Dataset Information

Impact of temporary closures of emergency departments during the COVID-19 outbreak on clinical outcomes for emergency patients in a metropolitan area.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, many emergency departments (EDs) were exposed to COVID-19 and were temporarily closed according to national protocol of Korea. We aimed to evaluate the effect of concurrent and recurrent temporary closures of EDs on the clinical outcomes of patients who visited EDs during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Methods

This cross-sectional study used a nationwide emergency patient database. Patients who visited one of the 46 EDs in Daegu and Gyeongbuk between January 21 and April 14, 2020 were included. The main exposure variable was the first medical contact (ED visit or 119 call to emergency medical services (EMS)) during closure of at least one ED. There were 25 temporary closures of six Level-1 and Level-2 EDs between February 18 and March 17, 2020. We constructed a dataset by performing bidirectional crossover matching and conducted a conditional logistic regression analysis where the primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of the 94,360 eligible study participants, 36,327 were classified into the non-EMS-use group and 10,116 were classified into the EMS-use group. In-hospital mortality rates were 2.0% and 1.6% for the temporary-closure and no-closure groups in the non-EMS-use group (p-value, 0.03) and 8.7% and 7.4% in the EMS-use group (p-value, 0.02), respectively. In the conditional logistic analysis for in-hospital mortality, the odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of the temporary-closure group compared the no-closure group were 1.22 (1.03-1.44) among the non-EMS-use group and 1.23 (1.04-1.46) among the EMS-use group.

Conclusion

The temporary closures of EDs due to the unpredicted COVID-19 exposure resulted in an increase in emergency patients' in-hospital mortality rates irrespective of whether they used EMS. Preparing regional EMS systems to cope with new outbreaks is essential to protect the safety of all citizens.

SUBMITTER: Lee DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7962989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Between 1998 and 2008, the number of hospital-based emergency departments (EDs) in the United States declined, while the number of ED visits increased, particularly visits by patients who were publicly insured and uninsured. Little is known about the hospital, community, and market factors associated with ED closures. Federal law requiring EDs to treat all in need regardless of a patient's ability to pay may make EDs more vulnerable to the market forces that govern US health care.To determine hospital, community, and market factors associated with ED closures.Emergency department and hospital organizational information from 1990 through 2009 was acquired from the American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Surveys (annual response rates ranging from 84%-92%) and merged with hospital financial and payer mix information available through 2007 from Medicare hospital cost reports. We evaluated 3 sets of risk factors: hospital characteristics (safety net [as defined by hospitals caring for more than double their Medicaid share of discharges compared with other hospitals within a 15-mile radius], ownership, teaching status, system membership, ED size, case mix), county population demographics (race, poverty, uninsurance, elderly), and market factors (ownership mix, profit margin, location in a competitive market, presence of other EDs).All general, acute, nonrural, short-stay hospitals in the United States with an operating ED anytime from 1990-2009.Closure of an ED during the study period.From 1990 to 2009, the number of hospitals with EDs in nonrural areas declined from 2446 to 1779, with 1041 EDs closing and 374 hospitals opening EDs. Based on analysis of 2814 urban acute-care hospitals, constituting 36,335 hospital-year observations over an 18-year study interval (1990-2007), for-profit hospitals and those with low profit margins were more likely to close than their counterparts (cumulative hazard rate based on bivariate model, 26% vs 16%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1, and 36% vs 18%; HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.3, respectively). Hospitals in more competitive markets had a significantly higher risk of closing their EDs (34% vs 17%; HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6), as did safety-net hospitals (10% vs 6%; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7) and those serving a higher share of populations in poverty (37% vs 31%; HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7).From 1990 to 2009, the number of hospital EDs in nonrural areas declined by 27%, with for-profit ownership, location in a competitive market, safety-net status, and low profit margin associated with increased risk of ED closure.

Project description:BackgroundA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak started in February 2020 and was controlled at the end of March 2020 in Daegu, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in Korea. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical course and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in Daegu.MethodsIn collaboration with Daegu Metropolitan City and Korean Center for Diseases Control, we conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including viral RNA detection, were obtained from the electronic medical records and cohort database and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariate and multi-variable logistic regression methods and Cox regression model and performed Kaplan-Meier analysis to determine the risk factors associated with the 28-day mortality and release from isolation among the patients.ResultsIn this study, 7,057 laboratory-confirmed patients with COVID-19 (total cohort) who had been diagnosed from February 18 to July 10, 2020 were included. Of the total cohort, 5,467 were asymptomatic to mild patients (77.4%) (asymptomatic 30.6% and mild 46.8%), 985 moderate (14.0%), 380 severe (5.4%), and 225 critical (3.2%). The mortality of the patients was 2.5% (179/7,057). The Cox regression hazard model for the patients with available clinical information (core cohort) (n = 2,254) showed the risk factors for 28-day mortality: age > 70 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.219, P = 0.002), need for O₂ supply at admission (HR, 2.995; P = 0.001), fever (> 37.5°C) (HR, 2.808; P = 0.001), diabetes (HR, 2.119; P = 0.008), cancer (HR, 3.043; P = 0.011), dementia (HR, 5.252; P = 0.008), neurological disease (HR, 2.084; P = 0.039), heart failure (HR, 3.234; P = 0.012), and hypertension (HR, 2.160; P = 0.017). The median duration for release from isolation was 33 days (interquartile range, 24.0-46.0) in survivors. The Cox proportional hazard model for the long duration of isolation included severity, age > 70, and dementia.ConclusionOverall, asymptomatic to mild patients were approximately 77% of the total cohort (asymptomatic, 30.6%). The case fatality rate was 2.5%. Risk factors, including older age, need for O₂ supply, dementia, and neurological disorder at admission, could help clinicians to identify COVID-19 patients with poor prognosis at an early stage.

Project description:Mental health patients boarding for long hours, even days, in United States emergency departments (EDs) awaiting transfer for psychiatric services has become a considerable and widespread problem. Past studies have shown average boarding times ranging from 6.8 hours to 34 hours. Most proposed solutions to this issue have focused solely on increasing available inpatient psychiatric hospital beds, rather than considering alternative emergency care designs that could provide prompt access to treatment and might reduce the need for many hospitalizations. One suggested option has been the "regional dedicated emergency psychiatric facility," which serves to evaluate and treat all mental health patients for a given area, and can accept direct transfers from other EDs. This study sought to assess the effects of a regional dedicated emergency psychiatric facility design known at the "Alameda Model" on boarding times and hospitalization rates for psychiatric patients in area EDs.Over a 30-day period beginning in January 2013, 5 community hospitals in Alameda County, California, tracked all ED patients on involuntary mental health holds to determine boarding time, defined as the difference between when they were deemed stable for psychiatric disposition and the time they were discharged from the ED for transfer to the regional psychiatric emergency service. Patients were also followed to determine the percentage admitted to inpatient psychiatric units after evaluation and treatment in the psychiatric emergency service.In a total sample of 144 patients, the average boarding time was approximately 1 hour and 48 minutes. Only 24.8% were admitted for inpatient psychiatric hospitalization from the psychiatric emergency service.The results of this study indicate that the Alameda Model of transferring patients from general hospital EDs to a regional psychiatric emergency service reduced the length of boarding times for patients awaiting psychiatric care by over 80% versus comparable state ED averages. Additionally, the psychiatric emergency service can provide assessment and treatment that may stabilize over 75% of the crisis mental health population at this level of care, thus dramatically alleviating the demand for inpatient psychiatric beds. The improved, timely access to care, along with the savings from reduced boarding times and hospitalization costs, may well justify the costs of a regional psychiatric emergency service in appropriate systems.

Project description:ImportanceSevere outcomes among youths with SARS-CoV-2 infections are poorly characterized.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of children with severe outcomes within 14 days of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in an emergency department (ED).Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study with 14-day follow-up enrolled participants between March 2020 and June 2021. Participants were youths aged younger than 18 years who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection at one of 41 EDs across 10 countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Italy, New Zealand, Paraguay, Singapore, Spain, and the United States. Statistical analysis was performed from September to October 2021.ExposuresAcute SARS-CoV-2 infection was determined by nucleic acid (eg, polymerase chain reaction) testing.Main outcomes and measuresSevere outcomes, a composite measure defined as intensive interventions during hospitalization (eg, inotropic support, positive pressure ventilation), diagnoses indicating severe organ impairment, or death.ResultsAmong 3222 enrolled youths who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 3221 (>99.9%) had index visit outcome data available, 2007 (62.3%) were from the United States, 1694 (52.6%) were male, and 484 (15.0%) had a self-reported chronic illness; the median (IQR) age was 3 (0-10) years. After 14 days of follow-up, 735 children (22.8% [95% CI, 21.4%-24.3%]) were hospitalized, 107 (3.3% [95% CI, 2.7%-4.0%]) had severe outcomes, and 4 children (0.12% [95% CI, 0.03%-0.32%]) died. Characteristics associated with severe outcomes included being aged 5 to 18 years (age 5 to <10 years vs <1 year: odds ratio [OR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.09-2.34]; age 10 to <18 years vs <1 year: OR, 2.39 [95% CI 1.38-4.14]), having a self-reported chronic illness (OR, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.59-3.44]), prior episode of pneumonia (OR, 3.15 [95% CI, 1.83-5.42]), symptoms starting 4 to 7 days prior to seeking ED care (vs starting 0-3 days before seeking care: OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.29-3.82]), and country (eg, Canada vs US: OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.05-0.23]; Costa Rica vs US: OR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.05-2.96]; Spain vs US: OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.27-0.98]). Among a subgroup of 2510 participants discharged home from the ED after initial testing and who had complete follow-up, 50 (2.0%; 95% CI, 1.5%-2.6%) were eventually hospitalized and 12 (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.3%-0.8%) had severe outcomes. Compared with hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-negative youths, the risk of severe outcomes was higher among hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-positive youths (risk difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, 1.1%-6.9%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, approximately 3% of SARS-CoV-2-positive youths tested in EDs experienced severe outcomes within 2 weeks of their ED visit. Among children discharged home from the ED, the risk was much lower. Risk factors such as age, underlying chronic illness, and symptom duration may be useful to consider when making clinical care decisions.