The Safety of the Re-Opening of an Academic Medical Center Outpatient Endoscopy Unit During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread globally leading to over 3,700,000 deaths. As COVID-19 cases stabilized, the re-opening of endoscopy centers potentially exposed patients and healthcare workers to viral infection. This study aims to determine risk of COVID-19 exposure among patients undergoing outpatient endoscopies in a tertiary care setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods
Patients undergoing outpatient endoscopy were contacted post-procedure for any new COVID-19 symptoms or COVID-19 test results. Patient experiences and perception of personal safety were also determined. Results
Of the 1,584 patients who completed elective endoscopy, 996 (62.9%) completed the survey. Two patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 within 14 days of procedure. The majority (99.7%) felt safe during their procedure and apprehension regarding endoscopy decreased over time. Conclusion
Thus, the risk of COVID-19 transmission during outpatient endoscopy is extremely low when following recommended society guidelines. Patients felt safe during the procedure and experienced less fear of exposure over time.
SUBMITTER: Manski S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9451579 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:There is an increasing demand for interventional endoscopic services and the need to develop efficient endoscopic units. The aim of this study was to analyze performance data and define metrics to improve efficiency in a single academic interventional endoscopy center. ]The prospective operations performance data (6-month period) of our interventional endoscopy unit (EU) was analyzed. First-case start time (FIRST) delay was defined as any time the first patient of the day entered the endoscopy room after the scheduled time. Non-endoscopy time (NET) and total time (TT) were defined as non-procedural and total time elapsed in the EU, respectively. Time-interval between successive patients (TISP) was defined as the time from one patient departure from the room until the time of arrival of the next patient in the room.A total of 1421 patients underwent 1635 endoscopic procedures. FIRST was delayed (54.2 % cases) by 13.6 min (range 1 - 53), but started within 15 min of the scheduled time in 85 % of the cases. NET accounted for 9.1 hours (67.2 %) of 13.5 hours TT/day. TISP (37.1 min, range 5 - 125) comprised 54.2 % of the NET, and was delayed (> 30 min) in 49.8 % of cases. "Patient flow" processes (registration, admission, transportation, scheduling) accounted for 50.1 % of TISP delays.Delays in NET, specifically TISP, rather than FIRST, were identified as a cause for decreased efficiency. "Patient flow" processes were the main reasons for delays in TISP. This study identifies potential process measures that can be used as benchmarks to improve efficiency in the EU.
| S-EPMC4751008 | biostudies-other
Project description:Health systems are challenged to provide equitable access to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatient care during the pandemic. Infected patients may have difficulties accessing regular care and rely on emergency rooms. With the goal to improve system efficiencies and access to care, Stanford launched a designated outpatient COVID-19 "Care and Respiratory Observation of Patients With Novel Coronavirus" clinic in April 2020 in which all adult Stanford patients with newly diagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were offered follow-up for 2-3 weeks through video, telephone, and in-person encounters. Patients were triaged into risk categories and received home pulse oximeters based on a standardized protocol. Between April 15, 2020, and March 26, 2021, the Care and Respiratory Observation of Patients With Novel Coronavirus clinic enrolled 1317 patients. The clinic provided evaluation of Patients under Investigation, management of acute COVID-19 symptoms, care for COVID-19 patients after hospital discharge, clinical advice, and opportunities for research. The authors share crucial implementation lessons related to team agility, care personalization, and resource optimization.
| S-EPMC9052357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate a novel outpatient pharmacist consult service in a large academic medical center. Four outpatient pharmacies that are part of a large academic medical center. An outpatient pharmacist consult order was created and embedded in the electronic medical record (EMR). Medical center providers utilized this consult order when identifying patients in need of specific services provided by outpatient pharmacists. Descriptive data about each individual consult was collected including number completed, type of service, and duration. Rate of accepted pharmacy recommendations and patient cost savings were also evaluated. A survey was administered at the completion of the study period to assess provider and pharmacist satisfaction with the service. Patient demographic information was collected for those who had a documented completed consult. A total of 193 consults were completed: 137 immunizations, 37 care affordability, 15 education, 3 polypharmacy and 1 OTC recommendation. 89% of completed consults took pharmacists 20 minutes or less to complete. Of completed care affordability consults (n=31), 55% of patients saved between $100 - $500 per medication fill. Of providers who completed a survey and utilized the service (n=12), 83.3% were extremely satisfied and 16.7% were satisfied with it. The provider acceptance rate of pharmacist's recommendations was 74%. Implementation of an outpatient pharmacist consult service provided an alternative method for the utilization of pharmacist provided MTM services in outpatient pharmacies at a large academic medical center. The service was well received by both providers and pharmacists.
| S-EPMC8326691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Adverse safety events in healthcare are of great concern, and despite an increasing focus on the prevention of error and harm mitigation, the epidemiology of safety events remains incomplete. Methods: We performed an analysis of all reported safety events in an academic medical center using a voluntary incident reporting surveillance system for patient safety. Safety events were classified as: serious (reached the patient and resulted in moderate to severe harm or death); precursor (reached the patient and resulted in minimal or no detectable harm); and near miss (did not reach the patient). Results: During a three-year period, there were 31,817 events reported. Most of the safety events were precursor safety events (reached the patient and resulted in minimal harm or no detectable harm), corresponding to 77.3%. Near misses accounted for 10.8%, and unsafe conditions for 11.8%. The number of reported serious safety events was low, accounting for only 0.1% of all safety events. Conclusions: The reports analysis of these events should lead to a better understanding of risks in patient care and ways to mitigate it.
| S-EPMC6982027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere is widespread concern that clinical notes have grown longer and less informative over the past decade. Addressing these concerns requires a better understanding of the magnitude, scope, and potential causes of increased note length and redundancy.ObjectiveTo measure changes between 2009 and 2018 in the length and redundancy of outpatient progress notes across multiple medical specialties and investigate how these measures associate with author experience and method of note entry.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at Oregon Health & Science University, a large academic medical center. Participants included clinicians and staff who wrote outpatient progress notes between 2009 and 2018 for a random sample of 200 000 patients. Statistical analysis was performed from March to August 2020.ExposuresUse of a comprehensive electronic health record to document patient care.Main outcomes and measuresNote length, note redundancy (ie, the proportion of text identical to the patient's last note), and percentage of templated, copied, or directly typed note text.ResultsA total of 2 704 800 notes written by 6228 primary authors across 46 specialties were included in this study. Median note length increased 60.1% (99% CI, 46.7%-75.2%) from a median of 401 words (interquartile range [IQR], 225-660 words) in 2009 to 642 words (IQR, 399-1007 words) in 2018. Median note redundancy increased 10.9 percentage points (99% CI, 7.5-14.3 percentage points) from 47.9% in 2009 to 58.8% in 2018. Notes written in 2018 had a mean value of just 29.4% (99% CI, 28.2%-30.7%) directly typed text with the remaining 70.6% of text being templated or copied. Mixed-effect linear models found that notes with higher proportions of templated or copied text were significantly longer and more redundant (eg, in the 2-year model, each 1% increase in the proportion of copied or templated note text was associated with 1.5% [95% CI, 1.5%-1.5%] and 1.6% [95% CI, 1.6%-1.6%] increases in note length, respectively). Residents and fellows also wrote significantly (26.3% [95% CI, 25.8%-26.7%]) longer notes than more senior authors, as did more recent hires (1.8% for each year later [95% CI, 1.3%-2.4%]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, outpatient progress notes grew longer and more redundant over time, potentially limiting their use in patient care. Interventions aimed at reducing outpatient progress note length and redundancy may need to simultaneously address multiple factors such as note template design and training for both new and established clinicians.
| S-EPMC8290305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite numerous challenges, Montefiore Medical Center in New York City implemented a program aimed at providing comprehensive, evidence-based medical cannabis certifications to patients, including those who have been historically disenfranchised, and shares insights from five years of operation.
| S-EPMC9512136 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTotal joint arthroplasty (TJA) has shifted toward being an outpatient surgery with advances in perioperative protocols and patient selection. Most literature on outpatient arthroplasty focuses on the surgery performed in ambulatory centers. This study sought to compare (1) short-term outcomes and (2) the total procedural cost in patients who underwent TJAs at a tertiary academic center and were discharged from the accelerated surgical care unit (SCU) vs the inpatient floor unit.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of 1231 procedures (637 total knee arthroplasties and 594 total hip arthroplasties) performed between January 2020 and May 2021 at 1 tertiary academic center. The minimum required follow-up duration was 90 days. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on discharge location (SCU vs inpatient). Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, 90-day hospital returns, and revisions were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analyses. Of the 1231 patients, 1092 had available cost data that were analyzed by a univariate analysis.ResultsPatients discharged from the SCU were younger (P < .01), with lower American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (P = .04). SCU patients trended toward fewer 90-day hospital returns and revisions; however, these results were not significant. The overall encounter cost for TJA was significantly lower in patients discharged from the SCU (P < .01). Cost remained significantly less at 30 and 90 days postoperatively (P < .01).ConclusionsThe present study represents the current activity at many large tertiary American academic medical centers. Results demonstrate that a unit for accelerated discharge after TJAs in a tertiary academic center is safe and cost-effective. With proper implementation, its development will enhance arthroplasty programs at a large tertiary academic center.
| S-EPMC9615131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread globally and become a pandemic. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) not only infects the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and causes GI symptoms, but also increases nosocomial transmission risk during endoscopic procedures for aerosol generation. We hereby share our infection control strategies aiming to minimize COVID-19 transmission in the endoscopy center.MethodsWe established our infection control strategies based on the guidance of Chinese Society of Digestive Endoscopy and inputs from hospital infection control experts: admission control through the procedure and patient triage, environmental control to reduce possible virus exposure, proper usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), and scope disinfection and room decontamination. All endoscopic procedures accomplished during COVID-19 outbreak and progress of stepwise resumption of elective endoscopy procedures were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsOnly urgent or semi-urgent procedures were performed during COVID-19 outbreak. After no local new-onset COVID-19 case in Beijing for four weeks, we reopened the endoscopy center for elective procedures and monitored the outbreak continuously while maintaining a sustainable endoscopy service.ConclusionsIt is imperative that all endoscopy centers should establish standard infection control strategies in order to fight COVID-19 pandemic based on national guidance and academic society guidelines and tailor them to individual resources. These measures and setup can also be reserved for future pandemics.
| S-EPMC7361359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aimsSince December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has posed a pandemic threat to global health and has challenged health care system in all affected countries.Patients and methodsThis is a combined study including a descriptive part about the changes in the daily work routine of an Interdisciplinary Endoscopic Unit (IEU) and a prospective analysis of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 who required endoscopic interventions. Conclusively, we present the finding of a point-prevalence analysis in the staff of the IEU.ResultsWe present effects of the COVID-19-related restructuring of processes in our interdisciplinary endoscopy unit (IEU) with respect to cancelation of examinations, relocation of staff to other departments, impact of SARS-CoV-2 on medical staff of the IEU, and supply of protective clothing. Additionally, we analyzed the cohort of COVID-19 patients: Sixteen endoscopic interventions were done in ten patients. In all patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2, emergency endoscopies were required for relevant bleeding situations. Re-endoscopies were required only in critically ill COVID-19 patients.ConclusionsThe restructuring of processes in the IEU was feasible in short time, effective, and can also be applied broadly at least in developed countries [Garbe et al. in Gastroenterology 159:778-780, 2020; Repici A, Pace F, Gabbiadini R, Colombo M, Hassan C, Dinelli M, Group IG-CW, Maselli R, Spadaccini M, Mutignani M, Gabbrielli A, Signorelli C, Spada C, Leoni P, Fabbri C, Segato S, Gaffuri N, Mangiavillano B, Radaelli F, Salerno R, Bargiggia S, Maroni L, Benedetti A, Occhipinti P, De Grazia F, Ferraris L, Cengia G, Greco S, Alvisi C, Scarcelli A, De Luca L, Cereatti F, Testoni PA, Mingotto R, Aragona G, Manes G, Beretta P, Amvrosiadis G, Cennamo V, Lella F, Missale G, Lagoussis P, Triossi O, Giovanardi M, De Roberto G, Cantu P, Buscarini E, Anderloni A, Carrara S, Fugazza A, Galtieri PA, Pellegatta G, Antonelli G, Rosch T, Sharma P (2020) Endoscopy units and the COVID-19 Outbreak: a Multi-Center Experience from Italy. Gastroenterology;]. The endoscopy-related rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection of staff is low, but supply of protective equipment is crucial for this. Endoscopic procedures in COVID-19 patients were not directly related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but to other underlying diseases or typical complications of long-term ICU treatment.
| S-EPMC7605334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveResearch biopsies are an essential component of cancer clinical trials for studying drug efficacy and identifying biomarkers. Site-level clinical investigators, however, do not have access to results on the adequacy of research biopsies for histological or molecular assays, because samples are sent to central labs and the test results are seldom reported back to site-level investigators unless requested. We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and adequacy of research biopsies performed at an academic medical center.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the data on 122 research biopsy sessions conducted in 99 patients via percutaneous core needle biopsy for 39 clinical trials from January 2017 to February 2018 at a single institute. We asked the sponsors of each clinical trial for the adequacy of the biopsy samples for histological or molecular assays.ResultsThe biopsy success rate was 93.4% (113/122), with nine samples categorized as inadequate for obtaining pathologic diagnosis. Post-biopsy complications occurred in 9.8% (12/122) of biopsies, all of which were mild and completely recovered by the day after the biopsy. The sponsors of clinical trials provided feedbacks on the adequacy of 76 biopsy samples, and noted that a total of 8 biopsy samples from 7 patients were inadequate for analysis, resulting in an adequacy rate of 89.5% (68/76): the reasons for inadequacy were insufficient tumor content for immunohistochemistry (n = 3) and low RNA yield for sequencing (n = 5).ConclusionResearch biopsies performed at an experienced, multidisciplinary center had acceptable safety for patients as well as practicality in terms of obtaining adequate tissue samples for molecular studies.
| S-EPMC6690517 | biostudies-literature