Dataset Information

Association Between Caseload Surge and COVID-19 Survival in 558 U.S. Hospitals, March to August 2020.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several U.S. hospitals had surges in COVID-19 caseload, but their effect on COVID-19 survival rates remains unclear, especially independent of temporal changes in survival.

Objective

To determine the association between hospitals' severity-weighted COVID-19 caseload and COVID-19 mortality risk and identify effect modifiers of this relationship.

Design

Retrospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04688372).

Setting

558 U.S. hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database.

Participants

Adult COVID-19-coded inpatients admitted from March to August 2020 with discharge dispositions by October 2020.

Measurements

Each hospital-month was stratified by percentile rank on a surge index (a severity-weighted measure of COVID-19 caseload relative to pre-COVID-19 bed capacity). The effect of surge index on risk-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice was calculated using hierarchical modeling; interaction by surge attributes was assessed.

Results

Of 144 116 inpatients with COVID-19 at 558 U.S. hospitals, 78 144 (54.2%) were admitted to hospitals in the top surge index decile. Overall, 25 344 (17.6%) died; crude COVID-19 mortality decreased over time across all surge index strata. However, compared with nonsurging (<50th surge index percentile) hospital-months, aORs in the 50th to 75th, 75th to 90th, 90th to 95th, 95th to 99th, and greater than 99th percentiles were 1.11 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23), 1.24 (CI, 1.12 to 1.38), 1.42 (CI, 1.27 to 1.60), 1.59 (CI, 1.41 to 1.80), and 2.00 (CI, 1.69 to 2.38), respectively. The surge index was associated with mortality across ward, intensive care unit, and intubated patients. The surge-mortality relationship was stronger in June to August than in March to May (slope difference, 0.10 [CI, 0.033 to 0.16]) despite greater corticosteroid use and more judicious intubation during later and higher-surging months. Nearly 1 in 4 COVID-19 deaths (5868 [CI, 3584 to 8171]; 23.2%) was potentially attributable to hospitals strained by surging caseload.

Limitation

Residual confounding.

Conclusion

Despite improvements in COVID-19 survival between March and August 2020, surges in hospital COVID-19 caseload remained detrimental to survival and potentially eroded benefits gained from emerging treatments. Bolstering preventive measures and supporting surging hospitals will save many lives.

Primary funding source

Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Cancer Institute.

SUBMITTER: Kadri SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276718 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, governments and public health authorities collected massive amounts of data on daily confirmed positive cases and incidence rates. These data sets provide relevant information to develop a scientific understanding of the pandemic's spatiotemporal dynamics. At the same time, there is a lack of comprehensive approaches to describe and classify patterns underlying the dynamics of COVID-19 incidence across regions over time. This seriously constrains the potential benefits for public health authorities to understand spatiotemporal patterns of disease incidence that would allow for better risk communication strategies and improved assessment of mitigation policies efficacy. Within this context, we propose an exploratory statistical tool that combines functional data analysis with unsupervised learning algorithms to extract meaningful information about the main spatiotemporal patterns underlying COVID-19 incidence on mainland Portugal. We focus on the timeframe spanning from August 2020 to March 2022, considering data at the municipality level. First, we describe the temporal evolution of confirmed daily COVID-19 cases by municipality as a function of time, and outline the main temporal patterns of variability using a functional principal component analysis. Then, municipalities are classified according to their spatiotemporal similarities through hierarchical clustering adapted to spatially correlated functional data. Our findings reveal disparities in disease dynamics between northern and coastal municipalities versus those in the southern and hinterland. We also distinguish effects occurring during the 2020-2021 period from those in the 2021-2022 autumn-winter seasons. The results provide proof-of-concept that the proposed approach can be used to detect the main spatiotemporal patterns of disease incidence. The novel approach expands and enhances existing exploratory tools for spatiotemporal analysis of public health data.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak had an important impact on general practice, for example the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the switch to telephone consultations. We installed a monitoring instrument and reported the burden the COVID-19 pandemic placed on Belgian general practitioners (GPs) during the first wave of the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted an observational longitudinal prospective study from the 19th of March until the 17th of August 2020. Daily data were collected by using a structured electronic form integrated into the GPs' electronic medical records (EMRs). Data were collected on the GPs' need for support and workload, epidemiological indicators and the availability of PPE. Reports with graphical presentations were made for GP circles and primary care zones, and governments of different administrative levels had access to all data to guide their policy.ResultsA total of 3.769 different GP centres participated, which included more than 10.000 GPs. Throughout the first three weeks, 20% declared they had insufficient resources (personnel and material) for the following week. Approximately 10% continued to report this during the entire study. The majority reported being able to complete their daily tasks without loss of quality. During the first week, 30% indicated an increased workload. Afterwards, this number decreased and stabilized to an average of 10-20%. More than 70% of the consultations in March 2020 were conducted by telephone. This percentage declined in April and stabilized at approximately 30% in June 2020. Consultations due to respiratory symptoms peaked at 4000/100,000 inhabitants at the beginning of the outbreak, then decreased over time along with the COVID-19 incidence. We noticed a lack of disinfectant hand gel, surgical masks and FFP2 masks, the latter remaining problematic in the long term.ConclusionWe introduced an instrument in Belgian EMR systems to monitor the burden on GPs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of PPE and increased workload were considered to be the main obstacles. A large number of the GP offices switched to teleconsultations to provide healthcare. Our monitoring instrument provided information for policy makers to intervene on a local level.

Project description:BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) guidance for specific institutional audiences to limit community spread. Audiences include: business, clinical, public health, education, community, and state/local government. The swift, severe, and global nature of COVID-19 offers an opportunity to systematically obtain a national view of how larger institutions of higher education adopted NPI guidance at the onset of the pandemic.MethodAn original database of COVID-19-related university NPI policy changes was compiled. Survey team members manually combed university websites and official statements capturing implementation decisions and dates for five NPI variables from 575 U.S. universities, across 50 states and the District of Columbia, during March of 2020. The universities included in this study were selected from the Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which provides a set of university explanatory variables. Using IPEDS as the basis for the organizational data allows consistent mapping to event-time and institutional characteristic variables including public health announcements, geospatial, census, and political affiliation.ResultsThe dataset enables event-time analysis and offers a variety of variables to support institutional level study and identification of underlying biases like educational attainment. A descriptive analysis of the dataset reveals that there was substantial heterogeneity in the decisions that were made and the timing of these decisions as they temporally related to key state, national, and global emergency announcements. The WHO pandemic declaration coincided with the largest number of university decisions to implement NPIs.ConclusionThis study provides descriptive observations and produced an original dataset that will be useful for future research focused on drivers and trends of COVID-19 NPIs for U.S. Universities. This preliminary analysis suggests COVID-19 university decisions appeared to be made largely at the university level, leading to major variations in the nature and timing of the responses both between and within states, which requires further study.