This study reviewed 395 young adults, 18–35 year-old, admitted for COVID-19 to one of the eleven hospitals in New York City public health system. Demographics, comorbidities, clinical course, outcomes and characteristics linked to hospitalization were analyzed including temporal survival analysis. Fifty-seven percent of patients had a least one major comorbidity. Mortality without comorbidity was in 3.8% patients. Further investigation of admission features and medical history was conducted. Comorbidities associated with mortality were diabetes (n = 54 deceased/73 diagnosed,74% tested POS;98.2% with diabetic history deceased; Wilcoxon p (Wp) = .044), hypertension (14/44,32% POS, 25.5%; Wp = 0.030), renal (6/16, 37.5% POS,11%; Wp = 0.000), and cardiac (6/21, 28.6% POS,11%; Wp = 0.015). Kaplan survival plots were statistically significant for these four indicators. Data suggested glucose >215 or hemoglobin A1c >9.5 for young adults on admission was associated with increased mortality. Clinically documented respiratory distress on admission was statistically significant outcome related to mortality (X2 = 236.6842, df = 1, p < .0001). Overall, 28.9% required supportive oxygen beyond nasal cannula. Nasal cannula oxygen alone was required for 71.1%, who all lived. Non-invasive ventilation was required for 7.8%, and invasive mechanical ventilation 21.0% (in which 7.3% lived, 13.7% died). Temporal survival analysis demonstrated statistically significant response for Time to Death <10 days (X2 = 18.508, df = 1, p = .000); risk lessened considerably for 21 day cut off (X2 = 3.464, df = 1, p = .063), followed by 31 or more days of hospitalization (X2 = 2.212, df = 1, p = .137).
Background:The siloed delivery of oral and medical health care in the United States has contributed to a lack of awareness of the consequences of poor oral health and has hampered effective interprofessional education and collaboration. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and practice behaviors of primary care medical providers in an urban safety-net hospital regarding collaboration with dentists and integration of oral health into overall health-care delivery. Methods: A 36-item survey was designed in a web-based platform (Survey Monkey ® ) and electronically distributed in September 2020 to 181 primary care medical providers (physicians, nurses, physician assistants) within a municipal hospital in the Bronx, New York. The questionnaire included sections on demographics, current practices, oral health knowledge, and opinions regarding interprofessional collaboration. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses using the chi-square and Fisher's exact test were performed with a significance level of 0.05. Results: The response rate was 66% (119 respondents). The vast majority (80%) reported little or no training in oral health and 85% reported no team experience with oral health professionals. Medical providers' confidence in examining the oral cavity was positively associated with previous additional training (p = 0.001) and with team experience (p = 0.005). The two most commonly reported barriers to willingness to collaborate were lack of formal relationships with dental providers (74%) and competing priorities (69%). Conclusion: Overall, there is very limited awareness and integration of oral health into the clinical practice of medical providers at this safety-net hospital. However, those providers with previous training and team experience had greater oral health confidence. Given the critical importance of oral health to overall health, increased efforts should be directed to further educate and train medical providers and address barriers to interprofessional care.
Background The Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS) Healthcare Debriefing Tool is a cognitive aid designed to deploy debriefing in a structured way. The tool has the potential to increase the facilitator’s ability to acquire debriefing skills, by breaking down the complexity of debriefing and thereby improving the quality of a novice facilitator’s debrief. In this pilot study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the tool on facilitators’ cognitive load, workload, and debriefing quality. Methods Fourteen fellows from the New York City Health + Hospitals Simulation Fellowship, novice to the PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing Tool, were randomized to two groups of 7. The intervention group was equipped with the cognitive aid while the control group did not use the tool. Both groups had undergone an 8-h debriefing course. The two groups performed debriefings of 3 videoed simulated events and rated the cognitive load and workload of their experience using the Paas-Merriënboer scale and the raw National Aeronautics and Space Administration task load index (NASA-TLX), respectively. The debriefing performances were then rated using the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) for debriefing quality. Measures of cognitive load were measured as Paas-Merriënboer scale and compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Measures of workload and debriefing quality were analyzed using mixed-effect linear regression models. Results Those who used the tool had significantly lower median scores in cognitive load in 2 out of the 3 debriefings (median score with tool vs no tool: scenario A 6 vs 6, p=0.1331; scenario B: 5 vs 6, p=0.043; and scenario C: 5 vs 7, p=0.031). No difference was detected in the tool effectiveness in decreasing composite score of workload demands (mean difference in average NASA-TLX −4.5, 95%CI −16.5 to 7.0, p=0.456) or improving composite scores of debriefing qualities (mean difference in DASH 2.4, 95%CI −3.4 to 8.1, p=0.436). Conclusions The PEARLS Healthcare Debriefing Tool may serve as an educational adjunct for debriefing skill acquisition. The use of a debriefing cognitive aid may decrease the cognitive load of debriefing but did not suggest an impact on the workload or quality of debriefing in novice debriefers. Further research is recommended to study the efficacy of the cognitive aid beyond this pilot; however, the design of this research may serve as a model for future exploration of the quality of debriefing.
Introduction: In the initial pandemic regional differences may have existed in COVID-19 hospitalizations and patient outcomes in New York City. Whether these patterns were present in public hospitals is unknown. The aim of this brief study was to investigate COVID-19 hospitalizations and outcomes in the public health system during the initial pandemic response.Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on COVID-19 admissions in New York City public hospitals during the exponential phase of the pandemic. All data were collected from an integrated electronic medical records system (Epic Health Systems, Verona, WI). Overall, 5,422 patients with at least one admission each for COVID-19 were reviewed, with a study of demographic characteristics (including age, gender, race, BMI), pregnancy status, comorbidities, facility activity, and outcomes. Data related to hospitalization and mortality trends were also collected from City of New York website. These data often involved more than one facility and/or service line resulting in more location or treatment facility counts than patients due to utilization of services at more than one location and transfers between locations and facilities.Results: Higher mortality was associated with increasing age with the highest death rate (51.9%) noted in the age group >75 years (OR 7.88, 95%CI 6.32–10.08). Comorbidities with higher mortality included diabetes (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.33–1.70), hypertension (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.44–1.83), cardiovascular conditions (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.47–1.87), COPD (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.39–2.50). It was deduced that 20% of all New York City COVID-19 positive admissions were in public health system during this timeframe. A high proportion of admissions (21.26%) and deaths (19.93%) were at Elmhurst Hospital in Queens. Bellevue and Metropolitan Hospitals had the lowest number of deaths, both in borough of Manhattan. Mortality in public hospitals in Brooklyn was 29.9%, Queens 28.1%, Manhattan 20.4%.Conclusion: Significant variations existed in COVID-19 hospitalizations and outcomes in the public health system in New York City during the initial pandemic. Although outcomes are worse with older age and those with comorbidities, variations in hospitals and boroughs outside of Manhattan are targets to investigate and strategize efforts.
BackgroundOur study's primary objective is to audit the resource utilization of a consultation-liaison (CL) psychiatry service in an inner New York City safety net hospital. This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted as a subset of a quality improvement project at the hospital to investigate the characteristics of the emergent nature of consults, types, and the specialty from which the referral was placed to the CL services. This study aims to improve the efficacy of our consult process by improving the appropriateness and precision of consult requests. MethodologyThis cross-sectional, observational study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board under a quality improvement exemption. The study investigated the EPIC electronic medical record data for characteristics of consult referrals in the third quarter of 2019 from July 1, 2019, to September 30, 2019. A total of 629 consults were recorded during this period. We excluded follow-up calls, duplicate data rows, and patients with missing data points; the final consults were 421. Patients who required more than one new consult (follow-up excluded) within 90 days were considered; thus, the total number of patients who were included in the study was 327. ResultsOf the 421 consults identified in the dataset for review, only 45.8% were valid consults, 32.8% were not valid, and 21.4% were uncertain. Further, the most common department from which consults were placed was Medicine (73.2%), followed by Surgery (12.8%), Obstetrics/Gynecology (9%), Critical Care (3.6%), and, finally, Pediatrics (1.4%). ConclusionsThe study overviews the quality of general consults for the CL psychiatry service and how the CL staff manages it. It also provides an idea about the number of consults that can be comprehensively addressed.
Background Bullying is a complex abusive behavior with potentially serious consequences. Persons who bully and those who are bullied have consistently been found to have higher levels of depression, suicidal ideation, physical injury, distractibility, somatic problems, anxiety, poor self-esteem, and school absenteeism than those not involved with bullying. Objectives To our knowledge, no study has compared physicians’ practices of bullying prevention across different hospital settings and the effect of these practices on parents’ level of awareness. This article represents a subset (phase I) of the inter-departmental quality improvement study for comparing practices of healthcare professionals regarding bullying prevention between the pediatric outpatient clinic and child & adolescent psychiatry outpatient clinic, and parents’ awareness about provider’s anti-bullying practices. Methods Phase I was conducted as a cross-sectional study with the target population of adolescents (age 12-17 yrs) and corresponding guardians, seeking care from healthcare providers (residents, fellows and attendings) in the child & adolescent outpatient psychiatry clinic and pediatric outpatient clinic. It targeted both patients and providers, with adolescents/guardians completing questionnaire about bullying experiences, physician’s anti-bullying practices during past healthcare visits and adolescent Peer Relations Instrument. Providers answered questions about bullying assessing practices, level of self-preparedness and limitations. Results Data were analyzed in SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) and Chi-square tests were used for analyses of variables, and cross-comparing results for particular subsets. A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed. Among the provider surveys, self-reported level of preparedness (on a scale of 1-5; 1- least, 5-most) for assessing bullying was more in Psychiatry providers (Median 4, Mean 4.1) as compared to Pediatric providers (Median 3, Mean 2.9). In the first evaluation, very unprepared, unprepared and neutral (1, 2, 3) responses were contrasted with prepared to very prepared responses (4,5). The second evaluation excludes the neutral responses (3) and tests responses for the unprepared group (1,2) with the prepared group (4,5). The first evaluation resulted in Chi-Squared = 6.810, significant at p = 0.05 and the second evaluation resulted in Chi-squared = 4.774, also significant at p = 0.05. Conclusions This study identifies differences in healthcare professional’s anti-bullying practices and helps in identifying limiting factors. This identification of the practice gap helps in developing interventional strategies to improve the assessment of bullying situations across specialties.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.