Introduction: Hospitalizations during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic peaked in New York in March–April 2020. In the months following, emergency department (ED) volumes declined. Our objective in this study was to examine the effect of this decline on the procedural experience of emergency medicine (EM) residents compared to the pre-pandemic period.

Methods: We conducted this multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients seen and key procedures performed by EM residents at hospitals spanning three Accreditation Committee for Graduate Medical Education-approved EM residencies in New York City and Nassau County, NY. We obtained numbers of procedures performed during May–July 2020 and compared them to the same time period for 2019 and 2018. We a priori classified critical care procedures—cardioversion, central lines, chest tubes, procedural sedation, and endotracheal intubation. We also studied “fast-track” procedures—fracture/joint reduction, incision and drainage (I&D), laceration repairs, and splints.

Results: Total number of critical care procedures in the months following the COVID-19 peak decreased from 694 to 606 (−12.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.3–15.4%), compared to an increase from 642 to 694 (+8.1%, 95% CI 6.1–10.5%) the previous year (difference −9.3%). Total number of fast-track procedures decreased from 5,253 to 3,369 (−35.9%, 95% CI 34.6–37.2%), compared to a decrease from 5,333 to 5,253 (−1.5%, 95% CI 1.2–1.9%) the year before (difference −36.3%). Specific critical care procedures performed in 2020 compared to the mean of 2019 and 2018 as follows: cardioversion −33.3%; central lines +19.0%; chest tubes −27.9%; procedural sedation −30.8%; endotracheal intubation −13.8%. Specific fast-track procedures: reductions +33.3%; I&D −48.6%; laceration repair −17.3%; and splint application −49.8%.

Conclusion: Emergency medicine residents’ critical and fast-track procedural experience at five hospitals was reduced during the months following the COVID-19 peak in comparison to a similar period in the two years prior. Training programs may consider increasing simulation-lab and cadaver-lab experiences, as well as ED and critical care rotations for their residents to offset this trend.

Introduction: Our study aimed to determine 1) the association between time spent in the emergency department (ED) hallway and the development of delirium and 2) the hospital location of delirium development.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective chart review included patients 18+ years old admitted to the hospital after presenting, without baseline cognitive impairment, to the ED in 2018. We identified the Delirium group by the following: key words describing delirium; orders for psychotropics, special observation, and restraints; or documented positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) screen. The Control group included patients not meeting delirium criteria. We used a multivariable logistic regression model, while adjusting for confounders, to assess the odds of delirium development associated with percentage of ED LOS spent in the hallway.

Results: A total of 25,156 patients met inclusion criteria with 1920 (7.6%) meeting delirium criteria. Delirium group vs. Control group patients spent a greater percentage of time in the ED hallway (median 50.5% vs 10.8%, P<0.001); had longer ED LOS (median 11.94 vs 8.12 hours, P<0.001); had more ED room transfers (median 5 vs 4, P<0.001); and had longer hospital LOS (median 5.0 vs 4.6 days, P<0.001). Patients more frequently developed delirium in the ED (77.5%) than on inpatient units (22.5%). The relative odds of a patient developing delirium increased by 3.31 times for each percent increase in ED hallway time (95% confidence interval, 2.85, 3.83).

Conclusion: Patients with delirium had more ED hallway exposure, longer ED LOS, and more ED room transfers. Understanding delirium in the ED has substantial implications for improving patient safety.