Dataset Information

Survey of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection control policies at leading US academic hospitals in the context of the initial pandemic surge of the severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) omicron variant.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection policies at leading US medical centers in the context of the initial wave of the severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) omicron variant.

Design

Electronic survey study eliciting hospital policies on masking, personal protective equipment, cohorting, airborne-infection isolation rooms (AIIRs), portable HEPA filters, and patient and employee testing.

Setting and participants

"Hospital epidemiologists from U.S. News top 20 hospitals and 10 hospitals in the CDC Prevention Epicenters program." As it is currently written, it implies all 30 hospitals are from the CDC Prevention Epicenters program, but that only applies to 10 hospitals. Alternatively, we could just say "Hospital epidemiologists from 30 leading US hospitals."

Methods

Survey results were reported using descriptive statistics.

Results

Of 30 hospital epidemiologists surveyed, 23 (77%) completed the survey between February 15 and March 3, 2022. Among the responding hospitals, 18 (78%) used medical masks for universal masking and 5 (22%) used N95 respirators. 16 hospitals (70%) required universal eye protection. 22 hospitals (96%) used N95s for routine COVID-19 care and 1 (4%) reserved N95s for aerosol-generating procedures. 2 responding hospitals (9%) utilized dedicated COVID-19 wards; 8 (35%) used mixed COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 units; and 13 (57%) used both dedicated and mixed units. 4 hospitals (17%) used AIIRs for all COVID-19 patients, 10 (43%) prioritized AIIRs for aerosol-generating procedures, 3 (13%) used alternate risk-stratification criteria (not based on aerosol-generating procedures), and 6 (26%) did not routinely use AIIRs. 9 hospitals (39%) did not use portable HEPA filters, but 14 (61%) used them for various indications, most commonly as substitutes for AIIRs when unavailable or for specific high-risk areas or situations. 21 hospitals (91%) tested asymptomatic patients on admission, but postadmission testing strategies and preferred specimen sites varied substantially. 5 hospitals (22%) required regular testing of unvaccinated employees and 1 hospital (4%) reported mandatory weekly testing even for vaccinated employees during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron surge.

Conclusions

COVID-19 infection control practices in leading hospitals vary substantially. Clearer public health guidance and transparency around hospital policies may facilitate more consistent national standards.

SUBMITTER: Rhee C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9253430 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile COVID-19 has had far-reaching consequences on society and health care providers, there is a paucity of research exploring frontline emergency medicine (EM) provider wellness over the course of a pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the well-being, resilience, burnout, and wellness factors and needs of EM physicians and advanced practice providers (e.g., nurse practitioners and physician assistants; APPs) during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA descriptive, prospective, cohort survey study of EM physicians and APPs was performed across ten emergency departments in a single state, including academic and community settings. Participants were recruited via email to complete four weekly, voluntary, anonymous questionnaires comprised of customized and validated tools for assessing wellness (Well Being Index), burnout (Physician Work Life Study item), and resilience (Brief Resilience Scale) during the initial acceleration phase of COVID-19. Univariate and multivariate analysis with Chi-squared, Fisher's Exact, and logistic regression was performed.ResultsOf 213 eligible participants, response rates ranged from 31 to 53% over four weeks. Women comprised 54 to 60% of responses. Nonrespondent characteristics were similar to respondents. Concern for personal safety decreased from 85 to 61% (p < 0.001). Impact on basic self-care declined from 66 to 32% (p < 0.001). Symptoms of stress, anxiety, or fear was initially 83% and reduced to 66% (p = 0.009). Reported strain on relationships and feelings of isolation affected > 50% of respondents initially without significant change (p = 0.05 and p = 0.30 respectively). Women were nearly twice as likely to report feelings of isolation as men (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.82-5.88). Working part-time carried twice the risk of burnout (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.10-5.47). Baseline resilience was normal to high. Provider well-being improved over the four weeks (30 to 14%; p = 0.01), but burnout did not significantly change (30 to 22%; p = 0.39).ConclusionThis survey of frontline EM providers, including physicians and APPs, during the initial surge of COVID-19 found that despite being a resilient group, the majority experienced stress, anxiety, fear, and concerns about personal safety due to COVID-19, putting many at risk for burnout. The sustained impact of the pandemic on EM provider wellness deserves further investigation to guide targeted interventions.

Project description:Background: While the coronavirus (COVID-19) has had far-reaching consequences on society and health care providers, there is a paucity of research exploring emergency medicine (EM) provider wellness over the course of a pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the well-being, resilience, burnout, and wellness factors and needs of EM physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A longitudinal, descriptive, prospective cohort survey study of 213 EM physicians and APPs was performed across ten emergency departments in a single state, including academic and community settings. Participants were recruited via email to complete four weekly, voluntary, anonymous questionnaires comprised of customized and validated tools for assessing wellness (Well Being Index), burnout (Physician Work Life Study item), and resilience (Brief Resilience Scale) during the initial acceleration phase of COVID-19. Univariate and multivariate analysis with Chi-squared, Fisherâ€™s Exact, and logistic regression was performed. Results: Of 213 eligible participants, response rates ranged from 31 to 53% over four weeks. Women comprised 54 to 60% of responses. Nonrespondent characteristics were similar to respondents. Concern for personal safety decreased from 85% to 61% (p<0.001). Impact on basic self-care declined from 66% to 32% (p<0.001). Symptoms of stress, anxiety or fear was initially 83% and reduced to 66% (p=0.009). Reported strain on relationships and feelings of isolation affected >50% of respondents initially without significant change (p=0.05 and p=0.30 respectively). Women were nearly twice as likely to report feelings of isolation as men (OR 1.95; 95%CI 1.82-5.88). Working part-time carried twice the risk of burnout (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.10-5.47). Baseline resilience was normal to high. Provider well-being improved over the four-weeks (30% to 14%; p=0.01), but burnout did not significantly change (30% to 22%; p=0.39). Conclusion: This survey of frontline EM providers during the initial surge of COVID-19 found that despite being a resilient group, the majority experienced stress, anxiety, fear, and concerns about personal safety due to COVID-19, with many at risk for burnout. The sustained impact of the pandemic on EM provider wellness deserves further investigation to guide targeted interventions.

Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic required the rapid transition to telehealth with the aim of providing patients with medical access and supporting clinicians while abiding by the stay-at-home orders.ObjectiveTo assess demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with patient participation in telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included all pediatric and adult patient encounters at the Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery in a tertiary care, academic, multisubspecialty, multisite practice located in an early hot spot for the COVID-19 pandemic from March 17 to May 1, 2020. Encounters included completed synchronous virtual, telephone, and in-person visits as well as visit no-shows.Main outcomes and measuresPatient demographic characteristics, insurance status, and 2010 Census block level data as a proxy for socioeconomic status were extracted. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were created for patient-level comparisons.ResultsOf the 1162 patients (604 females [52.0%]; median age, 55 [range, 0-97] years) included, 990 completed visits; of these, 437 (44.1%) completed a virtual visit. After multivariate adjustment, females (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.11-2.63) and patients with preferred provider organization insurance (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.40-5.20) were more likely to complete a virtual visit compared with a telephone visit. Increasing age (OR per year, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99) and being in the lowest median household income quartile (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.86) were associated with lower odds of completing a virtual visit overall. Those patients within the second (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28-0.99) and lowest (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.62) quartiles of median household income by census block and those with Medicaid, no insurance, or other public insurance (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94) were more likely to complete a telephone visit. Finally, being within the lower 2 quartiles of proportion being married (OR for third quartile, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.29-0.86]; OR for lowest quartile, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.23-0.67]) was associated with higher likelihood of a no-show visit.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that age, sex, median household income, insurance status, and marital status are associated with patient participation in telehealth. These findings identify vulnerable patient populations who may not engage with telehealth, yet still require medical care in a changing health care delivery landscape.

Project description:ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has strained many healthcare systems. In response, U.S. hospitals altered their care delivery systems, but there are few data regarding specific structural changes. Understanding these changes is important to guide interpretation of outcomes and inform pandemic preparedness. We sought to characterize emergency responses across hospitals in the United States over time and in the context of local case rates early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.DesignWe surveyed hospitals from a national acute care trials group regarding operational and structural changes made in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic from January to August 2020. We collected prepandemic characteristics and changes to hospital system, space, staffing, and equipment during the pandemic. We compared the timing of these changes with county-level coronavirus disease 2019 case rates.Setting and participantsU.S. hospitals participating in the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network Coronavirus Disease 2019 Observational study. Site investigators at each hospital collected local data.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsForty-five sites participated (94% response rate). System-level changes (incident command activation and elective procedure cancellation) occurred at nearly all sites, preceding rises in local case rates. The peak inpatient census during the pandemic was greater than the prior hospital bed capacity in 57% of sites with notable regional variation. Nearly half (49%) expanded ward capacity, and 63% expanded ICU capacity, with nearly all bed expansion achieved through repurposing of clinical spaces. Two-thirds of sites adapted staffing to care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019, with 48% implementing tiered staffing models, 49% adding temporary physicians, nurses, or respiratory therapists, and 30% changing the ratios of physicians or nurses to patients.ConclusionsThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic prompted widespread system-level changes, but front-line clinical care varied widely according to specific hospital needs and infrastructure. Linking operational changes to care delivery processes is a necessary step to understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on patient outcomes.