Dataset Information

Association of Intensive Care Unit Patient Load and Demand With Mortality Rates in US Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although strain on hospital capacity has been associated with increased mortality in nonpandemic settings, studies are needed to examine the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care capacity and mortality.

Objective

To examine whether COVID-19 mortality was associated with COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) strain.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study was conducted among veterans with COVID-19, as confirmed by polymerase chain reaction or antigen testing in the laboratory from March through August 2020, cared for at any Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital with 10 or more patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. The follow-up period was through November 2020. Data were analyzed from March to November 2020.

Exposures

Receiving treatment for COVID-19 in the ICU during a period of increased COVID-19 ICU load, with load defined as mean number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the patient's hospital stay divided by the number of ICU beds at that facility, or increased COVID-19 ICU demand, with demand defined as mean number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the patient's stay divided by the maximum number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU.

Main outcomes and measures

All-cause mortality was recorded through 30 days after discharge from the hospital.

Results

Among 8516 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 88 VA hospitals, 8014 (94.1%) were men and mean (SD) age was 67.9 (14.2) years. Mortality varied over time, with 218 of 954 patients (22.9%) dying in March, 399 of 1594 patients (25.0%) dying in April, 143 of 920 patients (15.5%) dying in May, 179 of 1314 patients (13.6%) dying in June, 297 of 2373 patients (12.5%) dying in July, and 174 of 1361 (12.8%) patients dying in August (P < .001). Patients with COVID-19 who were treated in the ICU during periods of increased COVID-19 ICU demand had increased risk of mortality compared with patients treated during periods of low COVID-19 ICU demand (ie, demand of ≤25%); the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.81-1.22; P = .93) for patients treated when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 25% to 50%, 1.19 (95% CI, 0.95-1.48; P = .13) when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 50% to 75%, and 1.94 (95% CI, 1.46-2.59; P < .001) when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 75% to 100%. No association between COVID-19 ICU demand and mortality was observed for patients with COVID-19 not in the ICU. The association between COVID-19 ICU load and mortality was not consistent over time (ie, early vs late in the pandemic).

Conclusions and relevance

This cohort study found that although facilities augmented ICU capacity during the pandemic, strains on critical care capacity were associated with increased COVID-19 ICU mortality. Tracking COVID-19 ICU demand may be useful to hospital administrators and health officials as they coordinate COVID-19 admissions across hospitals to optimize outcomes for patients with this illness.

SUBMITTER: Bravata DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7816100 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLittle contemporary information is available about comparative performance between Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals, particularly related to mortality and readmission rates, 2 important outcomes of care.ObjectiveTo assess and compare mortality and readmission rates among men in VA and non-VA hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional analysis involving male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older hospitalized between 2010 and 2013 in VA and non-VA acute care hospitals for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia using the Medicare Standard Analytic Files and Enrollment Database together with VA administrative claims data. To avoid confounding geographic effects with health care system effects, we studied VA and non-VA hospitals within the same metropolitan statistical area (MSA).ExposuresHospitalization in a VA or non-VA hospital in MSAs that contained at least 1 VA and non-VA hospital.Main outcomes and measuresFor each condition, 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates and risk-standardized readmission rates for VA and non-VA hospitals. Mean aggregated within-MSA differences in mortality and readmission rates were also assessed.ResultsWe studied 104 VA and 1513 non-VA hospitals, with each condition-outcome analysis cohort for VA and non-VA hospitals containing at least 7900 patients (men; ≥65 years), in 92 MSAs. Mortality rates were lower in VA hospitals than non-VA hospitals for AMI (13.5% vs 13.7%, P = .02; -0.2 percentage-point difference) and HF (11.4% vs 11.9%, P = .008; -0.5 percentage-point difference), but higher for pneumonia (12.6% vs 12.2%, P = .045; 0.4 percentage-point difference). In contrast, readmission rates were higher in VA hospitals for all 3 conditions (AMI, 17.8% vs 17.2%, 0.6 percentage-point difference; HF, 24.7% vs 23.5%, 1.2 percentage-point difference; pneumonia, 19.4% vs 18.7%, 0.7 percentage-point difference, all P < .001). In within-MSA comparisons, VA hospitals had lower mortality rates for AMI (percentage-point difference, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.40 to -0.04) and HF (-0.63; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.31), and mortality rates for pneumonia were not significantly different (-0.03; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.40); however, VA hospitals had higher readmission rates for AMI (0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.75), HF (0.97; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.34), or pneumonia (0.66; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.91).Conclusions and relevanceAmong older men with AMI, HF, or pneumonia, hospitalization at VA hospitals, compared with hospitalization at non-VA hospitals, was associated with lower 30-day risk-standardized all-cause mortality rates for AMI and HF, and higher 30-day risk-standardized all-cause readmission rates for all 3 conditions, both nationally and within similar geographic areas, although absolute differences between these outcomes at VA and non-VA hospitals were small.

Project description:ImportanceSurgical site infections (SSIs) are potentially preventable complications that are associated with excess morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo determine the excess costs associated with total, deep, and superficial SSIs among all operations and for high-volume surgical specialties.Design, setting, and participantsSurgical patients from 129 Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals were included. The Veterans Health Administration Decision Support System and VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program databases were used to assess costs associated with SSIs among VA patients who underwent surgery in fiscal year 2010.Main outcomes and measuresLinear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate incremental costs associated with SSIs, controlling for patient risk factors, surgical risk factors, and hospital-level variation in costs. Costs of the index hospitalization and subsequent 30-day readmissions were included. Additional analysis determined potential cost savings of quality improvement programs to reduce SSI rates at hospitals with the highest risk-adjusted SSI rates.ResultsAmong 54,233 VA patients who underwent surgery, 1756 (3.2%) experienced an SSI. Overall, 0.8% of the cohort had a deep SSI, and 2.4% had a superficial SSI. The mean unadjusted costs were $31,580 and $52,620 for patients without and with an SSI, respectively. In the risk-adjusted analyses, the relative costs were 1.43 times greater for patients with an SSI than for patients without an SSI (95% CI, 1.34-1.52; difference, $11,876). Deep SSIs were associated with 1.93 times greater costs (95% CI, 1.71-2.18; difference, $25,721), and superficial SSIs were associated with 1.25 times greater costs (95% CI, 1.17-1.35; difference, $7003). Among the highest-volume specialties, the greatest mean cost attributable to SSIs was $23,755 among patients undergoing neurosurgery, followed by patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, general surgery, peripheral vascular surgery, and urologic surgery. If hospitals in the highest 10th percentile (ie, the worst hospitals) reduced their SSI rates to the rates of the hospitals in the 50th percentile, the Veterans Health Administration would save approximately $6.7 million per year.Conclusions and relevanceSurgical site infections are associated with significant excess costs. Among analyzed surgery types, deep SSIs and SSIs among neurosurgery patients are associated with the highest risk-adjusted costs. Large potential savings per year may be achieved by decreasing SSI rates.

Project description:BackgroundAt the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a rapid increase in the use of telehealth services at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which was accelerated by state and local policies mandating stay-at-home orders and restricting nonurgent in-person appointments. Even though the VA was an early adopter of telehealth in the late 1990s, the vast majority of VA outpatient care continued to be face-to-face visits through February 2020.ObjectiveWe compared telehealth service use at a VA Medical Center, Greater Los Angeles across 3 clinics (primary care [PC], cardiology, and home-based primary care [HBPC]) 12 months before and 12 months after the onset of COVID-19 (March 2020).MethodsWe used a parallel mixed methods approach including simultaneous quantitative and qualitative approaches. The distribution of monthly outpatient and telehealth visits, as well as telephone and VA Video Connect encounters were examined for each clinic. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 34 staff involved in telehealth services within PC, cardiology, and HBPC during COVID-19. All audiotaped interviews were transcribed and analyzed by identifying key themes.ResultsPrior to COVID-19, telehealth use was minimal at all 3 clinics, but at the onset of COVID-19, telehealth use increased substantially at all 3 clinics. Telephone was the main modality of patient choice. Compared with PC and cardiology, video-based care had the greatest increase in HBPC. Several important barriers (multiple steps for videoconferencing, creation of new scheduling grids, and limited access to the internet and internet-connected devices) and facilitators (flexibility in using different video-capable platforms, technical support for patients, identification of staff telehealth champions, and development of workflows to help incorporate telehealth into treatment plans) were noted.ConclusionsTechnological issues must be addressed at the forefront of telehealth evolution to achieve access for all patient populations with different socioeconomic backgrounds, living situations and locations, and health conditions. The unprecedented expansion of telehealth during COVID-19 provides opportunities to create lasting telehealth solutions to improve access to care beyond the pandemic.