Dataset Information

Code status documentation at admission in COVID-19 patients: a descriptive cohort study

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The COVID-19 pandemic pressurised healthcare with increased shortage of care. This resulted in an increase of awareness for code status documentation (ie, whether limitations to specific life-sustaining treatments are in place), both in the medical field and in public media. However, it is unknown whether the increased awareness changed the prevalence and content of code status documentation for COVID-19 patients. We aim to describe differences in code status documentation between infectious patients before the pandemic and COVID-19 patients.

Setting

University Medical Centre of Utrecht, a tertiary care teaching academic hospital in the Netherlands.

Participants

A total of 1715 patients were included, 129 in the COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of COVID-19 patients, admitted from March 2020 to June 2020) and 1586 in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (a cohort of patients with (suspected) infections admitted between September 2016 to September 2018).

Primary and secondary outcome measures

We described frequency of code status documentation, frequency of discussion of this code status with patient and/or family, and content of code status.

Results

Frequencies of code status documentation (69.8% vs 72.7%, respectively) and discussion (75.6% vs 73.3%, respectively) were similar in both cohorts. More patients in the COVID-19 cohort than in the before COVID-19 cohort had any treatment limitation as opposed to full code (40% vs 25%). Within the treatment limitations, ‘no intensive care admission’ (81% vs 51%) and ‘no intubation’ (69% vs 40%) were more frequently documented in the COVID-19 cohort. A smaller difference was seen in ‘other limitation’ (17% vs 9%), while ‘no resuscitation’ (96% vs 92%) was comparable between both periods.

Conclusion

We observed no difference in the frequency of code status documentation or discussion in COVID-19 patients opposed to a pre-COVID-19 cohort. However, treatment limitations were more prevalent in patients with COVID-19, especially ‘no intubation’ and ‘no intensive care admission’.

SUBMITTER: Briede S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8587534 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSome patients with end-stage disease who may neither want nor benefit from aggressive resuscitation receive such treatment if they cannot communicate in an emergency. Timely access to patients' current resuscitation wishes, or "code status," should be a key metric of electronic health records (EHR). We sought to determine what percentage of a cohort of patients with end-stage disease who present to the emergency department (ED) have accessible, code status documents, and for those who do, how quickly can this documentation be retrieved.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study of ED patients with end-stage disease (eg, palliative care, metastatic malignancy, home oxygen, dialysis) conducted during purposefully sampled random accrual times we performed a standardized, timed review of available health records, including accompanying transfer documents. We also interviewed consenting patients and substitute decision makers to compare available code status documents to their current wishes.ResultsCode status documentation was unavailable within 15 minutes of ED arrival in most cases (54/85, or 63%). Retrieval time was under five minutes in the rest, especially when "one click deep" in the EHR. When interviewed, 20/32 (63%) expressed "do not resuscitate" wishes, 10 of whom had no supporting documentation. Patients from assisted-living (odds ratio [OR] 6.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-26) and long-term care facilities (OR 13; 95% CI, 2.5-65) were more likely to have a documented code status available compared to those living in the community.ConclusionThe majority of patients with end-stage disease, including half of those who would not wish resuscitation from cardiorespiratory arrest, did not have code status documents readily available upon arrival to our tertiary care ED. Patients living in the community with advanced disease may be at higher risk for unwanted resuscitative efforts should they present to hospital in extremis. While easily retrievable code status documentation within the EHR shows promise, its accuracy and validity remain important considerations.

Project description:ImportanceA significant proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals experience post-COVID-19 condition months after initial infection.ObjectiveTo determine the rates, clinical setting, risk factors, and symptoms associated with the documentation of International Statistical Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code U09.9 for post-COVID-19 condition after acute infection.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was performed within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Veterans with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result between October 1, 2021, the date ICD-10 code U09.9 was introduced, and January 31, 2023 (n = 388 980), and a randomly selected subsample of patients with the U09.9 code (n = 350) whose symptom prevalence was assessed by systematic medical record review, were included in the analysis.ExposurePositive SARS-CoV-2 test result.Main outcomes and measuresRates, clinical setting, risk factors, and symptoms associated with ICD-10 code U09.9 in the medical record.ResultsAmong the 388 980 persons with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, the mean (SD) age was 61.4 (16.1) years; 87.3% were men. In terms of race and ethnicity, 0.8% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.4% were Asian, 20.7% were Black, 9.3% were Hispanic or Latino, 1.0% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and 67.8% were White. Cumulative incidence of U09.9 documentation was 4.79% (95% CI, 4.73%-4.87%) at 6 months and 5.28% (95% CI, 5.21%-5.36%) at 12 months after infection. Factors independently associated with U09.9 documentation included older age, female sex, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, comorbidity burden, and severe acute infection manifesting by symptoms, hospitalization, or ventilation. Primary vaccination (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.78-0.83]) and booster vaccination (AHR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.64-0.69]) were associated with a lower likelihood of U09.9 documentation. Marked differences by geographic region and facility in U09.9 code documentation may reflect local screening and care practices. Among the 350 patients undergoing systematic medical record review, the most common symptoms documented in the medical records among patients with the U09.9 code were shortness of breath (130 [37.1%]), fatigue or exhaustion (78 [22.3%]), cough (63 [18.0%]), reduced cognitive function or brain fog (22 [6.3%]), and change in smell and/or taste (20 [5.7%]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of 388 980 veterans, documentation of ICD-10 code U09.9 had marked regional and facility-level variability. Strong risk factors for U09.9 documentation were identified, while vaccination appeared to be protective. Accurate and consistent documentation of U09.9 is needed to maximize its utility in tracking patients for clinical care and research. Future studies should examine the long-term trajectory of individuals with U09.9 documentation.

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation has been associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease and mortality. Hyponatremia can result from inflammation due to non-osmotic stimuli for vasopressin production. Methods: We prospectively studied 799 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 7 and November 7, 2020, at Hospital Posadas in Buenos Aires, Argentina in order to evaluate the association between hyponatremia, inflammation, and its impact on clinical outcomes. Admission biochemistries, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), ferritin, patient demographics, and outcome data were recorded. Outcomes (within 30 days after symptoms) evaluated included ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, dialysis-requiring acute kidney injury (AKI), and in-hospital mortality. Length of hospital stay (in days) were evaluated using comprehensive data from the EHR. Results: Hyponatremia (median Na = 133 mmol/L) was present on admission in 366 (45.8%). Hyponatremic patients had higher hsCRP (median 10.3 [IR 4.8-18.4] mg/dl vs. 6.6 [IR 1.6-14.0] mg/dl, p < 0.01) and ferritin levels (median 649 [IQR 492-1,168] ng/dl vs. 393 [IQR 156-1,440] ng/dl, p = 0.02) than normonatremic patients. Hyponatremia was associated with higher odds of an abnormal hsCRP (unadjusted OR 5.03, 95%CI: 2.52-10.03), and remained significant after adjustment for potential confounders (adjusted OR 4.70 [95%CI: 2.33-9.49], p < 0.01). Hyponatremic patients had increased mortality on unadjusted (HR 3.05, 95%CI: 2.14-4.34) and adjusted (HR 2.76, 95%CI:1.88-4.06) in Cox proportional hazard models. Crude 30-day survival was lower for patients with hyponatremia at admission (mean [SD] survival 22.1 [0.70] days) compared with patients who were normonatremic (mean [SD] survival 27.2 [0.40] days, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Mild hyponatremia on admission is common, is associated with systemic inflammation and is an independent risk factor for hospital mortality. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04493268.