Project description:IntroductionOn March 13, 2020, the U.S. declared COVID-19 to be a national emergency. As communities adopted mitigation strategies, there were potential changes in the trends of injuries treated in emergency department. This study provides national estimates of injury-related emergency department visits in the U.S. before and during the pandemic.MethodsA secondary retrospective cohort study was conducted using trained, on-site hospital coders collecting data for injury-related emergency department cases from medical records from a nationally representative sample of 66 U.S. hospital emergency departments. Injury emergency department visit estimates in the year before the pandemic (January 1, 2019-December 31, 2019) were compared with estimates of the year of pandemic declaration (January 1, 2020-December 31, 2020) for overall nonfatal injury-related emergency department visits, motor vehicle, falls-related, self-harm-, assault-related, and poisoning-related emergency department visits.ResultsThere was an estimated 1.7 million (25%) decrease in nonfatal injury-related emergency department visits during April through June 2020 compared with those of the same timeframe in 2019. Similar decreases were observed for emergency department visits because of motor vehicle‒related injuries (199,329; 23.3%) and falls-related injuries (497,971; 25.1%). Monthly 2020 estimates remained relatively in line with 2019 estimates for self-harm‒, assault-, and poisoning-related emergency department visits.ConclusionsThese findings provide updates for clinical and public health practitioners on the changing profile of injury-related emergency department visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the short- and long-term impacts of the pandemic is important to preventing future injuries.
Project description:IntroductionThe novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States (US) prompted widespread containment measures such as shelter-in-place (SIP) orders. The goal of our study was to determine whether there was a significant change in overall volume and proportion of emergency department (ED) encounters since SIP measures began.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study using billing data from January 1, 2017-April 20, 2020. We received data from 141 EDs across 16 states, encompassing a convenience sample of 26,223,438 ED encounters. We used a generalized least squares regression approach to ascertain changes for overall ED encounters, hospital admissions, and New York University ED visit algorithm categories.ResultsED encounters decreased significantly in the post-SIP period. Overall, there was a 39.6% decrease in ED encounters compared to expected volume in the pre-SIP period. Emergent encounters decreased by 35.8%, while non-emergent encounters decreased by 52.1%. Psychiatric encounters decreased by 30.2%. Encounters related to drugs and alcohol decreased the least, by 9.3% and 27.5%, respectively.ConclusionThere was a significant overall reduction in ED utilization in the post-SIP period. There was a greater reduction in lower acuity encounters than higher acuity encounters. Of all subtypes of ED encounters, substance abuse- and alcohol-related encounters reduced the least, and injury-related encounters reduced the most.
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine the public's likelihood of being willing to use an emergency department (ED) for urgent/emergent illness during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsAn institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional survey of a non-probability sample from Amazon Mechanical Turk was administered May 24-25, 2020. Change in self-reported willingness to use an ED before and during the pandemic (primary outcome) was assessed via McNemar's test; COVID-19 knowledge and perceptions were secondary outcomes.ResultsThere were 855 survey participants (466 [54.5%] male; 699 [81.8%] White; median age 39). Proportion reporting likelihood to use the ED pre-pandemic (71% [604/855]) decreased significantly during the pandemic (49% [417/855]; P < 0.001); those unlikely to visit the ED increased significantly during the pandemic (41% [347/855] vs 22% [417/855], P < 0.001). Participants were unlikely to use the ED during the pandemic if they were unlikely to use it pre-pandemic (adjusted odds ratio, 4.55; 95% confidence interval, 3.09-6.7) or correctly answered more COVID-19 knowledge questions (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.60). Furthermore, 23.4% (n = 200) of respondents believed the pandemic was not a serious threat to society. Respondents with higher COVID-19 knowledge scores were more likely to view the pandemic as serious (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.82).ConclusionsThis survey study investigated the public's willingness to use the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only 49% of survey respondents were willing to visit the ED during a pandemic if they felt ill compared with 71% before the pandemic.
Project description:Novel Coronavirus (COVID 19) has usurped human peace and mobility. Since December 2019, the virus has claimed the lives of 87,816 people across the globe as of April 9, 2020 with India reporting a high case fatality of 3.4%. Among the vulnerable population, elderly people, and patients with comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic life-threatening illnesses, such as COPD and advanced malignancies are susceptible to COVID-19 infection and may have poor clinical outcomes. Considering the imbalance in demand and supply of healthcare resources, initiating palliative care will be essential to alleviate the suffering of such patients. The current paper deliberates on the following aspects of palliative care delivery in the community; the need for palliative care in a pandemic crisis, the role of telemedicine in palliative care delivery in the community, the vital role of a family physician in providing primary palliative care in the community and a "wholistic" community palliative care package to serve the needy in the community.
Project description:IntroductionThe increase in access to Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide causes inefficiencies, but also signals its importance. The Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak allows to study the reactions of patients to the news about the spreading of the infection, which may have generated the fear that ED was no longer safe.MethodsWe study access to ED of a large teaching hospital in Brescia - one of the most hit provinces in Italy by Covid-19 - during the pandemic (from the announcement of the first cases to the explosion of the pandemic, to months after end of the acute phase) to study how patients reacted to the news that ED could no longer be a safe place. We analyse triage code, mode of arrival to ED, and accesses related to chest and abdominal pain, to evaluate who was discouraged most.ResultsAccesses have drastically reduced immediately after the news of the first contagion. During the lockdown accesses and admissions to hospital ward have decreased; this may mean that some patients may have suffered reduced health or increased mortality risks because of this decision. At the end of June accesses to ED and admissions to hospital ward are still lower than usual.DiscussionFear of contagion and appeals not to use ED directly by Covid-19 patients may have discouraged access also for pressing health need.
Project description:To understand and analyse the global impact of COVID-19 on outpatient services, inpatient care, elective surgery, and perioperative colorectal cancer care, a DElayed COloRectal cancer surgery (DECOR-19) survey was conducted in collaboration with numerous international colorectal societies with the objective of obtaining several learning points from the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on our colorectal cancer patients which will assist us in the ongoing management of our colorectal cancer patients and to provide us safe oncological pathways for future outbreaks.
Project description:ContextCOVID-19 created unprecedented demand for palliative care at a time when in-person communication was highly restricted, straining efforts to care for patients and families.ObjectivesTo qualitatively explore the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of palliative care clinicians. Specifically we sought to: 1) Describe the strategies adopted by palliative care clinicians to cope with new challenges including patient and clinician isolation, prognostication of an emergent disease, and rapidly rising numbers of severely ill patients; 2) Identify additions or adjustments to in-person and system-related palliative care training, methods, and tools made during pandemics.MethodsThis descriptive qualitative study utilized a thematic approach for data analysis of individual, semi-structured interviews with palliative care clinicians (n = 25). Codes, categories, and emerging themes were identified through an iterative, comparative method. Methods align with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) RESULTS: A theme of "Expanding the reach of palliative care for today and the future" was identified with three subthemes: 1) Redefining attitudes and hardship due to collective uncertainty, 2) Breaking with the past towards integrated concept of palliative care, and 3) Building capacity through primary palliative care training.ConclusionCOVID-19 forced hospital systems to consider the inclusion of palliative care in unforeseen ways due to an uncontrollable, unpredictable disease. Faced with unprecedented uncertainty, palliative care clinicians utilized strategies for integration and innovation across hospitals, particularly in intensive care units and emergency departments. A need to build capacity through increased primary palliative care access and training was identified.
Project description:BackgroundIt is not known if initial reductions in hospitalization for stroke and myocardial infarction early during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic were followed by subsequent increases. We describe the rates of emergency department visits for stroke and myocardial infarction through the pandemic phases.MethodsWe used linked administrative data to compare the weekly age- and sex-standardized rates of visits for stroke and myocardial infarction in Ontario, Canada in the first 9 months of 2020 to the mean baseline rates (2015-2019) using rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We compared care and outcomes by pandemic phases (pre-pandemic was January-March, lockdown was March-May, early reopening was May-July, and late reopening was July-September).ResultsWe identified 15,682 visits in 2020 for ischemic stroke (59.2%; n = 9279), intracerebral hemorrhage (12.2%; n = 1912), or myocardial infarction (28.6%; n = 4491). The weekly rates for stroke visits in 2020 were lower during the lockdown and early reopening than at baseline (RR 0.76, 95% CI [0.66, 0.87] for the largest weekly decrease). The weekly rates for myocardial infarction visits were lower during the lockdown only (RR 0.61, 95% CI [0.46, 0.77] for the largest weekly decrease), and there was a compensatory increase in visits following reopening. Ischemic stroke 30-day mortality was increased during the lockdown phase (11.5% pre-coronavirus disease; 12.2% during lockdown; 9.2% during early reopening; and 10.6% during late reopening, P = 0.015).ConclusionAfter an initial reduction in visits for stroke and myocardial infarction, there was a compensatory increase in visits for myocardial infarction. The death rate after ischemic stroke was higher during the lockdown than in other phases.
Project description:BackgroundDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period, the use of emergency services with pediatric non-COVID patients has decreased considerably. We aimed to examine whether there was a change in the demographic data, triage profile, causes, management, and cost of pediatric emergency department (PED) visits of non-COVID patients during the pandemic period.MethodsThis study was a retrospective, single-center, observational comparative study that was conducted at the PED. Patient records were examined during "the pandemic spring" and the same period of the previous year. Patient demographics, waiting time, and outcome of the PED visit were analyzed in the entire population of children admitted to the PED during the study period, whereas more precise data such as the reason for PED use, duration of symptoms, urgency levels according to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), final diagnosis, management, and cost of patient care were analyzed in a sample of admitted patients. We used the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test for statistical analyses.ResultsA total of 62,593 PED visits occurred. During the pandemic period, PED visits showed a decrease of 55.8% compared to the previous year. Patients included in the sampling study group were selected using a systematic random sampling method. The median waiting time during the pandemic period was significantly shorter than the previous year (median 14 min [IQR: 5-32] vs. median 5 min [IQR: 2-16]; p<0.001). The median duration of symptoms was 1 day (1-2) in both groups. Emergency Severity Index (ESI) levels I, II, and III showed a significant increase (27.7% vs. 37.3%) in triage scoring compared to levels IV and V (72.3% vs. 62.7%) during the pandemic period (p<0.001). The median cost per patient during the pandemic period was statistically higher compared to the previous year ($19.57 [19.57-40.50] vs. $25.34 [31.50-52.01]; p<0.001). Overall costs during the pandemic period had a 1.6-fold decline.ConclusionWe highlighted the changes in an ordinary PED profile during an extraordinary period. A shift in ESI levels in a more emergent direction was observed. While the number of nonurgent patients, especially those with infections, decreased, the rates of surgical cases, acute neurological and heart diseases, home accidents, and poisoning increased relative to the pre-pandemic period.