Evaluation of Telepsychiatry Services Implementation in Medical and Psychiatric Inpatient Settings: A Mixed-Methods Study

Introduction: Telepsychiatry consultation for rural providers may help address local staffing needs while ensuring timely and appropriate care from behavioral health experts. The purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of a telepsychiatry consultation service within medical and psychiatry inpatient units of hospitals serving predominantly rural areas. Methods: A mixed-methods study with qualitative interviews of site personnel and quantitative assessment of electronic health record data was conducted across 6 facilities in 3 U.S. states between June 2019 and May 2021. We interviewed 15 health care professionals 6 months after telepsychiatry was implemented, and we identified emerging themes related to the inpatient telepsychiatry service implementation and utilization through an inductive qualitative analysis approach. We then applied the themes emerging from this study to existing implementation science theoretical frameworks. Results: Telepsychiatry consultation was utilized for 437 medical inpatient cases and 531 psychiatric inpatient units. Average encounters by site ranged from 1 to 20 per month. The three main domains from the qualitative assessment included the impact on the care process (the partnership between inpatient units and the telehealth hub, and logistical dynamics), the care provider (resource availability in inpatient units and changes in inpatient units' capability), and the patient (impact on patient safety and care). Discussion: Implementation of a telepsychiatry service in the inpatient setting holds the promise of being beneficial to the patient, local hospital, and the rural community. In this study, we found that implementing this telepsychiatry service improved the clinical care processes, while addressing both the providers' and patients' needs.

Comparison of mRNA vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated hospitalization by vaccination source: Immunization information systems, electronic medical records, and self-report-IVY Network, February 1-August 31, 2022

BACKGROUND

Accurate determination of COVID-19 vaccination status is necessary to produce reliable COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. Data comparing differences in COVID-19 VE by vaccination sources (i.e., immunization information systems [IIS], electronic medical records [EMR], and self-report) are limited. We compared the number of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by each of these sources to assess agreement as well as differences in VE estimates using vaccination data from each individual source and vaccination data adjudicated from all sources combined.

METHODS

Adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized with COVID-like illness at 21 hospitals in 18 U.S. states participating in the IVY Network during February 1-August 31, 2022, were enrolled. Numbers of COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by IIS, EMR, and self-report were compared in kappa agreement analyses. Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was estimated using multivariable logistic regression models to compare the odds of COVID-19 vaccination between SARS-CoV-2-positive case-patients and SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients. VE was estimated using each source of vaccination data separately and all sources combined.

RESULTS

A total of 4499 patients were included. Patients with ≥1 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose were identified most frequently by self-report (n = 3570, 79 %), followed by IIS (n = 3272, 73 %) and EMR (n = 3057, 68 %). Agreement was highest between IIS and self-report for 4 doses with a kappa of 0.77 (95 % CI = 0.73-0.81). VE point estimates of 3 doses against COVID-19 hospitalization were substantially lower when using vaccination data from EMR only (VE = 31 %, 95 % CI = 16 %-43 %) than when using all sources combined (VE = 53 %, 95 % CI = 41 %-62%).

CONCLUSION

Vaccination data from EMR only may substantially underestimate COVID-19 VE.

Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Death Among Immunocompetent Adults During the Omicron Variant Period - IVY Network, 19 U.S. States, February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023

As of April 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 1.1 million deaths in the United States, with approximately 75% of deaths occurring among adults aged ≥65 years (1). Data on the durability of protection provided by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination against critical outcomes of COVID-19 are limited beyond the Omicron BA.1 lineage period (December 26, 2021-March 26, 2022). In this case-control analysis, the effectiveness of 2-4 monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses was evaluated against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against IMV and in-hospital death was 62% among adults aged ≥18 years and 69% among those aged ≥65 years. When stratified by time since last dose, VE was 76% at 7-179 days, 54% at 180-364 days, and 56% at ≥365 days. Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination provided substantial, durable protection against IMV and in-hospital death among adults during the Omicron variant period. All adults should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination to prevent critical COVID-19-associated outcomes.

The impact of telehealth in sepsis care: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Sepsis is associated with significant mortality. Telehealth may improve the quality of early sepsis care, but the use and impact of telehealth applications for sepsis remain unclear. We aim to describe the telehealth interventions that have been used to facilitate sepsis care, and to summarize the reported effect of telehealth on sepsis outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

We identified articles reporting telehealth use for sepsis using an English-language search of PubMed, CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), Public Health (ProQuest), and Web of Science databases with no restrictions on publication date.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies described the use of telehealth as an intervention for treating sepsis. Only comparative effectiveness analyses were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, two investigators independently selected articles for inclusion and abstracted data. A random-effects subgroup analysis was conducted on patient survival treated with and without telehealth.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies were included, involving 188,418 patients with sepsis. Thirteen studies used observational study designs, and the most common telehealth applications were provider-to-provider telehealth consultation and intensive care unit telehealth. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was significantly high. Telehealth use was associated with higher survival, especially in settings with low control group survival. The effect of telehealth on other care processes and outcomes were more varied and likely dependent on hospital-level factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth has been used in diverse applications for sepsis care, and it may improve patient outcomes in certain contexts. Additional interventional trials and cost-based analyses would clarify the causal role of telehealth in improving sepsis outcomes.

Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A(H3N2)-Associated Hospitalized Illness: United States, 2022

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with historically low influenza circulation during the 2020-2021 season, followed by an increase in influenza circulation during the 2021-2022 US season. The 2a.2 subgroup of the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b subclade that predominated was antigenically different from the vaccine strain.

METHODS

To understand the effectiveness of the 2021-2022 vaccine against hospitalized influenza illness, a multistate sentinel surveillance network enrolled adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and tested for influenza by a molecular assay. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) was measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative controls, adjusting for confounders. A separate analysis was performed to illustrate bias introduced by including SARS-CoV-2-positive controls.

RESULTS

A total of 2334 patients, including 295 influenza cases (47% vaccinated), 1175 influenza- and SARS-CoV-2-negative controls (53% vaccinated), and 864 influenza-negative and SARS-CoV-2-positive controls (49% vaccinated), were analyzed. Influenza VE was 26% (95% CI: -14% to 52%) among adults aged 18-64 years, -3% (-54% to 31%) among adults aged ≥65 years, and 50% (15-71%) among adults aged 18-64 years without immunocompromising conditions. Estimated VE decreased with inclusion of SARS-CoV-2-positive controls.

CONCLUSIONS

During a season where influenza A(H3N2) was antigenically different from the vaccine virus, vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of influenza hospitalization in younger immunocompetent adults. However, vaccination did not provide protection in adults ≥65 years of age. Improvements in vaccines, antivirals, and prevention strategies are warranted.

Protection of Messenger RNA Vaccines Against Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Adults Over the First Year Following Authorization in the United States

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization.

METHODS

Case-control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states 11 March-15 December 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with 2 doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (<180 vs ≥180 days since dose 2) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines.

RESULTS

A total of 10 078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE <180 days was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88-91) versus 82% (95% CI, 79-85) at ≥180 days (P < .001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, P < .001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, P < .001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) (91% to 87%, P = .005), and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, P < .001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In a period largely predating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of 2 mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months.

Presence of symptoms 6 weeks after COVID-19 among vaccinated and unvaccinated US healthcare personnel: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Although COVID-19 vaccines offer protection against infection and severe disease, there is limited information on the effect of vaccination on prolonged symptoms following COVID-19. Our objective was to determine differences in prevalence of prolonged symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel (HCP) by vaccination status, and to assess differences in timing of return to work.

DESIGN

Cohort analysis of HCP with COVID-19 enrolled in a multicentre vaccine effectiveness study. HCP with COVID-19 between December 2020 and August 2021 were followed up 6 weeks after illness onset.

SETTING

Health systems in 12 US states.

PARTICIPANTS

HCP participating in a vaccine effectiveness study were eligible for inclusion if they had laboratory-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA vaccination (symptom onset ≥14 days after two doses) or no prior vaccination. Among 681 eligible participants, 419 (61%) completed a follow-up survey to assess symptoms reported 6 weeks after illness onset.

EXPOSURES

Two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared with no COVID-19 vaccine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 illness and days to return to work.

RESULTS

Among 419 HCP with COVID-19, 298 (71%) reported one or more COVID-like symptoms 6 weeks after illness onset, with a lower prevalence among vaccinated participants compared with unvaccinated participants (60.6% vs 79.1%; adjusted risk ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84). Following their illness, vaccinated HCP returned to work a median 2.0 days (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0) sooner than unvaccinated HCP (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine among HCP with COVID-19 illness was associated with decreased prevalence of COVID-like symptoms at 6 weeks and earlier return to work.

Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3).

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

The Practice Change and Clinical Impact of Lung-Protective Ventilation Initiated in the Emergency Department: A Secondary Analysis of Individual Patient-Level Data From Prior Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies

OBJECTIVES

Mechanically ventilated emergency department (ED) patients experience high morbidity and mortality. In a prior trial at our center, ED-based lung-protective ventilation was associated with improved care delivery and outcomes. Whether this strategy has persisted in the years after the trial remains unclear. The objective was to assess practice change and clinical outcomes associated with ED lung-protective ventilation.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of individual patient-level data from prior clinical trials and cohort studies.

SETTING

ED and ICUs of a single academic center.

PATIENTS

Mechanically ventilated adults.

INTERVENTIONS

A lung-protective ventilator protocol used as the default approach in the ED.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary ventilator-related outcome was tidal volume, and the primary clinical outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, hospital-, and ICU-free days. Multivariable logistic regression, propensity score (PS)-adjustment, and multiple a priori subgroup analyses were used to evaluate outcome as a function of the intervention. A total of 1,796 patients in the preintervention period and 1,403 patients in the intervention period were included. In the intervention period, tidal volume was reduced from 8.2 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) (7.3-9.1) to 6.5 mL/kg PBW (6.1-7.1), and low tidal volume ventilation increased from 46.8% to 96.2% ( p < 0.01). The intervention period was associated with lower mortality (35.9% vs 19.1%), remaining significant after multivariable logistic regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.53; p < 0.01). Similar results were seen after PS adjustment and in subgroups. The intervention group had more ventilator- (18.8 [10.1] vs 14.1 [11.9]; p < 0.01), hospital- (12.2 [9.6] vs 9.4 [9.5]; p < 0.01), and ICU-free days (16.6 [10.1] vs 13.1 [11.1]; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

ED lung-protective ventilation has persisted in the years since implementation and was associated with improved outcomes. These data suggest the use of ED-based lung-protective ventilation as a means to improve outcome.

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021-April 2022

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE.

Results

A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary.

Conclusions

Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Outcomes Associated With Rural Emergency Department Provider-to-Provider Telehealth for Sepsis Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that provider-to-provider tele-emergency department care is associated with more 28-day hospital-free days and improved Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline adherence in rural emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

Multicenter (n=23), propensity-matched, cohort study using medical records of patients with sepsis from rural hospitals in an established, on-demand, rural video tele-ED network in the upper Midwest between August 2016 and June 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day hospital-free days, with secondary outcomes of 28-day inhospital mortality and SSC guideline adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 1,191 patients were included in the analysis, with tele-ED used for 326 (27%). Tele-ED cases were more likely to be transferred to another hospital (88% versus 8%, difference 79%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 75% to 83%). After matching and regression adjustment, tele-ED cases did not have more 28-day hospital-free days (difference 0.07 days more for tele-ED, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.17) or 28-day inhospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.60). Adherence with both the SSC 3-hour bundle (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.22) and complete bundle (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.60) were similar. An a priori-defined subgroup of patients treated by advanced practice providers suggested that the mortality was lower in the cohort with tele-ED use (aOR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.73) despite no significant difference in complete SSC bundle adherence (aOR 2.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 15.86).

CONCLUSION

Rural emergency department patients treated with provider-to-provider tele-ED care in a mature network appear to have similar clinical outcomes to those treated without.

Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults Aged ≥65 Years - IVY Network, 18 States, September 8-November 30, 2022

Monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, designed against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2, successfully reduced COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization has declined over time, likely related to a combination of factors, including waning immunity and, with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages, immune evasion (3). To address these factors, on September 1, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster (bivalent booster) dose, developed against the spike protein from ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, for persons who had completed at least a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (with or without monovalent booster doses) ≥2 months earlier (4). Data on the effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States are lacking, including among older adults, who are at highest risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness. During September 8-November 30, 2022, the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY) Network§ assessed effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose received after ≥2 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥65 years. When compared with unvaccinated persons, VE of a bivalent booster dose received ≥7 days before illness onset (median = 29 days) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 84%. Compared with persons who received ≥2 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, relative VE of a bivalent booster dose was 73%. These early findings show that a bivalent booster dose provided strong protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization in older adults and additional protection among persons with previous monovalent-only mRNA vaccination. All eligible persons, especially adults aged ≥65 years, should receive a bivalent booster dose to maximize protection against COVID-19 hospitalization this winter season. Additional strategies to prevent respiratory illness, such as masking in indoor public spaces, should also be considered, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high (4,5).

Hospitals That Report Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Bundle Compliance Have More Structured Sepsis Performance Improvement

PURPOSE

Sepsis is a common cause of death. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services severe sepsis/septic shock (SEP-1) bundle is focused on improving sepsis outcomes, but it is unknown which quality improvement (QI) practices are associated with SEP-1 compliance and reduced sepsis mortality. The objectives of this study were to compare sepsis QI practices in SEP-1 reporting and nonreporting hospitals and to measure the association between sepsis QI processes, SEP-1 performance, and sepsis mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study linked survey data on QI practices from Iowa hospitals to SEP-1 performance data and mortality. Characteristics of hospitals and sepsis QI practices were compared by SEP-1 reporting status. Univariable and multivariable logistic and linear regression estimated the association of QI practices with SEP-1 performance and observed-to-expected sepsis mortality ratios.

RESULTS

One hundred percent of Iowa's 118 hospitals completed the survey. SEP-1 reporting hospitals were more likely to have sepsis QI practices, including reporting sepsis quality to providers (64% versus 38%, P = 0.026) and using the case review process to develop sepsis care plans (87% versus 64%, P = 0.013). Sepsis QI practices were not associated with increased SEP-1 scores. A sepsis registry was associated with decreased odds of being in the bottom quartile of sepsis mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.96, P = 0.041), and presence of a sepsis committee was associated with lower hospital-specific mortality (observed-to-expected ratio, -0.11; 95% confidence interval, -0.20 to 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals reporting SEP-1 compliance conduct more sepsis QI practices. Most QI practices are not associated with increased SEP-1 performance or decreased sepsis mortality. Future work could explore how to implement these performance improvement practices in hospitals not reporting SEP-1 compliance.

Ascertainment of vaccination status by self-report versus source documentation: Impact on measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 vaccination might facilitate rapid evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) when source documentation (e.g., immunization information systems [IIS]) is not readily available. We evaluated the concordance of COVID-19 vaccination status ascertained by self-report versus source documentation and its impact on VE estimates.

METHODS

Hospitalized adults (≥18 years) admitted to 18 U.S. medical centers March-June 2021 were enrolled, including COVID-19 cases and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Patients were interviewed about COVID-19 vaccination. Abstractors simultaneously searched IIS, medical records, and other sources for vaccination information. To compare vaccination status by self-report and documentation, we estimated percent agreement and unweighted kappa with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then calculated VE in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization of full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA product ≥14 days prior to illness onset) independently using data from self-report or source documentation.

RESULTS

Of 2520 patients, 594 (24%) did not have self-reported vaccination information to assign vaccination group; these patients tended to be more severely ill. Among 1924 patients with both self-report and source documentation information, 95.0% (95% CI: 93.9-95.9%) agreement was observed, with a kappa of 0.9127 (95% CI: 0.9109-0.9145). VE was 86% (95% CI: 81-90%) by self-report data only and 85% (95% CI: 81-89%) by source documentation data only.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-quarter of hospitalized patients could not provide self-report COVID-19 vaccination status. Among patients with self-report information, there was high concordance with source documented status. Self-report may be a reasonable source of COVID-19 vaccination information for timely VE assessment for public health action.

Awareness With Paralysis Among Critically Ill Emergency Department Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

In mechanically ventilated patients, awareness with paralysis (AWP) can have devastating consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and thoughts of suicide. Single-center data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate an event rate for AWP factors higher than that reported from the operating room. However, there remains a lack of data on AWP among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The objective was to assess the proportion of ED patients experiencing AWP and investigate modifiable variables associated with its occurrence.

DESIGN

An a priori planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, before-and-after clinical trial.

SETTING

The ED of three academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

Mechanically ventilated adult patients that received neuromuscular blockers.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All data related to sedation and analgesia were collected. AWP was the primary outcome, assessed with the modified Brice questionnaire, and was independently adjudicated by three expert reviewers. Perceived threat, in the causal pathway for PTSD, was the secondary outcome. A total of 388 patients were studied. The proportion of patients experiencing AWP was 3.4% ( n = 13), the majority of whom received rocuronium ( n = 12/13; 92.3%). Among patients who received rocuronium, 5.5% ( n = 12/230) experienced AWP, compared with 0.6% ( n = 1/158) among patients who did not receive rocuronium in the ED (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.15). Patients experiencing AWP had a higher mean ( sd ) threat perception scale score, compared with patients without AWP (15.6 [5.8] vs 7.7 [6.0]; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

AWP was present in a concerning proportion of mechanically ventilated ED patients, was associated with rocuronium exposure in the ED, and led to increased levels of perceived threat, placing patients at greater risk for PTSD. Studies that aim to further quantify AWP in this vulnerable population and eliminate its occurrence are urgently needed.

mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

The study objective was to evaluate 2- and 3-dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization among adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.

METHODS

We conducted a 21-site case-control analysis of 10 425 adults hospitalized in March to December 2021. Cases were hospitalized with COVID-19; controls were hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-negative). Participants were classified as follows: SOT recipient (n = 440), other immunocompromising condition (n = 1684), or immunocompetent (n = 8301). The VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was calculated as 1-adjusted odds ratio of prior vaccination among cases compared with controls.

RESULTS

Among SOT recipients, VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], -19% to 58%) for 2 doses and 77% (95% CI, 48% to 90%) for 3 doses. Among patients with other immunocompromising conditions, VE was 72% (95% CI, 64% to 79%) for 2 doses and 92% (95% CI, 85% to 95%) for 3 doses. Among immunocompetent patients, VE was 88% (95% CI, 87% to 90%) for 2 doses and 96% (95% CI, 83% to 99%) for 3 doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was lower for SOT recipients than immunocompetent adults and those with other immunocompromising conditions. Among SOT recipients, vaccination with 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine led to substantially greater protection than 2 doses.

Emergency department personnel patient care-related COVID-19 risk

OBJECTIVES

Emergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

Over 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.

CONCLUSIONS

Among unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Managing innovation: a qualitative study on the implementation of telehealth services in rural emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Telehealth studies have highlighted the positive benefits of having the service in rural areas. However, there is evidence of limited adoption and utilization. Our objective was to evaluate this gap by exploring U.S. healthcare systems' experience in implementing telehealth services in rural hospital emergency departments (TeleED) and by analyzing factors influencing its implementation and sustainability.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 key informants from six U.S. healthcare systems (hub sites) that provided TeleED services to 65 rural emergency departments (spoke sites). All used synchronous high-definition video to provide the service. We applied an inductive qualitative analysis approach to identify relevant quotes and themes related to TeleED service uptake facilitators and barriers.

RESULTS

We identified three stages of implementation: 1) the start-up stage; 2) the utilization stage; and 3) the sustainment stage. At each stage, we identified emerging factors that can facilitate or impede the process. We categorized these factors into eight domains: 1) strategies; 2) capability; 3) relationships; 4) financials; 5) protocols; 6) environment; 7) service characteristics; and 8) accountability.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of healthcare innovation can be influenced by multiple factors. Our study contributes to the field by highlighting key factors and domains that play roles in specific stages of telehealth operation in rural hospitals. By appreciating and responding to these domains, healthcare systems may achieve more predictable and favorable implementation outcomes. Moreover, we recommend strategies to motivate the diffusion of promising innovations such as telehealth.

A dual-center cohort study on the association between early deep sedation and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-SED study

BACKGROUND

Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days.

RESULTS

391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.

Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary Series and Booster Doses against Omicron Variant COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization in the United States

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a primary COVID-19 vaccine series plus a booster dose with a primary series alone for the prevention of Omicron variant COVID-19 hospitalization. Design: Multicenter observational case-control study using the test-negative design to evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE). Setting: Twenty-one hospitals in the United States (US). Participants: 3,181 adults hospitalized with an acute respiratory illness between December 26, 2021 and April 30, 2022, a period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1, BA.2) predominance. Participants included 1,572 (49%) case-patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and 1,609 (51%) control patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Median age was 64 years, 48% were female, and 21% were immunocompromised; 798 (25%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus booster, 1,326 (42%) were vaccinated with a primary series alone, and 1,057 (33%) were unvaccinated. Main Outcome Measures: VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated for a primary series plus a booster and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. VE analyses were stratified by immune status (immunocompetent; immunocompromised) because the recommended vaccine schedules are different for these groups. The primary analysis evaluated all COVID-19 vaccine types combined and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. Results: Among immunocompetent patients, VE against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization for a primary series plus one booster of any vaccine product dose was 77% (95% CI: 71-82%), and for a primary series alone was 44% (95% CI: 31-54%) (p<0.001). VE was higher for a boosted regimen than a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines used in the US (BNT162b2: primary series plus booster VE 80% (95% CI: 73-85%), primary series alone VE 46% (95% CI: 30-58%) [p<0.001]; mRNA-1273: primary series plus booster VE 77% (95% CI: 67-83%), primary series alone VE 47% (95% CI: 30-60%) [p<0.001]). Among immunocompromised patients, VE for a primary series of any vaccine product against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization was 60% (95% CI: 41-73%). Insufficient sample size has accumulated to calculate effectiveness of boosted regimens for immunocompromised patients. Conclusions: Among immunocompetent people, a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing COVID-19 hospitalization due to the Omicron variant.

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Progression to High Disease Severity in the United States

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.