Access, socioeconomic environment, and death from COVID-19 in Nebraska.

Our study assesses whether factors related to healthcare access in the first year of the pandemic affect mortality and length of stay (LOS). Our cohort study examined hospitalized patients at Nebraska Medicine between April and October 2020 who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and had a charted sepsis related diagnostic code. Multivariate logistic was used to analyze the odds of mortality and linear regression was used to calculate the parameter estimates of LOS associated with COVID-19 status, age, gender, race/ethnicity, median household income, admission month, and residential distance from definitive care. Among 475 admissions, the odds of mortality is greater among those with older age (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.07) and residence in an area with low median household income (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 0.52-8.57), however, the relationship between mortality and wealth was not statistically significant. Those with non-COVID-19 sepsis had longer LOS (Parameter Estimate: -5.11, adjusted 95% CI: -7.92 to -2.30). Distance from definitive care had trends toward worse outcomes (Parameter Estimate: 0.164, adjusted 95% CI: -1.39 to 1.97). Physical and social aspects of access to care are linked to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. Non-COVID-19 healthcare outcomes may be negatively impacted in the pandemic. Strategies to advance patient-centered outcomes in vulnerable populations should account for varied aspects (socioeconomic, residential setting, rural populations, racial, and ethnic factors). Indirect impacts of the pandemic on non-COVID-19 health outcomes require further study.

Avoiding Crisis Conditions in the Healthcare Infrastructure: 2 Case Studies in Statewide Collaboration.

In fall 2020, COVID-19 infections accelerated across the United States. For many states, a surge in COVID-19 cases meant planning for the allocation of scarce resources. Crisis standards of care planning focuses on maintaining high-quality clinical care amid extreme operating conditions. One of the primary goals of crisis standards of care planning is to use all preventive measures available to avoid reaching crisis conditions and the complex triage decisionmaking involved therein. Strategies to stay out of crisis must respond to the actual experience of people on the frontlines, or the "ground truth," to ensure efforts to increase critical care bed numbers and augment staff, equipment, supplies, and medications to provide an effective response to a public health emergency. Successful management of a surge event where healthcare needs exceed capacity requires coordinated strategies for scarce resource allocation. In this article, we examine the ground truth challenges encountered in response efforts during the fall surge of 2020 for 2 states-Nebraska and California-and the strategies each state used to enable healthcare facilities to stay out of crisis standards of care. Through these 2 cases, we identify key tools deployed to reduce surge and barriers to coordinated statewide support of the healthcare infrastructure. Finally, we offer considerations for operationalizing key tools to alleviate surge and recommendations for stronger statewide coordination in future public health emergencies.

Advanced Preparation Makes Research in Emergencies and Isolation Care Possible: The Case of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

The optimal time to initiate research on emergencies is before they occur. However, timely initiation of high-quality research may launch during an emergency under the right conditions. These include an appropriate context, clarity in scientific aims, preexisting resources, strong operational and research structures that are facile, and good governance. Here, Nebraskan rapid research efforts early during the 2020 coronavirus disease pandemic, while participating in the first use of U.S. federal quarantine in 50 years, are described from these aspects, as the global experience with this severe emerging infection grew apace. The experience has lessons in purpose, structure, function, and performance of research in any emergency, when facing any threat.

Public Health Policy Actions to Address Health Issues Associated with Drought in a Changing Climate.

Over the last century, droughts have caused more deaths internationally than any other weather- or climate-related disaster. Like other natural disasters, droughts cause significant changes in the environment that can lead to negative health outcomes. As droughts are becoming more frequent and intense with climate change, public health systems need to address impacts associated with these events. Partnering with federal and local entities, we evaluated the state of knowledge of drought and health in the United States through a National Drought and Public Health Summit and a series of subsequent regional workshops. The intended outcome was to develop public health strategies for implementing activities to better support and prepare public health systems for future droughts. The information gathered from this work identified multiple policy and law options to address the public health issues associated with drought. These policy recommendations include the use of public health emergency declarations for drought events, increased usage of preparedness evaluations for drought emergencies, and engagement of drought and climate experts in state and local risk assessments. As drought events are projected to increase in frequency and magnitude with climate change, taking policy action now will help decrease the health impacts of drought and save lives.