Cowart, Jennifer B.

AbstractBackgroundWhile COVID‐19 immunization programs attempted to reach targeted rates, cases rose significantly since the emergence of the delta variant. This retrospective cohort study describes the correlation between antispike antibodies and outcomes of hospitalized, breakthrough cases during the delta variant surge.MethodsAll patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 polymerase chain reaction hospitalized at Mayo Clinic Florida from 19 June 2021 to 11 November 2021 were considered for analysis. Cases were analyzed by vaccination status. Breakthrough cases were then analyzed by low and high antibody titers against SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein, with a cut‐off value of ≥132 U/ml. Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), need for intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, and mortality. We used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement to assess for confounders.ResultsAmong 627 hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, vaccine breakthrough cases were older with more comorbidities compared to unvaccinated. After propensity score matching, the unvaccinated patients had higher mortality (27 [28.4%] vs. 12 [12.6%], p = 0.002) and LOS (7 [1.0–57.0] vs. 5 [1.0–31.0] days, p = 0.011). In breakthrough cases, low‐titer patients were more likely to be solid organ transplant recipients (16 [34.0%] vs. 9 [12.3%], p = 0.006), with higher need for ICU care (24 [51.1%] vs. 22 [11.0%], p = 0.034), longer hospital LOS (median 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.013), and higher mortality (10 [21.3%] vs. 5 [6.8%], p = 0.025) than high‐titer patients.ConclusionsHospitalized breakthrough cases were more likely to have underlying risk factors than unvaccinated patients. Low‐spike antibody titers may serve as an indicator for poor prognosis in breakthrough cases admitted to the hospital.

Abstract We characterized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) breakthrough cases admitted to a single center in Florida. With the emergence of delta variant, an increased number of hospitalizations was seen due to breakthrough infections. These patients were older and more likely to have comorbidities. Preventive measures should be maintained even after vaccination.

230 Background: Inpatient mortality review is commonly used to improve patient care. Individual review of outpatient deaths is less common, yet 30-day mortality after hospital stay is an important quality metric. In this study, we sought to identify opportunities for care improvement by reviewing outpatient mortalities for cancer patients who died within 30 days of hospitalization. Methods: We identified 48 patients at Mayo Clinic Florida, with a hematologic (heme) or solid tumor (onc) cancer, who died within 30 days of an index hospital stay in 2018. We created a 32-question review survey to address quality of care around the hospital stay. The review team consisted of 1) heme or onc attendings, 2) heme/onc fellows, and 3) palliative care attendings. Each case was reviewed by one member of each of the 3 groups, split into heme or onc cases. Discrepancies in objective data points were resolved by the research team. Results: Of 143 surveys sent to 13 physicians (3 heme), 112 responses from 11 physicians (1 heme) for 47 patients were received. Twenty-one patients (45%) received cancer therapy within 30 days of death, and 23 (49%) were admitted >2 times in 2 months prior to death. For onc cases, attendings rated prognosis as discussed 83% of the time, vs 65% of fellows and 39% of palliative care; in heme cases, the attending rated prognosis as discussed 11% of the time, vs 86% of fellows and 50% of palliative care. In heme cases, the attending rated expected survival <3 months in 33% of cases vs 71% by fellows and 89% by palliative care; in onc cases, the reviews were more consistent (79% attending, 85% fellow, 93% palliative care). See Table for timing of prognosis discussions and palliative care involvement. Conclusions: The most common improvement opportunities identified by reviewing heme/onc patients who died within 30 days of a hospital stay included documented prognosis discussion and involvement of palliative care. Opportunities differed between heme and onc patients. Future directions include identifying and mitigating barriers that providers face in reaching these goals for their patients. [Table: see text]

Inspired by the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely® campaign, the “Things We Do for No Reason™” (TWDFNR) series reviews practices that have become common parts of hospital care but may provide little value to our patients. Practices reviewed in the TWDFNR series do not represent “black and white” conclusions or clinical practice standards but are meant as a starting place for research and active discussions among hospitalists and patients. We invite you to be part of that discussion.

This prospective cohort study aimed to improve hospital outcomes through geographic location of hospitalist patients and conducting daily multidisciplinary team rounds—Goal-directed Achievements through Geographic Location (GAGL). Patients were admitted to a geographic (GAGL) study unit where daily multidisciplinary rounds took place among nursing, case management, a hospitalist, pharmacy, physical and occupational therapy, respiratory therapy, and nutrition services. A total of 985 (56.4%) patients were admitted to the GAGL study unit and 760 patients (43.6%) were admitted to non-GAGL units. Patients admitted to the GAGL study unit had a shorter average length of stay (3.64 days vs 4.35 days, P = .0001) and a lower number of risk events (91 [9.2%] vs 93 [12.2%], P = .038). There was no significant difference in 30-day readmissions, avoidable day events, or code blue team activations. GAGL provides a framework for hospital organizations to improve provider communication, hospital efficiency, and patient safety.

Background An increasing number of residents and fellows have children during training. However, little is known about the specific experience of cardiology fellows who become parents during training. Methods and Results A 66‐question Internet‐based survey about experiences of pregnancy during graduate medical training was administered between May 1 and July 15, 2013, to all trainees (N=1516) in the Mayo School of Graduate Medical Education across 3 academic sites. Questions explored the experiences of new mothers, fathers, and their fellow trainees. There were 644 survey respondents overall (response rate, 42%), and of 73 cardiovascular trainees, 29 (10 women [35%]) completed the survey. Of those surveyed, 59% reported having children. All trainee mothers reported making alterations to their training schedule due to pregnancy and maternity leave. Twenty percent of trainee fathers also reported changing their training because of their partner's pregnancy. Of trainees with children, 41% reported difficulty completing research because of pregnancy and childcare obligations. Nontrainee mothers were significantly more likely to breastfeed beyond 6 months compared with trainee mothers ( P =0.018). A perceived stigma attached to pregnancy was reported by 62% of trainees. Both male and female trainees felt that their programs did not promote pregnancy‐related schedule flexibility. Conclusions Our study shows that both men and women entering parenthood during cardiology training often have to change their schedule, research, and career path. Cardiology training programs should focus on curriculum design and supportive parenthood policies to both avoid negative stigma and optimize fellowship training during this time period.