Association of virtual end-of-life care with healthcare outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based study.

The use of virtual care for people at the end-of-life significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its association with acute healthcare use and location of death is unknown. The objective of this study was to measure the association between the use of virtual end-of-life care with acute healthcare use and an out-of-hospital death before vs. after the introduction of specialized fee codes that enabled broader delivery of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a population-based cohort study of 323,995 adults in their last 90 days of life between January 25, 2018 and December 31, 2021 using health administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Primary outcomes were acute healthcare use (emergency department, hospitalization) and location of death (in or out-of-hospital). Prior to March 14, 2020, 13,974 (8%) people received at least 1 virtual end-of-life care visit, which was associated with a 16% higher rate of emergency department use (adjusted Rate Ratio [aRR] 1.16, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.20), a 17% higher rate of hospitalization (aRR 1.17, 95%CI 1.15 to 1.20), and a 34% higher risk of an out-of-hospital death (aRR 1.34, 95%CI 1.31 to 1.37) compared to people who did not receive virtual end-of-life care. After March 14, 2020, 104,165 (71%) people received at least 1 virtual end-of-life care visit, which was associated with a 58% higher rate of an emergency department visit (aRR 1.58, 95%CI 1.54 to 1.62), a 45% higher rate of hospitalization (aRR 1.45, 95%CI 1.42 to 1.47), and a 65% higher risk of an out-of-hospital death (aRR 1.65, 95%CI 1.61 to 1.69) compared to people who did not receive virtual end-of-life care. The use of virtual end-of-life care was associated with higher acute healthcare use in the last 90 days of life and a higher likelihood of dying out-of-hospital, and these rates increased during the pandemic.

Comparison of Medical and Mental Health Sequelae Following Hospitalization for COVID-19, Influenza, and Sepsis.

Importance: People who survive hospitalization for COVID-19 are at risk for developing new cardiovascular, neurological, mental health, and inflammatory autoimmune conditions. It is unclear how posthospitalization risks for COVID-19 compare with those for other serious infectious illnesses. Objective: To compare risks of incident cardiovascular, neurological, and mental health conditions and rheumatoid arthritis in 1 year following COVID-19 hospitalization against 3 comparator groups: prepandemic hospitalization for influenza and hospitalization for sepsis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included all adults hospitalized for COVID-19 between April 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021, historical comparator groups of people hospitalized for influenza or sepsis, and a contemporary comparator group of people hospitalized for sepsis in Ontario, Canada. Exposure: Hospitalization for COVID-19, influenza, or sepsis. Main Outcome and Measures: New occurrence of 13 prespecified conditions, including cardiovascular, neurological, and mental health conditions and rheumatoid arthritis, within 1 year of hospitalization. Results: Of 379 366 included adults (median [IQR] age, 75 [63-85] years; 54% female), there were 26 499 people who survived hospitalization for COVID-19, 299 989 historical controls (17 516 for influenza and 282 473 for sepsis), and 52 878 contemporary controls hospitalized for sepsis. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was associated with an increased 1-year risk of venous thromboembolic disease compared with influenza (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.36-2.31) but with no increased risks of developing selected ischemic and nonischemic cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disorders, neurological disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, or mental health conditions compared with influenza or sepsis cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, apart from an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism within 1 year, the burden of postacute medical and mental health conditions among those who survived hospitalization for COVID-19 was comparable with other acute infectious illnesses. This suggests that many of the postacute consequences of COVID-19 may be related to the severity of infectious illness necessitating hospitalization rather than being direct consequences of infection with SARS-CoV-2.

The spatial and temporal distribution of SARS-CoV-2 from the built environment of COVID-19 patient rooms: A multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 can be detected from the built environment (e.g., floors), but it is unknown how the viral burden surrounding an infected patient changes over space and time. Characterizing these data can help advance our understanding and interpretation of surface swabs from the built environment. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study at two hospitals in Ontario, Canada between January 19, 2022 and February 11, 2022. We performed serial floor sampling for SARS-CoV-2 in rooms of patients newly hospitalized with COVID-19 in the past 48 hours. We sampled the floor twice daily until the occupant moved to another room, was discharged, or 96 hours had elapsed. Floor sampling locations included 1 metre (m) from the hospital bed, 2 m from the hospital bed, and at the room's threshold to the hallway (typically 3 to 5 m from the hospital bed). The samples were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 using quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). We calculated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in a patient with COVID-19, and we evaluated how the percentage of positive swabs and the cycle threshold of the swabs changed over time. We also compared the cycle threshold between the two hospitals. RESULTS: Over the 6-week study period we collected 164 floor swabs from the rooms of 13 patients. The overall percentage of swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 93% and the median cycle threshold was 33.4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 30.8, 37.2). On day 0 of swabbing the percentage of swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 88% and the median cycle threshold was 33.6 (IQR: 31.8, 38.2) compared to swabs performed on day 2 or later where the percentage of swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 98% and the cycle threshold was 33.2 (IQR: 30.6, 35.6). We found that viral detection did not change with increasing time (since the first sample collection) over the sampling period, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.65 per day (95% CI 0.68, 4.02; p = 0.27). Similarly, viral detection did not change with increasing distance from the patient's bed (1 m, 2 m, or 3 m), OR 0.85 per metre (95% CI 0.38, 1.88; p = 0.69). The cycle threshold was lower (i.e., more virus) in The Ottawa Hospital (median quantification cycle [Cq] 30.8) where floors were cleaned once daily compared to the Toronto hospital (median Cq 37.2) where floors were cleaned twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to detect SARS-CoV-2 on the floors in rooms of patients with COVID-19. The viral burden did not vary over time or by distance from the patient's bed. These results suggest floor swabbing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a built environment such as a hospital room is both accurate and robust to variation in sampling location and duration of occupancy.