Dataset Information

Short-term Effects of Canceled Elective Procedures Due to COVID-19: Evidence From the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether delayed or canceled elective procedures due to COVID-19 resulted in higher rates of ED utilization and/or increased mortality.

Summary of background data

On March 15, 2020, the VA issued a nationwide order to temporarily pause elective cases due to COVID-19. The effects of this disruption on patient outcomes are not yet known.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Surgical procedures canceled due to COVID-19 in 2020 (n = 3326) were matched to similar completed procedures in 2018 (n = 151,863) and 2019 (n = 146,582). Outcome measures included 30- and 90-day VA ED use and mortality in the period following the completed or canceled procedure. We used exact matching on surgical procedure category and nearest neighbor matching on patient characteristics, procedure year, and facility.

Results

Patients with elective surgical procedures canceled due to COVID-19 were no more likely to have an ED visit in the 30- [Difference: -4.3% pts; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.078, -0.007] and 90 days (-0.9% pts; 95% CI: -0.068, 0.05) following the expected case date. Patients with cancellations had no difference in 30- (Difference: 0.1% pts; 95% CI: -0.008, 0.01) and 90-day (Difference: -0.4% pts; 95% CI: -0.016, 0.009) mortality rates when compared to similar patients with similar procedures that were completed in previous years.

Conclusions

The pause in elective surgical cases was not associated with short-term adverse outcomes in VA hospitals, suggesting appropriate surgical case triage and management. Further study will be essential to determine if the delayed cases were associated with longer-term effects.

SUBMITTER: Tran LD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8187293 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care providers (PCPs) vary in skills to effectively treat depression. Key features of evidence-based collaborative care models (CCMs) include the availability of depression care managers (DCMs) and mental health specialists (MHSs) in primary care. Little is known, however, about the relationships between PCP characteristics, CCM features, and PCP depression care.ObjectiveTo assess relationships between various CCM features, PCP characteristics, and PCP depression management.DesignCross-sectional analysis of a provider survey.Participants180 PCPs in eight VA sites nationwide.Main measuresIndependent variables included scales measuring comfort and difficulty with depression care; collaboration with a MHS; self-reported depression caseload; availability of a collocated MHS, and co-management with a DCM or MHS. Covariates included provider type and gender. For outcomes, we assessed PCP self-reported performance of key depression management behaviors in primary care in the past 6 months.Key resultsResponse rate was 52 % overall, with 47 % attending physicians, 34 % residents, and 19 % nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Half (52 %) reported greater than eight veterans with depression in their panels and a MHS collocated in primary care (50 %). Seven of the eight clinics had a DCM. In multivariable analysis, significant predictors for PCP depression management included comfort, difficulty, co-management with MHSs and numbers of veterans with depression in their panels.ConclusionsPCPs who felt greater ease and comfort in managing depression, co-managed with MHSs, and reported higher depression caseloads, were more likely to report performing depression management behaviors. Neither a collocated MHS, collaborating with a MHS, nor co-managing with a DCM independently predicted PCP depression management. Because the success of collaborative care for depression depends on the ability and willingness of PCPs to engage in managing depression themselves, along with other providers, more research is necessary to understand how to engage PCPs in depression management.

Project description:BackgroundWomen veterans who use the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System theoretically have access to the full range of contraceptive methods. This study explores match between currently used and self-reported "ideal" methods as a potential marker of contraceptive access and preference matching.MethodsThis mixed methods study uses data from a nationally representative survey of reproductive-aged women veterans who use the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System for primary care, including 979 participants at risk of unintended pregnancy. Women reported all contraceptive methods used in the past month and were asked, "If you could choose any method of contraception or birth control to prevent pregnancy, what would be your ideal choice?" and selected a single "ideal" method. If applicable, participants were additionally asked, "Why aren't you currently using this method of contraception?" We used adjusted logistic regression to identify patient-, provider-, and system-level factors associated with ideal-current method match. We qualitatively analyzed open-ended responses about reasons for ideal method nonuse.ResultsOverall, 58% were currently using their ideal method; match was greatest among women selecting an IUD as ideal (73%). Non-White race/ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89) and mental illness (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.92) were negatively associated with ideal-current match in adjusted analyses; the presence of a gynecologist at the primary care site was associated with an increased odds of match (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.75). Modifiable barriers to ideal method use were cited by 23% of women, including access issues, cost concerns, and provider-level barriers; 79% of responses included nonmodifiable reasons for mismatch including relationship factors and pregnancy plans incongruent with ideal method use, suggesting limitations of our measure based on differential interpretation of the word "ideal."ConclusionsMany women veterans are not currently using the contraceptive method they consider ideal. Results emphasize the complexity of contraceptive method selection and of measuring contraceptive preference matching.