Search

BackgroundWhile prior work examining severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern focused on hospitalization and death, less is known about differences in clinical presentation. We compared the prevalence of acute symptoms across pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron.MethodsWe conducted an analysis of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a cohort study enrolling symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive participants. We determined the association between the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron time periods and the prevalence of 21 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute symptoms.ResultsWe enrolled 4113 participants from December 2020 to June 2022. Pre-Delta vs Delta vs Omicron participants had increasing sore throat (40.9%, 54.6%, 70.6%; P < .001), cough (50.9%, 63.3%, 66.7%; P < .001), and runny noses (48.9%, 71.3%, 72.9%; P < .001). We observed reductions during Omicron in chest pain (31.1%, 24.2%, 20.9%; P < .001), shortness of breath (42.7%, 29.5%, 27.5%; P < .001), loss of taste (47.1%, 61.8%, 19.2%; P < .001), and loss of smell (47.5%, 55.6%, 20.0%; P < .001). After adjustment, those infected during Omicron had significantly higher odds of sore throat vs pre-Delta (odds ratio [OR], 2.76; 95% CI, 2.26-3.35) and Delta (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.69-2.28).ConclusionsParticipants infected during Omicron were more likely to report symptoms of common respiratory viruses, such as sore throat, and less likely to report loss of smell and taste.Trial registrationNCT04610515.

Background: Academic emergency medicine (EM) is foundational to the EM specialty through the development of new knowledge and clinical training of resident physicians. Despite recent increased attention to the future of the EM workforce, no evaluations have specifically characterized the U.S. academic EM workforce. We sought to estimate the national proportion of emergency physicians (EPs) identified as academic and the proportion of emergency department (ED) visits that take place at academic sites. Methods: We performed a cross‐sectional analysis of EPs and EDs using data from the American Hospital Association, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Doximity's Residency Navigator. EPs were identified as "academic" if they were affiliated with at least one facility determined to be academic, defined as EDs officially designated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) as clinical training sites at accredited EM residency programs. Our primary outcomes were to estimate the national proportion of EPs identified as academic and the proportion of ED visits performed at academic sites. Results: Our analytic sample included 26,937 EPs practicing clinically across 4920 EDs and providing care during 130,471,386 ED visits. Among EPs, 11,720 (43.5%) were identified as academic, and among EDs, 635 (12.9%) were identified as academic sites, including 585 adult/general sites, 45 pediatric‐specific sites, and 10 sites affiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs. In 2021, academic EDs provided care for 42,794,106 ED visits or 32.8% of all ED visits nationally. Conclusions: Approximately four in 10 EPs practice in at least one clinical training site affiliated with an ACGME‐accredited EM residency program, and approximately one in three ED visits nationally occur in these academic EDs. We encourage further work using alternative definitions of an academic EPs and EDs, along with longitudinal research to identify trends in the workforce's composition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States labor market are well-established, less is known about the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Long COVID on employment. To address this gap, we analyzed self-reported data from a prospective, national cohort study to estimate the effects of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms at three months post-infection on missed workdays and return to work. The analysis included 2,939 adults in the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) study who tested positive for their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of enrollment, were employed before the pandemic, and completed a baseline and three-month electronic survey. At three months post-infection, 40.8% of participants reported at least one SARS-CoV-2 symptom and 9.6% of participants reported five or more SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. When asked about missed work due to their SARS-CoV-2 infection at three months, 7.2% of participants reported missing ≥10 workdays and 13.9% of participants reported not returning to work since their infection. At three months, participants with ≥5 symptoms had a higher adjusted odds ratio of missing ≥10 workdays (2.96, 95% CI 1.81–4.83) and not returning to work (2.44, 95% CI 1.58–3.76) compared to those with no symptoms. Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were common, affecting 4-in-10 participants at three-months post-infection, and were associated with increased odds of work loss, most pronounced among adults with ≥5 symptoms at three months. Despite the end of the federal Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 and efforts to "return to normal", policymakers must consider the clinical and economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on people's employment status and work absenteeism, particularly as data characterizing the numerous health and well-being impacts of Long COVID continue to emerge. Improved understanding of risk factors for lost work time may guide efforts to support people in returning to work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivesAdministrative claims data sets are often used for emergency care research and policy investigations of healthcare resource utilization, acute care practices, and evaluation of quality improvement interventions. Despite the high profile of emergency department (ED) visits in analyses using administrative claims, little work has evaluated the degree to which existing definitions based on claims data accurately captures conventionally defined hospital-based ED services. We sought to construct an operational definition for ED visitation using a comprehensive Medicare data set and to compare this definition to existing operational definitions used by researchers and policymakers.MethodsWe examined four operational definitions of an ED visit commonly used by researchers and policymakers using a 20% sample of the 2012 Medicare Chronic Condition Warehouse (CCW) data set. The CCW data set included all Part A (hospital) and Part B (hospital outpatient, physician) claims for a nationally representative sample of continuously enrolled Medicare fee-for-services beneficiaries. Three definitions were based on published research or existing quality metrics including: 1) provider claims-based definition, 2) facility claims-based definition, and 3) CMS Research Data Assistance Center (ResDAC) definition. In addition, we developed a fourth operational definition (Yale definition) that sought to incorporate additional coding rules for identifying ED visits. We report levels of agreement and disagreement among the four definitions.ResultsOf 10,717,786 beneficiaries included in the sample data set, 22% had evidence of ED use during the study year under any of the ED visit definitions. The definition using provider claims identified a total of 4,199,148 ED visits, the facility definition 4,795,057 visits, the ResDAC definition 5,278,980 ED visits, and the Yale definition 5,192,235 ED visits. The Yale definition identified a statistically different (p < 0.05) collection of ED visits than all other definitions including 17% more ED visits than the provider definition and 2% fewer visits than the ResDAC definition. Differences in ED visitation counts between each definition occurred for several reasons including the inclusion of critical care or observation services in the ED, discrepancies between facility and provider billing regulations, and operational decisions of each definition.ConclusionCurrent operational definitions of ED visitation using administrative claims produce different estimates of ED visitation based on the underlying assumptions applied to billing data and data set availability. Future analyses using administrative claims data should seek to validate specific definitions and inform the development of a consistent, consensus ED visitation definitions to standardize research reporting and the interpretation of policy interventions.

IntroductionIn June 2016, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Quality Network began its Reduce Avoidable Imaging Initiative, designed to “reduce testing and imaging with low risk patients through the implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations”. However, it is unknown whether New England Emergency Departments (EDs) have already implemented evidence-based interventions to improve adherence to ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations related to imaging after their initial release in 2013.  Our objective was to determine this, as well as whether provider-specific audit-and-feedback for imaging had been implemented in these EDs. MethodsThis survey study was exempt from Institutional Review Board review. In 2015, we mailed surveys to 195 hospital-affiliated EDs in all six New England states to determine whether they had implemented Choosing Wisely-focused interventions in 2014. Initial mailings included cover letters denoting the endorsement of each state’s ACEP chapter, and were followed-up twice with repeat mailings to non-responders. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and a comparison of state differences using Fisher’s exact test. ResultsA total of 169/195 (87%) of New England EDs responded, with all individual state response rates >80%. Overall, 101 (60%) of responding EDs had implemented an intervention for at least one Choosing Wisely imaging scenario; 57% reported implementing a specific guideline/policy/clinical pathway, 40% had implemented provider-specific audit-and-feedback, and 28% reported implementing a computerized decision support system. The most common interventions were for chest CT in patients at low-risk of pulmonary embolism (47% of EDs) and head CT in patients with minor trauma (45% of EDs). In addition, 40% of EDs had implemented provider-specific audit-and-feedback, without significant interstate variation (range: 29-55%). ConclusionOne year after release of the ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations, most New England EDs had a guideline/policy/clinical pathway related to at least one of the recommendations. However, only a minority were using provider-specific audit-and-feedback or computerized decision support. Few EDs have embraced the opportunity to implement the multiple evidence-based interventions likely to advance the national goals of improving patient-centered and resource-efficient care.

In 2007, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) created a novel payment program to create incentives for physician’s to focus on quality of care measures and report quality performance for the first time. Initially termed “The Physician Voluntary Reporting Program,” various Congressional actions, including the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA) and Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) further strengthened and ensconced this program, eventually leading to the quality program termed today as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). As a result of passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the PQRS program has expanded to include both the “traditional PQRS” reporting program and the newer “Value Modifier” program (VM). For the first time, these programs were designed to include pay-for-performance incentives for all physicians providing care to Medicare beneficiaries and to measure the cost of care. The recent passage of the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act in March of 2015 includes changes to these payment programs that will have an even more profound impact on emergency care providers. We describe the implications of these important federal policy changes for emergency physicians.

Background: Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care. Methods: With the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science‐Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post–emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full‐text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk‐of‐bias (RoB) assessments. Results: Our search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1–3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4–6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality. Conclusions: PROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Limited capacity in the emergency department (ED) secondary to boarding and crowding has resulted in patients receiving care in hallways to provide access to timely evaluation and treatment. However, there are concerns raised by physicians and patients regarding a decrease in patient centered care and quality resulting from hallway care. We sought to explore social risk factors associated with hallway placement and operational outcomes. Observational study between July 2017 and February 2020. Primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of patient placement in a hallway treatment space adjusting for patient demographics and ED operational factors. Secondary outcomes included left without being seen (LWBS), discharge against medical advice (AMA), elopement, 72-h ED revisit, 10-day ED revisit and escalation of care during boarding. Among 361,377 ED visits, 100,079 (27.7%) visits were assigned to hallway beds. Patient insurance coverage (Medicaid (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01,1.06) and Self-pay/Other (1.08, (1.03, 1.13))) with comparison to private insurance, and patient sex (Male (1.08, (1.06, 1.10))) with comparison to female sex are associated with higher odds of hallway placement but patient age, race, and language were not. These associations are adjusted for ED census, triage assigned severity, ED staffing, boarding level, and time effect, with social factors mutually adjusted. Additionally adjusting for patients' social factors, patients placed in hallways had higher odds of elopement (1.23 (1.07,1.41)), 72-h ED revisit (1.33 (1.08, 1.64)) and 10-day ED revisit (1.23 (1.11, 1.36)) comparing with patients placed in regular ED rooms. We did not find statistically significant associations between hallway placement and LWBS, discharge AMA, or escalation of care. While hallway usage is ad hoc, we find consistent differences in care delivery with those insured by Medicaid and self-pay or male sex being placed in hallway beds. Further work should examine how new front-end processes such as provider in triage or split flow may be associated with inequities in patient access to emergency and hospital care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]