Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:It is not yet known whether socioeconomic factors (ie, social determinants of health) are associated with readmission following hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 6191 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a large New York City safety-net hospital system between March 1 and June 1, 2020. Associations between 30-day readmission and selected demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, prior health care utilization, and relevant features of the index hospitalization were analyzed using a multivariable generalized estimating equation model. RESULTS:The readmission rate was 7.3%, with a median of 7 days between discharge and readmission. The following were risk factors for readmission: age 65 and older [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.55], history of homelessness, (aOR: 2.03 95% CI: 1.49-2.77), baseline coronary artery disease (aOR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.34-2.10), congestive heart failure (aOR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.20-1.49), cancer (aOR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.26-2.24), chronic kidney disease (aOR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.46-2.07). Patients' sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, and presence of obesity were not associated with increased odds of readmission. A longer length of stay (aOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97-1.00) and use of noninvasive supplemental oxygen (aOR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.56-0.83) was associated with lower odds of readmission. Upon readmission, 18.4% of patients required intensive care, and 13.7% expired. CONCLUSION:We have found some factors associated with increased odds of readmission among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Awareness of these risk factors, including patients' social determinants of health, may ultimately help to reduce readmission rates.

OBJECTIVES:To examine the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine receipt among healthcare workers and the role of vaccine confidence in decisions to vaccinate, and to better understand concerns related to COVID-19 vaccination. DESIGN:Cross-sectional anonymous survey among front-line, support service and administrative healthcare workers. SETTING:Two large integrated healthcare systems (one private and one public) in New York City during the initial roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine. PARTICIPANTS:1933 healthcare workers, including nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, environmental services staff, researchers and administrative staff. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine receipt during the initial roll-out of the vaccine among healthcare workers. RESULTS:Among 1933 healthcare workers who had been offered the vaccine, 81% had received the vaccine at the time of the survey. Receipt was lower among black (58%; OR: 0.14, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) compared with white (91%) healthcare workers, and higher among non-Hispanic (84%) compared with Hispanic (69%; OR: 2.37, 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1) healthcare workers. Among healthcare workers with concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, 65% received the vaccine. Among healthcare workers who agreed with the statement that the vaccine is important to protect family members, 86% were vaccinated. Of those who disagreed, 25% received the vaccine (p<0.001). In a multivariable analysis, concern about being experimented on (OR: 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.6), concern about COVID-19 vaccine safety (OR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.55), lack of influenza vaccine receipt (OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.44), disagreeing that COVID-19 vaccination is important to protect others (OR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52) and black race (OR: 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.59) were independently associated with COVID-19 vaccine non-receipt. Over 70% of all healthcare workers responded that they had been approached for vaccine advice multiple times by family, community members and patients. CONCLUSIONS:Our data demonstrated high overall receipt among healthcare workers. Even among healthcare workers with concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, side effects or being experimented on, over 50% received the vaccine. Attitudes around the importance of COVID-19 vaccination to protect others played a large role in healthcare workers' decisions to vaccinate. We observed striking inequities in COVID-19 vaccine receipt, particularly affecting black and Hispanic workers. Further research is urgently needed to address issues related to vaccine equity and uptake in the context of systemic racism and barriers to care. This is particularly important given the influence healthcare workers have in vaccine decision-making conversations in their communities.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Hospital consolidations have been shown not to improve quality on average. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To assess a full-integration approach to hospital mergers based on quality metrics in a safety net hospital acquired by an urban academic health system. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This quality improvement study analyzed outcomes for all nonpsychiatric, nonrehabilitation, non-newborn patients discharged between September 1, 2010, and August 31, 2019, at a US safety net hospital that was acquired by an urban academic health system in January 2016. Interrupted time series and statistical process control analyses were used to assess the main outcomes and measures. Data sources included the hospital's electronic health record, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare, and nursing quality reports. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:A full-integration approach to the merger that included: (1) early administrative and clinical leadership integration with the academic health system; (2) rapid transition to the academic health system electronic health record; (3) local ownership of quality metrics; (4) system-level goals with real-time actionable analytics through combined dashboards; and (5) implementation of value-based and other analytic-driven interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission, patient experience, and hospital-acquired conditions. Results/UNASSIGNED:The 122 348 patients in the premerger (September 2010 through August 2016) and the 58 904 patients in the postmerger (September 2016 through August 2019) periods had a mean (SD) age of 55.5 (22.0) years; the total sample of 181 252 patients included 112 191 women (61.9%), the payor mix was majority governmental (144 375 patients [79.7%]), and most admissions were emergent (121 469 patients [67.0%]). There was a 0.71% (95% CI, 0.57%-0.86%) absolute (27% relative) reduction in the crude mortality rate and 0.95% (95% CI, 0.83%-1.12%) absolute (33% relative) in the adjusted rate by the end of the 3-year intervention period. There was no significant improvement in readmission rates after accounting for baseline trends. There were fewer central line infections per 1000 catheter days, fewer catheter-associated urinary tract infections per 1000 discharges, and a higher likelihood of patients recommending the hospital or ranking it 9 or 10. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this quality improvement study, a hospital merger with a full-integration approach to consolidation was found to be associated with improvement in quality outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Even with the adequate use of diuretics and vasodilators, volume overload and congestion are the major causes of morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure (HF). We aim to evaluate the additive effect of tolvaptan on efficacy parameters as well as outcomes in hospitalized patients with HF. METHODS:We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of tolvaptan versus placebo in hospitalized patients with HF. Studies were included if they had any of the following endpoints: mortality, re-hospitalization, and in-hospital parameters like dyspnea relief, change in weight, sodium, and creatinine. RESULTS:The meta-analysis analyzed data from 14 studies involving 5945 patients. The follow up duration ranged from 30 days to 2 years. Between tolvaptan and placebo groups, there was no difference in mortality and rehospitalization. HF patients had a better dyspnea relief score (Likert score) in tolvaptan group and mean reduction in weight in the first 48 h (short-term). However, at 7 days (medium-term) the mean difference in weight was not significant. Serum sodium increased significantly in tolvaptan group. There was no difference in creatinine among the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis shows that tolvaptan helps in short-term symptomatic dyspnea relief and weight reduction, but there are no long term benefits including reduction in mortality and rehospitalization.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

The purpose of this consensus paper was to convene leaders and scholars from eight Expert Panels of the American Academy of Nursing and provide recommendations to advance nursing's roles and responsibility to ensure universal access to palliative care. On behalf of the Academy, these evidence-based recommendations will guide nurses, policy makers, government representatives, professional associations, and interdisciplinary and community partners to integrate palliative nursing services across health and social care settings. Through improved palliative nursing education, nurse-led research, nurse engagement in policy making, enhanced intersectoral partnerships with nursing, and an increased profile and visibility of palliative care nurses worldwide, nurses can assume leading roles in delivering high-quality palliative care globally, particularly for minoritized, marginalized, and other at-risk populations. Part II herein provides a summary of international responses and policy options that have sought to enhance universal palliative care and palliative nursing access to date. Additionally, we provide ten policy, education, research, and clinical practice recommendations based on the rationale and background information found in Part I. The consensus paper's 43 authors represent eight countries (Australia, Canada, England, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, South Africa, United States of America) and extensive international health experience, thus providing a global context for the subject matter.