Objectives

The objective was to provide a longitudinal assessment of anxiety levels and work and home concerns of U.S. emergency physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We performed a longitudinal, cross-sectional email survey of clinically active emergency physicians (attending, fellow, and resident) at seven academic emergency departments. Follow-up surveys were sent 4 to 6 weeks after the initial survey and assessed the following: COVID-19 patient exposure, availability of COVID-19 testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety/stress, changes in behaviors, and performance on a primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen (PC-PTSD-5). Logistic regression explored factors associated with a high PC-PTSD-5 scale score (≥3), indicating increased risk for PTSD.

Results

Of the 426 surveyed initial respondents, 262 (61.5%) completed the follow-up survey. While 97.3% (255/262) reported treating suspected COVID-19 patients, most physicians (162/262, 61.8%) had not received testing themselves. In follow-up, respondents were most concerned about the relaxing of social distancing leading to a second wave (median score = 6, IQR = 4-7). Physicians reported a consistently high ability to order COVID-19 tests for patients (median score = 6, IQR = 5-7) and access to personal protective equipment (median score = 6, IQR = 5-6). Women physicians were more likely to score ≥ 3 than men on the PC-PTSD-5 screener on the initial survey (43.3% vs. 22.5%; Δ 20.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.3% to 31.5%), and despite decreases in overall proportions, this discrepancy remained in follow-up (34.7% vs. 16.8%; Δ 17.9%, 95% CI = 7.1% to 28.1%). In examining the relationship between demographics, living situations, and institution location on having a PC-PTSD-5 score ≥ 3, only female sex was associated with a PC-PTSD-5 score ≥ 3 (adjusted odds ratio = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.28 to 4.79).

Conclusions

While exposure to suspected COVID-19 patients was nearly universal, stress levels in emergency physicians decreased with time. At both initial and follow-up assessments, women were more likely to test positive on the PC-PTSD-5 screener compared to men.

Objective

The objective was to assess anxiety and burnout levels, home life changes, and measures to relieve stress of U.S. academic emergency medicine (EM) physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic acceleration phase.

Methods

We sent a cross-sectional e-mail survey to all EM physicians at seven academic emergency departments. The survey incorporated items from validated stress scales and assessed perceptions and key elements in the following domains: numbers of suspected COVID-19 patients, availability of diagnostic testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety, severity of work burnout, identification of stressors, changes in home behaviors, and measures to decrease provider anxiety.

Results

A total of 426 (56.7%) EM physicians responded. On a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, and 7 = extremely), the median (interquartile range) reported effect of the pandemic on both work and home stress levels was 5 (4-6). Reported levels of emotional exhaustion/burnout increased from a prepandemic median (IQR) of 3 (2-4) to since the pandemic started a median of 4 (3-6), with a difference in medians of 1.8 (95% confidence interval = 1.7 to 1.9). Most physicians (90.8%) reported changing their behavior toward family and friends, especially by decreasing signs of affection (76.8%). The most commonly cited measures cited to alleviate stress/anxiety were increasing personal protective equipment (PPE) availability, offering rapid COVID-19 testing at physician discretion, providing clearer communication about COVID-19 protocol changes, and assuring that physicians can take leave for care of family and self.

Conclusions

During the acceleration phase, the COVID-19 pandemic has induced substantial workplace and home anxiety in academic EM physicians, and their exposure during work has had a major impact on their home lives. Measures cited to decrease stress include enhanced availability of PPE, rapid turnaround testing at provider discretion, and clear communication about COVID-19 protocol changes.

Study objective

Facemask use is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most surveys assessing perceptions and practices of mask use miss the most vulnerable racial, ethnic, and socio-economic populations. These same populations have suffered disproportionate impacts from the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, access, and practices of mask wearing across 15 urban emergency department (ED) populations.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of ED patients from December 2020 to March 2021 at 15 geographically diverse, safety net EDs across the US. The primary outcome was frequency of mask use outside the home and around others. Other outcome measures included having enough masks and difficulty obtaining them.

Results

Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89%) agreed to participate; nine had missing data pertaining to the primary outcome, leaving 2,292 included in the final analysis. A total of 79% of respondents reported wearing masks "all of the time" and 96% reported wearing masks over half the time. Subjects with PCPs were more likely to report wearing masks over half the time compared to those without PCPs (97% vs 92%). Individuals experiencing homelessness were less likely to wear a mask over half the time compared to those who were housed (81% vs 96%).

Conclusions

Study participants reported high rates of facemask use. Respondents who did not have PCPs and those who were homeless were less likely to report wearing a mask over half the time and more likely to report barriers in obtaining masks. The ED may serve a critical role in education regarding, and provision of, masks for vulnerable populations.

Study objective

Most long coronavirus disease (long COVID) studies rely on traditional surveillance methods that miss underserved populations who use emergency departments (EDs) as their primary health care source. In medically underserved ED populations, we sought to determine (1) whether there are gaps in awareness and self-declared understanding about long COVID illness, and (2) the prevalence, impact on school/work attendance, and receipt of care for long COVID symptoms.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional, convenience sample survey study of adult patients at 11 geographically representative US EDs from December 2022 to October 2023. Awareness and self-declared understanding about long COVID illness were measured. Prevalence, impact on school/work attendance, and receipt of care for long COVID symptoms were also assessed.

Results

Of 1,618 eligible patients, 1455 (89.9%) agreed to participate, including 33.4% African Americans and 30.9% Latino/a. Of the patients, 17.1% lacked primary care. In total, 33.2% had persistent COVID-19 symptoms lasting >1 month, and 20.3% had symptoms >3 months. Moreover, 49.8% with long COVID symptoms missed work/school because of symptoms; 30.3% of all participants and 33.5% of participants who had long COVID symptoms had prior awareness and self-declared understanding of long COVID. Characteristics associated with poor understanding of long COVID were African American race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66 to 5.09) and Latino/a ethnicity (aOR 3.16, 95% CI 2.15 to 4.64). Participants lacking primary care were less likely to have received long COVID care (24.6% versus 51.2%; difference 26.6%; 95% CI 13.7% to 36.9%).

Conclusions

Despite high prevalence and impact on school/work attendance of long COVID symptoms, most of this ED population had limited awareness and self-declared understanding of long COVID, and many had not received care. EDs should consider the development of protocols for diagnosis, education, and treatment of long COVID illness.

BACKGROUND: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. METHODS: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. CONCLUSIONS: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Study objective

Emergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt.

Results

Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED.

Conclusion

ED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.

Introduction

Retrospective studies report that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) may reduce the severity of COVID-19, but prospective data on de novo treatment with ACEIs are limited. The RAMIC trial was a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, allocation-concealed clinical trial to examine the efficacy of de novo ramipril versus placebo for the treatment of COVID-19.

Methods

Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, recruited from urgent care clinics, emergency departments, and hospital inpatient wards at eight sites in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned to daily ramipril 2.5 mg or placebo orally in a 2:1 ratio, using permuted block randomization. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or invasive mechanical ventilation by day 14.

Results

Between 27 May 2020 and 19 April 2021, a total of 114 participants (51% female) were randomized to ramipril (n = 79) or placebo (n = 35). The overall mean (± SD) age and BMI were 45 (± 15) years and 33 (± 8) kg/m². Two participants in the ramipril group required ICU admission and one died, compared with none in the placebo group. There were no significant differences between ramipril and placebo in the primary endpoint (ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death) (3% versus 0%, p = 1.00) or adverse events (27% versus 29%, p = 0.82). The study was terminated early because of a low event rate and subsequent Emergency Use Authorization of therapies for COVID-19.

Conclusion

De novo ramipril was not different compared with placebo in improving or worsening clinical outcomes from COVID-19 but appeared safe in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04366050.