Opportunistic COVID-19 vaccination in the emergency department.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Simons SN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8652434 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Opportunistic COVID-19 vaccination in the emergency department.
Simons Sarah N SN Hutton Jennie J Walker Katie K Harding Sally S
Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA 20211030 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThis is an observational study to analyze an emergency department (ED) utilization pattern of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinated in-hospital healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsWe included 4,703 HCWs who were administered the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine between March 4 and April 2, 2021, in a tertiary hospital in Korea where fast-track and post-vaccination cohort zone (PVCZ) were introduced in ED. We analyzed data of participants' age, sex, occupation, date and type of vaccination, and their clinical information using SPSS v25.0.ResultsThe sample comprised HCWs, who received either the ChAdOx1 (n = 4,458) or the BNT162B2 (n = 245) vaccines; most participants were female (73.5%), and 81.1% were under 50 years old. Further, 153 (3.3%) visited the ED and reported experiencing fever (66.9%) and myalgia (56.1%). Additionally, 91 (59.5%) of them were in their 20s, and 106 (67.5%) were assigned to the PVCZ. Lastly, 107 (68.2%) of the patients received parenteral management. No patient required hospitalization.ConclusionIn conclusion, vaccinated HCWs who visited the ED with adverse events had a high incidence of fever and a low likelihood of developing serious illnesses. As the COVID-19 vaccination program for Korean citizens continues to expand, strategies to minimize unnecessary ED overcrowding should be put into effect.
| S-EPMC8275460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic not only exacerbated barriers to healthcare but has also highlighted the trend toward increased vaccine hesitancy. Our goal was to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake through a student-led, emergency department-based (ED) vaccination program.MethodsThis prospective, quality-improvement pilot program used medical and pharmacy student volunteers as COVID-19 vaccine screeners in a southern, urban, academic ED. Patients eligible for vaccination were offered either the Janssen-Johnson & Johnson or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and were educated about vaccine concerns. Vaccine acceptance rates were recorded, as well as reasons for vaccine hesitancy, vaccine brand preferences, and demographics. The primary and secondary quantitative outcomes were overall vaccine acceptance and change in vaccine acceptance after student-provided education, respectively. We performed logistic regression to identify potential variables that correlated with vaccine acceptance. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, focus group interviews with four key stakeholder groups explored implementation facilitators and barriers.ResultsWe screened 406 patients for COVID-19 vaccination eligibility and current vaccine status, the majority of whom were unvaccinated. Of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients, vaccine acceptance before education was 28.3% (81/286), and vaccine acceptance after education was 31.5% (90/286) (% difference, 3.1% [95% CI 0.3%-5.9%], P=0.03). The most common hesitancy factors cited were concerns about side effects and safety. Results from the regression analysis indicated that increasing age and Black race were associated with an increased odds of vaccine acceptance. Focus groups revealed implementation barriers, including patient resistance and workflow issues, and facilitators, including student involvement and public health promotion.ConclusionUsing medical and pharmacy student volunteers as COVID-19 vaccine screeners was successful, and brief education provided by the students led to a modest increase in vaccine acceptance, with overall acceptance of 31.5%. Numerous educational benefits are described.
| S-EPMC10284509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntroduction of the mRNA vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with an increase in cases of peri/myocarditis. In our retrospective cross-sectional study, we aim to (I) describe paediatric chest pain attendance, and (II) study resource utilisation in the Emergency Department (ED) of KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH), stratified by pre-pandemic, during the pandemic pre- and post-COVID vaccination introduction in adolescents.MethodsWe reviewed records of adolescents aged 12 to 18 years old who presented to our ED with the triage complaint of chest pain between 1 January 2019 to 31 January 2022, and determined the attendance rates, aetiologies and resource utilisation during the above time periods.ResultsThere were 2,418 ED attendances for chest pain in our study population. Among 887 inpatient admissions for chest pain, 1.8% were attributed to a cardiac cause. Comparing the pre-pandemic period to the period after the mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was introduced, ED chest pain rates increased from a median of 0.5% of ED attendances [interquartile range (IQR), 0.3-0.5%] to 0.9% (IQR, 0.7-2.0%) (P<0.001), while admission rates increased from a median of 26.2% of ED attendances (IQR, 24.1-29.1%) to 40.9% (IQR, 37.6-56.6%) (P<0.001). Cardiac enzyme orders among ED visits for chest pain increased from a pre-pandemic median of 0% (IQR, 0.0-2.6%) to a post-vaccination median of 26.1% (IQR, 17.2-56.2%) (P<0.001) and were due to concerns for vaccine-related myocarditis. Seven cases of probable vaccine-related myocarditis presented with chest pain to our ED.ConclusionsPaediatric chest pain is largely non-cardiac in origin. ED chest pain attendance rates and resource utilisation increased after the introduction of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents.
| S-EPMC10730957 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on emergency department (ED) admissions for urgent diagnoses.MethodsFrom January 1, 2019, until December 31, 2020, patients older than 18 years who attended the ED at University Hospital of Leuven (UZ Leuven, Belgium) were included. Urgent diagnoses selected in the First Hour Quintet were collected. The periods of the pandemic waves in 2020 were analyzed and compared with the same time period in 2019.ResultsDuring the first wave of the pandemic, 16 075 patients attended the ED compared with 16 893 patients during the comparison period in 2019. The proportion of patients having one of the diagnoses of the First Hour Quintet was similar between the periods (4.4% vs 4.5%). During the second wave, 14 739 patients attended the ED compared with 18 704 patients during the same period in 2019; 5.6% of patients had a diagnosis of the First Hour Quintet compared with 4.3% of patients in the comparison period.ConclusionThis study showed a decrease in the number of patients attending the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies are needed to determine for which conditions patients visited the ED less.
| S-EPMC9343343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 may lead to severe disease, requiring intensive care treatment and challenging the capacity of health care systems. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of commonly used scoring systems for sepsis and pneumonia to predict severe COVID-19 in the emergency department.MethodsProspective, observational, single centre study in a secondary/tertiary care hospital in Oslo, Norway. Patients were assessed upon hospital admission using the following scoring systems; quick Sequential Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria (SIRS), National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65 and Pneumonia Severity index (PSI). The ratio of arterial oxygen tension to inspiratory oxygen fraction (P/F-ratio) was also calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) for each scoring system was calculated, along with sensitivity and specificity for the most commonly used cut-offs. Severe disease was defined as death or treatment in ICU within 14 days.Results38 of 175 study participants developed severe disease, 13 (7%) died and 29 (17%) had a stay at an intensive care unit (ICU). NEWS2 displayed an AUROC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.88), CURB-65 0.75 (0.65-0.84), PSI 0.75 (0.65-0.84), SIRS 0.70 (0.61-0.80) and qSOFA 0.70 (0.61-0.79). NEWS2 was significantly better than SIRS and qSOFA in predicating severe disease, and with a cut-off of5 points, had a sensitivity and specificity of 82% and 60%, respectively.ConclusionNEWS2 predicted severe COVID-19 disease more accurately than SIRS and qSOFA, but not significantly better than CURB65 and PSI. NEWS2 may be a useful screening tool in evaluating COVID-19 patients during hospital admission.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04345536. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04345536).
| S-EPMC7577659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveDuring the delta surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, we sought to identify characteristics and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in parents of pediatric emergency department (ED) patients.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey-based study of the parents of children aged 3 to 16 years presenting to 1 of 9 pediatric EDs from June to August 2021 to assess the parental acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Using multiple variable regression, we ascertained which factors were associated with parental and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination acceptance.ResultsOf 1,491 parents approached, 1,298 (87%) participated, of whom 50% of the parents and 27% of their children aged 12 years or older and older were vaccinated. Characteristics associated with parental COVID-19 vaccination were trust in scientists (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.65 to 7.15), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.58), college degree (aOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85), increasing parental age (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.22), a friend or family member hospitalized because of COVID-19 (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.72), and higher income (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.00). Characteristics associated with pediatric COVID-19 vaccination (children aged ≥12 years) or intended COVID-19 pediatric vaccination, once approved for use, (children aged <12 years) were parental trust in scientists (aOR 5.37, 95% CI 3.65 to 7.88), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.77), trust in the media (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.37), parental college degree (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.20), and increasing parental age (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.57).ConclusionOverall COVID-19 vaccination acceptance was low. Trust in scientists had the strongest association with parental COVID-19 vaccine acceptance for both themselves and their children.
| S-EPMC8806130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveLittle is known about COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. We sought to determine the uptake of booster vaccines, as well as the prevalence of and reasons for booster hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional survey study of adult patients at 5 safety-net hospital EDs in 4 US cities from mid-January to mid-July 2022. Participants were fluent in English or Spanish and had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine. We assessed the following parameters: (1) the prevalence of nonboosted status and reasons for not getting a booster; (2) the prevalence of booster vaccine hesitancy and reasons for hesitancy; and (3) the association of hesitancy with demographic variables.ResultsOf 802 participants, 373 (47%) were women, 478 (60%) were non-White, 182 (23%) lacked primary care, 110 (14%) primarily spoke Spanish, and 370 (46%) were publicly insured. Of the 771 participants who completed their primary series, 316 (41%) had not received a booster vaccine; the primary reason for nonreceipt was lack of opportunity (38%). Of the nonboosted participants, 179 (57%) expressed hesitancy, citing need for more information (25%), concerns about side effects (24%), and the belief that a booster was unnecessary after the initial series (20%). In the multivariable analysis, Asian participants were less likely to be booster hesitant than White participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.93), non-English-speaking participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than English-speaking participants (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.71), and Republican participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than Democrat participants (aOR 6.07, 95% CI 4.21 to 8.75).ConclusionOf almost half of this urban ED population who had not received a COVID-19 booster vaccine, more than one third stated that lack of opportunity to receive one was the primary reason. Furthermore, more than half of the nonboosted participants were booster hesitant, with many expressing concerns or a desire for more information that may be addressed with booster vaccine education.
| S-EPMC10181915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study is to elucidate the chest imaging findings of suspected COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department and the relationship with their demographics and RT-PCR testing results.MethodsPatients presenting to the ED between March 12 and March 28, 2020, with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19 and subsequent CXR and/or CT exam were selected. Patients imaged for other reasons with findings suspicious for COVID-19 were also included. Demographics, laboratory test results, and history were extracted from the medical record. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the relationship between imaging and these factors.ResultsA total of 227 patients from the emergency department were analyzed (224 CXRs and 25 CTs). Of the 192 patients with COVID-19 results, 173 (90.1%) had COVID-19 RT-PCR (+). Abnormal imaging (CXR, 85.7% and/or CT, 100%) was noted in 155 (89.6%) of COVID-19 RT-PCR (+) cases. The most common imaging findings were mixed airspace/interstitial opacities (39.8%) on CXR and peripheral GGOs on CT (92%). The most common demographic were African Americans (76.8%). Furthermore, 97.1% of African Americans were RT-PCR (+) compared to 65.8% of Caucasians.ConclusionWe found a similar spectrum of thoracic imaging findings in COVID-19 patients as previous studies. The most common demographic were African Americans (76.8%). Furthermore, 97.1% of African Americans were RT-PCR (+) compared to 65.8% of Caucasians. Both CT and CXR can accurately identify COVID-19 pneumonitis in 89.6% of RT-PCR (+) cases, 89.5% of false negatives, and 72.7% of cases with no RT-PCR result.
| S-EPMC7246086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEmergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.ResultsOver 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.ConclusionsAmong unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.
| S-EPMC9307202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInfluenza is a major concern in hospitals, including the emergency department (ED), mainly because of a high risk for ED personnel to acquire and transmit the disease. Although influenza vaccination is recommended for health care workers, vaccination coverage is low.MethodsThis survey was conducted in the 2016/2017 and 2020/2021 influenza seasons. Questionnaires were sent to ED personnel in 12 hospitals in Bavaria, South-Eastern Germany. The response rates were 62% and 38% in 2016/2017 and 2020/2021, respectively. Data were compared between the two seasons as well as between vaccinated and not vaccinated respondents in 2020/2021.ResultsSignificantly more ED personnel reported having been vaccinated in the 2020/2021 season. Factors associated with vaccination coverage (or the intention to get vaccinated) were profession (physician / medical student), having been vaccinated at least twice, the availability of an influenza vaccination on site (in the ED) as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, significant differences in the assessment and evaluation of influenza, its vaccination side effects and ethical aspects were found between vaccinated and not vaccinated ED personnel in 2020/2021. Unvaccinated respondents estimated higher frequencies of almost all potential vaccination side effects, were less likely to accept lay-offs if employees would not come to work during an influenza pandemic and more likely to agree that work attendance should be an employee´s decision. Vaccinated participants instead, rather agreed that vaccination should be mandatory and were less likely to consider job changes in case of a mandatory vaccination policy.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic might have contributed to a higher influenza vaccination rate among ED workers. Vaccination on site and interventions targeting the perception of influenza vaccination and its side effects may be most promising to increase the vaccination coverage among ED personnel.
| S-EPMC8604289 | biostudies-literature