Search

Study Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has underscored the need to understand health care in a regional context. However, there are multiple definitions of health care regions available for conducting geospatial analyses. In this study, we compare the novel Pittsburgh Atlas, which defined regions for emergency care, with the existing definitions of regions, counties, and the Dartmouth Atlas, with respect to nonemergent acute medical conditions using pneumonia admissions., Methods: We identified patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of pneumonia or a primary admitting diagnosis of sepsis with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's State Inpatient Databases. We calculated the percentage of region concordant care, the localization index, and market share for 3 definitions of health care regions (the Pittsburgh Atlas, Dartmouth Atlas, and counties). We used logistic regression identified predictors of region concordant care., Results: We identified 1,582,287 patients who met the inclusion criteria. We found that the Pittsburgh Atlas and Dartmouth Atlas definitions of regions performed similarly with respect to both localization index (92.0 [interquartile range 87.9 to 95.7] versus 90.3 [interquartile range 81.4 to 94.5]) and market share (8.5 [interquartile range 5.1 to 13.6] versus 9.4 [interquartile range 6.7 to 14.1]). Both atlases outperformed the localization index (67.5 [interquartile range 49.9 to 83.9]) and market share (20.0% [interquartile range 11.4 to 31.4]) of the counties. Within a given referral region, the demographic factors, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance status, and the level of severity, affected concordance rates between residential and hospital regions., Conclusion: Because the Pittsburgh Atlas also has the benefit of respecting state and county boundaries, the use of this definition may have improved policy applicability without sacrificing accuracy in defining health care regions for acute medical conditions., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Mass vaccination campaigns have been used effectively to limit the impact of communicable disease on public health. However, the scale of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination campaign is unprecedented. Mass vaccination sites consolidate resources and experience into a single entity and are essential to achieving community ("herd") immunity rapidly, efficiently, and equitably. Health care systems, local and regional public health entities, emergency medical services, and private organizations can rapidly come together to solve problems and achieve success. As medical directors at several mass vaccination sites across the United States, we describe key mass vaccination site concepts, including site selection, operational models, patient flow, inventory management, staffing, technology, reporting, medical oversight, communication, and equity. Lessons learned from experience operating a diverse group of mass vaccination sites will help inform not only sites operating during the current pandemic, but also may serve as a blueprint for future outbreaks of highly infectious communicable disease.

Background: Little is known about clusters of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in acute care hospitals., Objective: To describe the detection, mitigation, and analysis of a large cluster of SARS-CoV-2 infections in an acute care hospital with mature infection control policies., Design: Descriptive study., Setting: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts., Participants: Patients and staff with cluster-related SARS-CoV-2 infections., Intervention: Close contacts of infected patients and staff were identified and tested every 3 days, patients on affected units were preemptively isolated and repeatedly tested, affected units were cleaned, room ventilation was measured, and specimens were sent for whole-genome sequencing. A case-control study was done to compare clinical interactions, personal protective equipment use, and breakroom and workroom practices in SARS-CoV-2-positive versus negative staff., Measurements: Description of the cluster, mitigation activities, and risk factor analysis., Results: Fourteen patients and 38 staff members were included in the cluster per whole-genome sequencing and epidemiologic associations. The index case was a symptomatic patient in whom isolation was discontinued after 2 negative results on nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction testing. The patient subsequently infected multiple roommates and staff, who then infected others. Seven of 52 (13%) secondary infections were detected only on second or subsequent tests. Eight of 9 (89%) patients who shared rooms with potentially contagious patients became infected. Potential contributing factors included high viral loads, nebulization, and positive pressure in the index patient's room. Risk factors for transmission to staff included presence during nebulization, caring for patients with dyspnea or cough, lack of eye protection, at least 15 minutes of exposure to case patients, and interactions with SARS-CoV-2-positive staff in clinical areas. Whole-genome sequencing confirmed that 2 staff members were infected despite wearing surgical masks and eye protection., Limitation: Findings may not be generalizable., Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 clusters can occur in hospitals despite robust infection control policies. Insights from this cluster may inform additional measures to protect patients and staff., Primary Funding Source: None.

Background: Traditional, instructor led, in-person training of CPR skills has become more challenging due to COVID-19 pandemic. We compared the learning outcomes of standard in-person CPR training (ST) with alternative methods of training such as hybrid or online-only training (AT) on CPR performance, quality, and knowledge among laypersons with no previous CPR training., Methods: We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for relevant articles from January 1995 to May 2020. Covidence was used to review articles by two independent researchers. Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool was used to assess quality of the manuscripts., Results: Of the 978 articles screened, twenty met the final inclusion criteria. All included studies had an experimental design and moderate to strong global quality rating. The trainees in ST group performed better on calling 911, time to initiate chest compressions, hand placement and chest compression depth. Trainees in AT group performed better in assessing scene safety, calling for help, response time including initiating first rescue breathing, adequate ventilation volume, compression rates, shorter hands-off time, confidence, willingness to perform CPR, ability to follow CPR algorithm, and equivalent or better knowledge retention than standard teaching methodology., Conclusion: AT methods of CPR training provide an effective alternative to the standard in-person CPR for large scale public training.