Dataset Information

Effects of Emergency Care-related Health Policies during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: a Quasi-Experimental Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The purpose of this study was to review the nationwide emergency care-related health policies during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disaster in Korea and to analyze the effects of the policies on the safety of patients who visit emergency departments (EDs) during this period.

Methods

This study is a quasi-experiment study. The study population was patients who visited all 402 EDs in Korea between December 31, 2019 and May 13, 2020, using the National Emergency Department Information System (NEDIS) database. The study period was classified into 5 phases according to the level of national crisis warning of infectious disease and the implementation of emergency care-related health policies, and all study phases were 27 days. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcome was length of stay (LOS) in the ED during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Results

The number of ED visits during the study period was 2,636,341, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 1.4%. The number of ED visits decreased from 803,160 in phase 1 to 496,619 in phase 5 during the study period. For in-hospital mortality, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) was 0.77 (0.74-0.79) in phase 5 compared to phase 3. Additionally, by subgroup, the ORs were 0.69 (0.57-0.83) for the patients with acute myocardial infarction and 0.76 (0.67-0.87) for severe trauma in phase 5 compared to phase 3. The ED LOS increased while the number of ED visits decreased as the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, and the ED LOS declined after policy implementation (beta coefficient: -5.3 [-6.5 to -4.2] minutes in phase 5 compared to phase 3).

Conclusion

Implementing appropriate emergency care policies in the COVID-19 pandemic would have contributed to improving the safety of all emergency patients and reducing in-hospital mortality by preventing excessive deaths.

SUBMITTER: Pak YS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8076843 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOver 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.ConclusionsAmong 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.

Project description:ImportanceDelaying critical care for treatable conditions owing to fear of contracting COVID-19 in the emergency department (ED) is associated with avoidable morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo assess and quantify how people decided whether to present to the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic for care unrelated to COVID-19 using conjoint analysis, a form of trade-off analysis that examines how individuals make complex decisions.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional survey study was conducted using a nationwide sample from June 1, 2020, during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Included participants were adults aged 18 years or older in the US who self-reported that they had not tested positive for COVID-19. Data were analyzed from July 2020 through May 2021.ExposuresParticipants completed a self-administered online survey.Main outcomes and measuresUsing a choice-based conjoint analysis survey, the relative importance was assessed for the following attributes for individuals in deciding whether to seek ED care for symptoms consistent with myocardial infarction or appendicitis: reduction in chance of dying because of ED treatment, crowdedness of ED with other patients, and chance of contracting COVID-19 in the ED. We also performed latent class analyses using conjoint data to identify distinct segments of the respondent population with similar choice patterns. Logistic regression was then used to explore whether patient sociodemographics and political affiliations were factors associated with decision-making.ResultsAmong 1981 individuals invited to participate, 933 respondents (47.1%) completed the survey; participants' mean (SD) age was 40.1 (13.0) years, and 491 (52.6%) were women. In latent class analyses, 158 individuals (16.9%) with symptoms of myocardial infarction and 238 individuals (25.5%) with symptoms of appendicitis prioritized avoidance of COVID-19 exposure in the ED (ie, chance of contracting COVID-19 in the ED or crowdedness of ED with other patients) over seeking appropriate care for symptoms. Having a usual source of care was a factor associated with lower odds of prioritizing avoidance of COVID-19 exposure (myocardial infarction scenario: adjusted odds ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.32-0.76]; P = .001; appendicitis scenario: adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.40-0.82]; P = .003), but most sociodemographic factors and political affiliations were not factors associated with decision-making.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that up to one-quarter of individuals were willing to forgo potentially life-saving ED care to avoid exposure to COVID-19. These findings suggest that health care systems and public health organizations should develop effective communications for patients and the community at large that reassure and encourage timely health care for critical needs during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and other scenarios.

Project description:BackgroundRestricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate.ResultsOf 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%).ConclusionsPatients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals.Trial registrationThe review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.