In this study of patients admitted with COVID-19, we examined differences between the two waves in patient characteristics and outcomes. Data were collected from the first COVID-19 admission to the end of study (01/03/2020–31/03/2021). Data were adjusted for age and sex and presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 12,471 admissions, 1452 (11.6%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. On admission, the mean (± SD) age of patients with other causes was 68.3 years (± 19.8) and those with COVID-19 in wave 1 was 69.4 years (± 18.0) and wave 2 was 66.2 years (± 18.4). Corresponding ages at discharge were 67.5 years (± 19.7), 63.9 years (± 18.0) and 62.4 years (± 18.0). The highest proportion of total admissions was among the oldest group (≥ 80 years) in wave 1 (35.0%). When compared with patients admitted with other causes, those admitted with COVID-19 in wave 1 and in wave 2 were more frequent in the 40–59 year band: 20.8, 24.6 and 30.0%; consisted of more male patients: 47.5, 57.6 and 58.8%; and a high LACE (Length of stay, Acuity of admission, Comorbidity and Emergency department visits) index (score ≥ 10): 39.4, 61.3 and 50.3%. Compared to wave-2 patients, those admitted in wave 1 had greater risk of death in hospital: OR = 1.58 (1.18–2.12) and within 30 days of discharge: OR = 2.91 (1.40–6.04). Survivors of COVID-19 in wave 1 stayed longer in hospital (median = 6.5 days; interquartile range = 2.9–12.0) as compared to survivors from wave 2 (4.5 days; interquartile range = 1.9–8.7). Patient characteristics differed significantly between the two waves of COVID-19 pandemic. There was an improvement in outcomes in wave 2, including shorter length of stay in hospital and reduction of mortality.

Uncertainties remain if changes to hospital care during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic had an adverse impact on the care-quality of non-COVID-19 patients. We examined the association of hospital length of stay (LOS) with healthcare quality indicators in patients admitted with general medical conditions (non-COVID-19). In this retrospective monocentric study at a National Health Service hospital (Surrey), data were collected from 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2021, including the pandemic from 1st March 2020. Primary admissions, in-hospital mortality, post-discharge readmission and mortality were compared between the pre-pandemic (reference group) and pandemic period, according to LOS categories. There were 10,173 (47.7% men) from the pre-pandemic and 11,019 (47.5% men) from the pandemic period; mean (SD) age 68.3 year (20.0) and 68.3 year (19.6), respectively. During the pandemic, primary admission rates for acute cardiac conditions, pulmonary embolism, cerebrovascular accident and malignancy were higher, whilst admission rates for respiratory diseases and common age-related infections, and in-hospital mortality rates were lower. Amongst 19,721 survivors, sex distribution and underlying health status did not significantly differ between admissions before the pandemic and during wave-1 and wave-2 of the pandemic. Readmission rates did not differ between pre-pandemic and pandemic groups within the LOS categories of < 7 and 7–14 days, but were lower for the pandemic group who stayed > 14 days. For patients who died within seven days of admission, in-hospital mortality rates were lower in patients admitted during the pandemic. Mortality rates within 30 days of discharge did not differ between pre-pandemic and pandemic groups, irrespective of the initial hospital LOS. Despite higher rates of admission for serious conditions during the pandemic, in-hospital mortality was lower. Discharge time was similar to that for patients admitted before the pandemic, except it was earlier during the pandemic for those who stayed > 14 days, There were no group differences in quality-care outcomes.

Objective Hospital-onset stroke (HOS) is associated with poorer outcomes than community-onset stroke (COS). Previous studies have variably documented patient characteristics and outcome measures; here, we compare in detail characteristics, management and outcomes of HOS and COS. Methods A total of 1656 men (mean age ± SD = 73.1 years ± 13.2) and 1653 women (79.3 years ± 13.0), with data prospectively collected (2014–2016) from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme, were admitted with acute stroke in four UK hyperacute stroke units (HASU). Associations between variables were examined by chi-squared tests and multivariable logistic regression (COS as reference). Results There were 272 HOS and 3037 COS patients with mean ages of 80.2 years ± 12.5 and 76.4 years ± SD13.5 and equal sex distribution. Compared to COS, HOS had higher proportions ≥ 80 years (64.0% vs 46.4%), congestive heart failure (16.9% vs 4.9%), atrial fibrillation (25.0% vs 19.7%) and pre-stroke disability (9.6% vs 5.1%), and similar history of stroke, hypertension, diabetes, stroke type and severity of stroke. After age, sex and co-morbidities adjustments, HOS had greater risk of pneumonia: OR (95%CI) = 1.9 (1.3–2.6); malnutrition: OR = 2.2 (1.7–2.9); immediate thrombolysis complications: OR = 5.3 (1.5–18.2); length of stay on HASU > 3 weeks: OR = 2.5 (1.8–3.4); post-stroke disability: OR = 1.8 (1.4–2.4); and in-hospital mortality: OR = 1.8 (1.2–2.4), as well as greater support at discharge including palliative care: OR = 1.9 (1.3–2.8); nursing care: OR = 2.0 (1.3–4.0), help for daily living activities: OR = 1.6 (1.1–2.2); and joint-care planning: OR = 1.5 (1.1–1.9). Conclusions This detailed analysis of underlying differences in subject characteristics between patients with HOS or COS and adverse consequences provides further insights into understanding poorer outcomes associated with HOS.

Program/Project Purpose: The Center for Global Education Initiatives (CGEI) at the University of Maryland Baltimore (UMB) created an interprofessional faculty and student global health grant program in 2014 to support faculty-initiated global health projects that include students from more than one school on campus (law, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, social work, nursing). The purpose of the grant program is to ensure that global health students in UMB's professional schools are taught the value and necessity of collaboration in global health practice and provided with sufficient opportunity to learn how to practice in a collaborative setting. Structure/Method/Design: The goal of the grant program is to provide financial incentives and logistical support to stimulate faculty to design global health projects for an interprofessional team of students. Our desired outcome is a broad range of interprofessional experiential learning projects that successfully teach designated global health and interprofessional education (IPE) learning objectives. Faculty members from any UMB school can apply for a one-time award of $10,000 to support a project that can be from 2-13 weeks in length. An interprofessional group of faculty review and select faculty awardees. CGEI staff then advertise the faculty projects and invite students from all UMB schools to apply to participate in a project. Selected students are awarded travel funds to support their participation. As part of the competitive application process, applicants are required to describe how their proposed project stimulates capacity building at the project site and/or if the proposed project is sustainable over time. The project teams are required to participate in 9-12 hours of pre-project IPE training in addition to any content requirements established by the faculty leader. Upon completion of the project, CGEI staff actively help awardees identify presentation, publication, and grant opportunities to share the results of the project and engage in additional research. Outcomes & Evaluation:We surveyed the first group of awardees (nine faculty and 33 students) pre-and post-project. The survey included quantatative and qualitative measures. Preliminary survey results indicate robust support for the grant program among students and faculty and a significant increase in multiple survey measures relating to global health and IPE learning objectives. In addition, both faculty and student appreciation for an interprofessional approach to global health greatly increased. An initial broad conclusion is that the availability of small grant funds coupled with logistical support is a strong incentive for faculty to create interprofessional global health projects. Going Forward: We plan to develop a validated survey tool that can evaluate the success of the grant program across the broad range of projects supported by the grant program. This will help determine which IPE training activities are most appropriate for interprofessional global health education. Funding: no outside fu...

No abstract