Background: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with thrombotic and microvascular complications. The cause of coagulopathy in the disease is incompletely understood. Methods: A single-center cross-sectional study including 66 adult COVID-19 patients (40 moderate, 26 severe disease), and 9 controls, performed between 04/2020 and 10/2020. Markers of coagulation, endothelial cell function [angiopoietin-1,-2, P-selectin, von Willebrand Factor Antigen (WF:Ag), von Willebrand Factor Ristocetin Cofactor, ADAMTS13, thrombomodulin, soluble Endothelial cell Protein C Receptor (sEPCR), Tissue Factor Pathway Inhibitor], neutrophil activation (elastase, citrullinated histones) and fibrinolysis (tissue-type plasminogen activator, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1) were evaluated using ELISA. Tissue Factor (TF) was estimated by antithrombin-FVIIa complex (AT/FVIIa) and microparticles-TF (MP-TF). We correlated each marker and determined its association with severity. Expression of pulmonary TF, thrombomodulin and EPCR was determined by immunohistochemistry in 9 autopsies. Findings: Comorbidities were frequent in both groups, with older age associated with severe disease. All patients were on prophylactic anticoagulants. Three patients (4.5%) developed pulmonary embolism. Mortality was 7.5%. Patients presented with mild alterations in the coagulogram (compensated state). Biomarkers of endothelial cell, neutrophil activation and fibrinolysis were elevated in severe vs moderate disease; AT/ FVIIa and MP-TF levels were higher in severe patients. Logistic regression revealed an association of Ddimers, angiopoietin-1, vWF:Ag, thrombomodulin, white blood cells, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and hemoglobin levels with severity, with ANC and vWF:Ag identified as independent factors. Notably, postmortem specimens demonstrated epithelial expression of TF in the lung of fatal COVID-19 cases with loss of thrombomodulin staining, implying in a shift towards a procoagulant state. Interpretation: Coagulation dysregulation has multifactorial etiology in SARS-Cov-2 infection. Upregulation of pulmonary TF with loss of thrombomodulin emerge as a potential link to immunothrombosis, and therapeutic targets in the disease.

IMPORTANCE There is an increasing trend toward designing hospitals with patient‐centered features like reduced noise, improved natural light, visitor friendly facilities, well‐decorated rooms, and hotel‐like amenities. It has also been suggested that because patients cannot reliably distinguish positive experiences with the physical environment from positive experience with care, an improved hospital environment leads to higher satisfaction with physicians, nursing, food service, housekeeping, and higher overall satisfaction. OBJECTIVE To characterize changes in patient satisfaction that occurred when clinical services (comprised of stable nursing, physician, and unit teams) were relocated to a new clinical building with patient‐centered features. We hypothesized that new building features would positively impact provider, ancillary staff, and overall satisfaction, as well as improved satisfaction with the facility. DESIGN Natural experiment utilizing a pre‐post design with concurrent controls. SETTING Academic tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS We included all patients discharged from 12 clinical units that relocated to the new clinical building who returned surveys in the 7.5‐month period following the move. Premove baseline data were captured from the year prior to the move. Patients on unmoved clinical units who returned satisfaction surveys served as concurrent controls. EXPOSURE Patient‐centered design features incorporated into the new clinical building. All patients during the baseline period and control patients during the study period were located in usual patient rooms with standard hospital amenities. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was satisfaction scores on the Press Ganey and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, dichotomized at highest category versus lower categories. We performed logistic regression to identify predictors of “top‐box” scores. RESULTS The move was associated with improved room‐ and visitor‐related satisfaction without significant improvement in satisfaction with clinical providers, ancillary staff, and only 1 of 4 measures of overall satisfaction improved. The most prominent increase was with pleasantness of décor (33.6% vs 64.8%) and visitor accommodation and comfort (50.0% vs 70.3%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE Patients responded positively to pleasing surroundings and comfort, but were able to discriminate their experiences with the hospital environment from those with physicians and nurses. The move to a new building had significant impact on only 1 of the 4 measures of overall patient satisfaction, as clinical care is likely to be the most important determinant of this outcome. Hospital administrators should not use outdated facilities as an excuse for suboptimal provider satisfaction scores. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;10:165–171. © 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine

BACKGROUND Specialty hospitals are a subset of acute‐care hospitals that provide a narrower set of services than general medical hospitals (GMHs), predominantly in areas such as cardiac disease and surgery. Although specialty hospitals also advertise high patient satisfaction, this has not been examined using national data. We examined the differences in Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) satisfaction scores in a national sample. METHODS HCAHPS results were obtained for July 2007 to June 2010. Specialty hospitals were identified using the American Hospital Association's Annual Survey, the Physician Hospital Association's directory, a name search of hospitals on the HCAHPS database, contact with experts, and online searches. Multiple linear regression was performed to examine the relationship between overall satisfaction and hospital specialty status, survey response rate, and subdomains of patient satisfaction. RESULTS We identified 188 specialty hospitals and 4368 GMHs. Specialty hospitals were disproportionately located in states that do not require Certification Of Need (47.9%), and had a higher overall patient satisfaction score (86.6 vs 67.8%, P < 0.0001) and survey response rates (49.6% vs 32.2%, P < 0.0001). After adjusting for response rate, the difference in overall patient satisfaction decreased by >50% (from 18.5 to 8.7) but remained significantly higher (P < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained for patient satisfaction subdomains. CONCLUSION Specialty hospitals have a significantly higher overall HCAHPS patient satisfaction score than GMHs, although more than half of this difference disappears when adjusted for survey response rate. Comparisons among healthcare organizations should take into account survey response rates. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2014;9:590–593. © 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine