dexamethasone 6 mg daily. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between March 1 to December 31, 2020, of hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. In-hospital death was analyzed using logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving anakinra, high-dose corticosteroid (dexamethasone >10 mg daily), or remaining on low-dose corticosteroids on the day of first respiratory deterioration. RESULTS: We analyzed 6671 patients whose respiratory status deteriorated while receiving dexamethasone 6 mg daily for COVID-19 pneumonia, of whom 6265 stayed on low-dose corticosteroids, 232 were escalated to high-dose corticosteroids, and 174 to anakinra in addition to corticosteroids. The propensity score-adjusted odds of death were higher in the anakinra (odds ratio [OR] 1.76; 95% CI 1.13-2.72) and high-dose corticosteroid groups (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.14-2.07) compared with those who continued low-dose corticosteroids on the day of respiratory deterioration. The odds of hospital-acquired infections were also higher in the anakinra (OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.28-3.11) and high-dose corticosteroid groups (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.00-2.04) compared with low-dose corticosteroid group. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support escalating patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who deteriorate on low-dose corticosteroids to high-dose corticosteroids or anakinra.

A study protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial for comparing strategies for implementing primary HPV testing for routine cervical cancer screening in a large health care system.

BACKGROUND: Limited guidance exists regarding implementation strategies that best facilitate cancer screening practice substitution and achieve optimal stakeholder-centered outcomes. Here we describe the protocol for a randomized pragmatic trial comparing two implementation strategies to facilitate substitution of primary HPV screening for Pap and HPV co-testing to perform routine cervical cancer screening of women aged 30-65 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC). METHODS: Twelve service areas within KPSC will be randomized to a "centrally-administered system-wide implementation + local-tailored implementation" strategy or a "centrally-administered system-wide implementation only" strategy. The centrally-administered strategy comprises clinician and staff educational activities. Sites in the local-tailored arm will then conduct a structured local needs assessment followed by site-specific selection and deployment of implementation interventions. Surveys and interviews will be conducted among women and providers from the primary care and ob/gyn departments prior to the system-wide transition, shortly after the transition, and after the completion of local-tailored interventions. A stakeholder advisory committee will assist with study design, defining stakeholder-centered outcomes, and developing data collection tools. RESULTS: The primary outcome of interest is uptake of primary HPV screening. Secondary provider-centered outcomes include provider knowledge, delivery of patient education, satisfaction with the practice substitution process, and resistance to primary HPV screening. Secondary patient-centered outcomes include patient knowledge, stigma, and satisfaction with the screening process. Intervention fidelity will also be measured via surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study will help inform future use of a local-tailored implementation strategy for adopting primary HPV screening at large health care systems. Findings may also be applicable to other types of practice substitution.

The intensity of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An observational, comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: The question of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is unresolved, with randomized trials showing mixed results and heterogeneity of treatment effects for in-hospital death. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the intensity of anticoagulation and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 and respiratory impairment who were hospitalized between 3/1/2020-12/31/2020 in two Kaiser Permanente regions. EXPOSURE AND MAIN OUTCOME: We fit propensity score models using categorical regression to estimate the probability of receiving standard prophylactic, intermediate, or full-dose anticoagulation beginning on the day of admission or on the day of first respiratory deterioration. Exposure was defined by the highest dose on the day of admission or within 24 hours after deterioration. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. RESULTS: We included 17,130 patients in the day of admission analysis and 4,924 patients who experienced respiratory deterioration. There were no differences in propensity score-adjusted odds of in-hospital death for patients who received either intermediate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.89-1.12) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.17) compared with standard prophylaxis beginning on the day of admission. Similarly, there were no differences in in-hospital death for either intermediate (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.82) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.90-2.51) compared with standard prophylaxis on the day of deterioration. CONCLUSION: Results of this real-world, comparative effectiveness study showed no differences in in-hospital death among newly admitted or deteriorating patients with COVID-19 who received intermediate-dose or full anticoagulation compared with standard prophylaxis.

Psychological Morbidity After COVID-19 Critical Illness.

Survivors of ICU hospitalizations often experience severe and debilitating symptoms long after critical illness has resolved. Many patients experience notable psychiatric sequelae such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that may persist for months to years after discharge. The COVID-19 pandemic has produced large numbers of critical illness survivors, warranting deeper understanding of psychological morbidity after COVID-19 critical illness. Many patients with critical illness caused by COVID-19 experience substantial post-ICU psychological sequelae mediated by specific pathophysiologic, iatrogenic, and situational risk factors. Existing and novel interventions focused on minimizing psychiatric morbidity need to be further investigated to improve critical care survivorship after COVID-19 illness. This review proposes a framework to conceptualize three domains of risk factors (pathophysiologic, iatrogenic, and situational) associated with psychological morbidity caused by COVID-19 critical illness: (1) direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 virus in the brain; (2) iatrogenic complications of ICU care that may disproportionately affect patients with COVID-19; and (3) social isolation that may worsen psychological morbidity. In addition, we review current interventions to minimize psychological complications after critical illness.

Patient and Nodule Characteristics Associated With a Lung Cancer Diagnosis Among Individuals With Incidentally Detected Lung Nodules.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary nodules are a common incidental finding on CT imaging. Few studies have described patient and nodule characteristics associated with a lung cancer diagnosis using a population-based cohort. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a relationship exist between patient and nodule characteristics and lung cancer among individuals with incidentally detected pulmonary nodules, and can this information be used to create exploratory lung cancer prediction models with reasonable performance characteristics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults older than 18 years with lung nodules of any size incidentally detected by chest CT imaging between 2005 and 2015. All patients had at least 2 years of complete follow-up. To evaluate the relationship between patient and nodule characteristics and lung cancer, we used binomial regression. We used logistic regression to create prediction models, and we internally validated model performance using bootstrap optimism correction. RESULTS: Among 7,240 patients with a median age of 67 years, 56% of whom were women, with a median BMI of 28 kg/m2, 56% of whom were ever smokers, 31% of whom had prior nonlung malignancy, with a median nodule size 5.6 mm, 57% of whom had multiple nodules, and 40% of whom had an upper lobe nodule, 265 patients (3.7%; 95% CI, 3.2%-4.1%) had a diagnosis of lung cancer. In a multivariate analysis, age, sex, BMI, smoking history, and nodule size and location were associated with a lung cancer diagnosis, whereas prior malignancy and nodule number and laterality were not. We were able to construct two prediction models with an area under the curve value of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) and reasonable calibration. INTERPRETATION: Lung cancer is uncommon among individuals with incidentally detected lung nodules. Some, but not all, previously identified factors associated with lung cancer also were associated with this outcome in this sample. These findings may have implications for clinical practice, future practice guidelines, and the development of novel lung cancer prediction models for individuals with incidentally detected lung nodules.

Development and validation of the COVID-19 Hospitalized Patient Deterioration Index.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a COVID-19-specific deterioration index for hospitalized patients: the COVID Hospitalized Patient Deterioration Index (COVID-HDI). This index builds on the proprietary Epic Deterioration Index, which was not developed for predicting respiratory deterioration events among patients with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational cohort was used to develop and validate the COVID-HDI model to predict respiratory deterioration or death among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Deterioration events were defined as death or requiring high-flow oxygen, bilevel positive airway pressure, mechanical ventilation, or intensive-level care within 72 hours of run time. The sample included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 diagnoses or positive tests at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between May 3, 2020, and October 17, 2020. METHODS: Machine learning models and 118 candidate predictors were used to generate benchmark performance. Logit regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and physician input were used to finalize the model. Split-sample cross-validation was used to train and test the model. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating curve was 0.83. COVID-HDI identifies patients at low risk (negative predictive value [NPV] > 98.5%) and borderline low risk (NPV > 95%) of an event. Of all patients, 74% were identified as being at low or borderline low risk at some point during their hospitalization and could be considered for discharge with or without home monitoring. A high-risk group with a positive predictive value of 51% included 12% of patients. Model performance remained high in a recent cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-HDI is a parsimonious, well-calibrated, and accurate model that may support clinical decision-making around discharge and escalation of care.