Trends in Patient Transfers From Overall and Caseload-Strained US Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Transferring patients to other hospitals because of inpatient saturation or need for higher levels of care was often challenging during the early waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how transfer patterns evolved over time and amid hospital overcrowding could inform future care delivery and load balancing efforts. Objective: To evaluate trends in outgoing transfers at overall and caseload-strained hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic vs prepandemic times. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data for adult patients at continuously reporting US hospitals in the PINC-AI Healthcare Database. Data analysis was performed from February to July 2023. Exposures: Pandemic wave, defined as wave 1 (March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020), wave 2 (June 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020), wave 3 (October 1, 2020, to June 19, 2021), Delta (June 20, 2021, to December 18, 2021), and Omicron (December 19, 2021, to February 28, 2022). Main Outcomes and Measures: Weekly trends in cumulative mean daily acute care transfers from all hospitals were assessed by COVID-19 status, hospital urbanicity, and census index (calculated as daily inpatient census divided by nominal bed capacity). At each hospital, the mean difference in transfer counts was calculated using pairwise comparisons of pandemic (vs prepandemic) weeks in the same census index decile and averaged across decile hospitals in each wave. For top decile (ie, high-surge) hospitals, fold changes (and 95% CI) in transfers were adjusted for hospital-level factors and seasonality. Results: At 681 hospitals (205 rural [30.1%] and 476 urban [69.9%]; 360 [52.9%] small with <200 beds and 321 [47.1%] large with ≥200 beds), the mean (SD) weekly outgoing transfers per hospital remained lower than the prepandemic mean of 12.1 (10.4) transfers per week for most of the pandemic, ranging from 8.5 (8.3) transfers per week during wave 1 to 11.9 (10.7) transfers per week during the Delta wave. Despite more COVID-19 transfers, overall transfers at study hospitals cumulatively decreased during each high national surge period. At 99 high-surge hospitals, compared with a prepandemic baseline, outgoing acute care transfers decreased in wave 1 (fold change -15.0%; 95% CI, -22.3% to -7.0%; P < .001), returned to baseline during wave 2 (2.2%; 95% CI, -4.3% to 9.2%; P = .52), and displayed a sustained increase in subsequent waves: 19.8% (95% CI, 14.3% to 25.4%; P < .001) in wave 3, 19.2% (95% CI, 13.4% to 25.4%; P < .001) in the Delta wave, and 15.4% (95% CI, 7.8% to 23.5%; P < .001) in the Omicron wave. Observed increases were predominantly limited to small urban hospitals, where transfers peaked (48.0%; 95% CI, 36.3% to 60.8%; P < .001) in wave 3, whereas large urban and small rural hospitals displayed little to no increases in transfers from baseline throughout the pandemic. Conclusions and Relevance: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, study hospitals reported paradoxical decreases in overall patient transfers during each high-surge period. Caseload-strained rural (vs urban) hospitals with fewer than 200 beds were unable to proportionally increase transfers. Prevailing vulnerabilities in flexing transfer capabilities for care or capacity reasons warrant urgent attention.

The Minnesota Medical Operations Coordination Center: A COVID-19 Statewide Response to Ensure Access to Critical Care and Medical-Surgical Beds.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 led to unprecedented inpatient capacity challenges, particularly in ICUs, which spurred development of statewide or regional placement centers for coordinating transfer (load-balancing) of adult patients needing intensive care to hospitals with remaining capacity. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do Medical Operations Coordination Centers (MOCC) augment patient placement during times of severe capacity challenges? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The Minnesota MOCC was established with a focus on transfer of adult ICU and medical-surgical patients; trauma, cardiac, stroke, burn, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cases were excluded. The center operated within one health care system's bed management center, using a dedicated 24/7 telephone number. Major health care systems statewide and two tertiary centers in a neighboring state participated, sharing information on system status, challenges, and strategies. Patient volumes and transfer data were tracked; client satisfaction was evaluated through an anonymous survey. RESULTS: From August 1, 2020, through March 31, 2022, a total of 5,307 requests were made, 2,008 beds identified, 1,316 requests canceled, and 1,981 requests were unable to be fulfilled. A total of 1,715 patients had COVID-19 (32.3%), and 2,473 were negative or low risk for COVID-19 (46.6%). COVID-19 status was unknown in 1,119 (21.1%). Overall, 760 were patients on ventilators (49.1% COVID-19 positive). The Minnesota Critical Care Coordination Center placed most patients during the fall 2020 surge with the Minnesota Governor's stay-at-home order during the peak. However, during the fall 2021 surge, only 30% of ICU patients and 39% of medical-surgical patients were placed. Indicators characterizing severe surge include the number of Critical Care Coordination Center requests, decreasing placements, longer placement times, and time series analysis showing significant request-acceptance differences. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of a large-scale Minnesota MOCC program was effective at placing patients during the first COVID-19 pandemic fall 2020 surge and was well regarded by hospitals and health systems. However, under worsening duress of limited resources during the fall 2021 surge, placement of ICU and medical-surgical patients was greatly decreased.

Assessing health care leadership and management for resilience and performance during crisis: The HERO-36.

BACKGROUND: Whereas organizational literature has provided much insight into the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of organizational leadership and management during emergencies, measures to operationalize related effective practices during crises remain sparse. PURPOSE: To address this need, we developed the Healthcare Emergency Response Optimization survey, which set out to examine the leadership and management practices in health care organizations that support resilience and performance during crisis. METHODOLOGY: We administered an online survey in April to May 2022 to health care administrators and frontline staff intimately involved in their hospital's emergency response during the COVID-19 pandemic, which included a sample of 379 respondents across nine rural and urban hospitals (response rate: 44.4%). We used confirmatory factor analysis and quantile regressions to examine the results. RESULTS: Applying confirmatory factor analysis, we retained 36 items in our survey that comprised eight measures for formal and informal practices to assess crisis leadership and management. To test effectiveness of the specified practices, we regressed self-reported resilience and performance measures on the formality and informality scores. Findings show that informal practices mattered most for resilience, whereas formal practices mattered most for performance. We also identified specific practices (anticipation, transactional and relational interactions, and ad hoc collaborations) for resilience and performance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These validated measures of organizational practices assess emergency response during crisis, with an emphasis on the actions and decisions of leadership as well as the management of organizational structures and processes. Organizations using these measures may subsequently modify preparedness and planning approaches to better manage future crises.

Using a web platform for equitable distribution of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: a case study in resource allocation.

While medical countermeasures in COVID-19 have largely focused on vaccinations, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were early outpatient treatment options for COVID-positive patients. In Minnesota, a centralized access platform was developed to offer access to mAbs that linked over 31,000 patients to care during its operation. The website allowed patients, their representative, or providers to screen the patient for mAbs against Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) criteria and connect them with a treatment site if provisionally eligible. A validated clinical risk scoring system was used to prioritize patients during times of scarcity. Both an ethics and a clinical subject matter expert group advised the Minnesota Department of Health on equitable approaches to distribution across a range of situations as the pandemic evolved. This case study outlines the implementation of this online platform and clinical outcomes of its users. We assess the impact of referral for mAbs on hospitalizations and death during a period of scarcity, finding in particular that vaccination conferred a substantially larger protection against hospitalization than a referral for mAbs, but among unvaccinated users that did not get a referral, chances of hospitalization increased by 4.1 percentage points.

Experiences of US Clinicians Contending With Health Care Resource Scarcity During the COVID-19 Pandemic, December 2020 to December 2021.

Importance: The second year of the COVID-19 pandemic saw periods of dire health care resource limitations in the US, sometimes prompting official declarations of crisis, but little is known about how these conditions were experienced by frontline clinicians. Objective: To describe the experiences of US clinicians practicing under conditions of extreme resource limitation during the second year of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative inductive thematic analysis was based on interviews with physicians and nurses providing direct patient care at US health care institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were conducted between December 28, 2020, and December 9, 2021. Exposure: Crisis conditions as reflected by official state declarations and/or media reports. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinicians' experiences as obtained through interviews. Results: Interviews with 23 clinicians (21 physicians and 2 nurses) who were practicing in California, Idaho, Minnesota, or Texas were included. Of the 23 total participants, 21 responded to a background survey to assess participant demographics; among these individuals, the mean (SD) age was 49 (7.3) years, 12 (57.1%) were men, and 18 (85.7%) self-identified as White. Three themes emerged in qualitative analysis. The first theme describes isolation. Clinicians had a limited view on what was happening outside their immediate practice setting and perceived a disconnect between official messaging about crisis conditions and their own experience. In the absence of overarching system-level support, responsibility for making challenging decisions about how to adapt practices and allocate resources often fell to frontline clinicians. The second theme describes in-the-moment decision-making. Formal crisis declarations did little to guide how resources were allocated in clinical practice. Clinicians adapted practice by drawing on their clinical judgment but described feeling ill equipped to handle some of the operationally and ethically complex situations that fell to them. The third theme describes waning motivation. As the pandemic persisted, the strong sense of mission, duty, and purpose that had fueled extraordinary efforts earlier in the pandemic was eroded by unsatisfying clinical roles, misalignment between clinicians' own values and institutional goals, more distant relationships with patients, and moral distress. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study suggest that institutional plans to protect frontline clinicians from the responsibility for allocating scarce resources may be unworkable, especially in a state of chronic crisis. Efforts are needed to directly integrate frontline clinicians into institutional emergency responses and support them in ways that reflect the complex and dynamic realities of health care resource limitation.

Prehospital Ultrasound Diagnosis of Massive Pulmonary Embolism by Non-Physicians: A Case Series.

Massive pulmonary embolism (hemodynamically unstable, defined as systolic BP <90 mmHg) has significant morbidity and mortality. Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has allowed clinicians to detect evidence of massive pulmonary embolism much earlier in the patient's clinical course, especially when patient instability precludes computerized tomography confirmation. POCUS detection of massive pulmonary embolism has traditionally been performed by physicians. This case series demonstrates four cases of massive pulmonary embolism diagnosed with POCUS performed by non-physician prehospital personnel.

Opportunity Among Disaster: Reflecting on 2 Disaster Scenarios During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Maintaining a public health emergency response for a sustained period of time requires availability of resources, physical and information technology infrastructure, and human capital. What perhaps is unprecedented is a medical center experiencing multiple disasters simultaneously. In this case study, the authors describe 2 separate disaster events experienced during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: (1) a cyberattack at Nebraska Medicine in Omaha, Nebraska, and (2) civil unrest following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Although these settings were very different, the following common themes can inform future disaster planning: the benefit of an already active incident command system, the prescient need for continuity of operations, and the anticipation of workforce fatigue. These dual-disaster experiences provide an opportunity to identify lessons learned that will drive improvements in emergency management through preparedness and mitigation measures and response innovations for future simultaneous disasters.

Mass Critical Care Surge Response During COVID-19: Implementation of Contingency Strategies - A Preliminary Report of Findings From the Task Force for Mass Critical Care.

BACKGROUND: After the publication of a 2014 consensus statement regarding mass critical care during public health emergencies, much has been learned about surge responses and the care of overwhelming numbers of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaps in prior pandemic planning were identified and require modification in the midst of severe ongoing surges throughout the world. RESEARCH QUESTION: A subcommittee from The Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) investigated the most recent COVID-19 publications coupled with TFMCC members anecdotal experience in order to formulate operational strategies to optimize contingency level care, and prevent crisis care circumstances associated with increased mortality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TFMCC adopted a modified version of established rapid guideline methodologies from the World Health Organization and the Guidelines International Network-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. With a consensus development process incorporating expert opinion to define important questions and extract evidence, the TFMCC developed relevant pandemic surge suggestions in a structured manner, incorporating peer-reviewed literature, "gray" evidence from lay media sources, and anecdotal experiential evidence. RESULTS: Ten suggestions were identified regarding staffing, load-balancing, communication, and technology. Staffing models are suggested with resilience strategies to support critical care staff. ICU surge strategies and strain indicators are suggested to enhance ICU prioritization tactics to maintain contingency level care and to avoid crisis triage, with early transfer strategies to further load-balance care. We suggest that intensivists and hospitalists be engaged with the incident command structure to ensure two-way communication, situational awareness, and the use of technology to support critical care delivery and families of patients in ICUs. INTERPRETATION: A subcommittee from the TFMCC offers interim evidence-informed operational strategies to assist hospitals and communities to plan for and respond to surge capacity demands resulting from COVID-19.

Moving Forward from COVID-19: Organizational Dimensions of Effective Hospital Emergency Management.

Federal investment in emergency preparedness has increased notably since the 9/11 attacks, yet it is unclear if and how US hospital readiness has changed in the 20 years since then. In particular, understanding effective aspects of hospital emergency management programs is essential to improve healthcare systems' readiness for future disasters. The authors of this article examined the state of US hospital emergency management, focusing on the following question: During the COVID-19 pandemic, what aspects of hospital emergency management, including program components and organizational characteristics, were most effective in supporting and improving emergency preparedness and response? We conducted semistructured interviews of emergency managers and leaders at 12 urban and rural hospitals across the country. Through qualitative analysis of content derived from examination of transcripts from our interviews, we identified 7 dimensions of effective healthcare emergency management: (1) identify capable leaders; (2) assure robust institutional support; (3) design effective, tiered communications systems; (4) embrace the hospital incident command system to delineate roles and responsibilities; (5) actively promote collaboration and team building; (6) appreciate the necessity of training and exercises; and (7) balance structure and flexibility. These dimensions represent the unique and critical intersection of organizational factors and emergency management program characteristics at the core of hospital emergency preparedness and response. Extending these findings, we provide several recommendations for hospitals to better develop and sustain what we call a response culture in supporting effective emergency management.

Hospital Surge Preparedness and Response Index.

The Hospital Surge Preparedness and Response Index is an all-hazards template developed by a group of emergency management and disaster medicine experts from the United States. The objective of the Hospital Surge Preparedness and Response Index is to improve planning by linking action items to institutional triggers across the surge capacity continuum. This responder tool is a non-exhaustive, high-level template: administrators should tailor these elements to their individual institutional protocols and constraints for optimal efficiency. The Hospital Surge Preparedness and Response Index can be used to provide administrators with a snapshot of their facility's current service capacity in order to promote efficiency and situational awareness both internally and among regional partners.