SARS-CoV-2 has infected 141 million people worldwide and 31 million people in the United States as of April 20, 2021.^1,2 The influx of hospital admissions and deaths has severely strained healthcare systems worldwide and placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk for acquiring COVID-19.^3-5

Several studies have described the impact of COVID-19 on this heterogeneous group of HCWs. Shields et al reported a seroprevalence of 24.4% in HCWs at University Hospitals Birmingham (UK), with the highest rate, 34.5%, in housekeeping staff.⁶ Steensels et al reported a lower prevalence of 6.4% at a tertiary care center in Belgium, and showed no increased risk for HCWs when directly involved in clinical care.⁷ The authors attributed this to adequate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Other studies have reported seroprevalences ranging from 1.6% to 18%.^8-11 In the New York City (NYC) metro area, Jeremias et al reported a seroprevalence of 9.8% in HCWs and found no difference by job title or work location,¹² whereas Moscola et al reported a seroprevalence of 13.7% and demonstrated a 3% increased risk for those working in service or maintenance.¹³ Antibody tests were conducted between March and April 2020 in all but two of these studies; testing in these two studies was performed between April 13 and June 23, 2020, with one reporting a seroprevalence of 6%¹¹ and the other, 13.7%.¹³

NYC became the earliest pandemic epicenter in the United States following untracked transmission from ongoing circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe.¹⁴ As a result, the COVID-19 surge in NYC commenced in March and largely subsided by the end of May 2020. Most HCW data reported to date do not reflect the situation at the end of the surge, and may underestimate true seroprevalence. We describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCWs in a large inner-city hospital in NYC, with antibody testing conducted from May 18 to June 26, 2020, at the subsidence of the surge. To further our understanding of occupational risk among different groups of HCWs, we examined associations of seroprevalence with HCWs’ job function and work location.

This was a cross-sectional seroprevalence study conducted in the BronxCare Health System located in South and Central Bronx, an area that experienced one of the highest incidences of SARS-CoV-2 infections within NYC’s five boroughs.

HCWs were offered voluntary testing for serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between May 18 and June 26, 2020. Testing occurred in the institution’s auditorium, a central and easily accessible location. Weekly emails were sent to all employees and department heads during the testing period, offering antibody testing and providing location and testing time information. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) assay measuring total qualitative antibodies was used; the assay has a reported sensitivity of 97.1% 14 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result and a specificity of 100%.¹⁵

Demographic and work-related information was abstracted from electronic medical records, including all comorbid conditions that affected 30 or more HCWs. Pulmonary diagnoses, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were grouped as chronic lung disease, and cardiovascular diseases, including hypertension, as chronic heart disease. Personal identifiers and data were delinked upon completion of data abstraction. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board.

Job Function and Work Location

HCWs were grouped by job function as follows: physicians; nurses (including physician assistants and nurse practitioners); allied HCW I (medical assistants, patient care, and electrocardiogram, radiology, and ear, nose and throat technicians); allied HCW II (social workers, dieticians and nutritionists, registration clerks and unit associates, physical and occupational therapists); nonclinical staff (patient transporters, housekeeping staff, and security staff); pharmacists; engineering; and administrative staff. Respiratory therapists were considered as a separate group as their work placed them at high risk for respiratory diseases.

Work locations were as follows: clinics (including dental, outpatient, and satellite clinics), emergency departments (ED), inpatient units (including floors and intensive care units [ICU]), radiology suite, laboratory and pharmacy, and offices.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated using χ² analyses. All demographic variables were tested against serology status (positive/negative). A binary logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs). Eight separate univariate unadjusted ORs were calculated by running each predictor variable against serology status (dependent variable), which included the six categorical variables—race, ethnicity, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR results—and the two main predictors—job function and work location. To obtain adjusted ORs, two final separate multivariable logistic regression analyses were executed including the six covariates listed. Due to high collinearity between job function and work location (χ² = 3030.13, df = 35 [6 levels of work location – 1]*[8 levels of job function – 1]; P < .001), we included only one of the main predictors in each model. The regressions were specified such that the reference groups for the work location and job function variables were office work and administration, respectively. This choice was made based on the fact that their nonclinical functions do not confer an exposure risk in excess of that experienced by typical community populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the subset of HCWs whose address zip codes indicated residence within NYC to exclude the effect of different community seroprevalences in areas outside of NYC. The 95% CI for seroprevalence of antibodies within tested HCWs was estimated using the Clopper-Pearson binomial method.

Among all HCWs in the institution (N = 4,807), 2,749 (57.2%) underwent voluntary testing. Of those who underwent testing, 831 were positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1), a seroprevalence of 30.2% (95% CI, 29%-32%). Among the age groups, the 45-to-64−year group had the highest seropositivity at 33% (400/1203), and those ≥75 years of age, the lowest at 16.7% (2/12) (P < .009).

Among all tested HCWs, 70.1% (1,928/2,749) resided in NYC. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in this subset was 32% (616/1,928) (Figure 1). Demographic and comorbid conditions in HCWs who lived in NYC were similar to those of the whole group (Appendix Table 1).

HCWs who underwent voluntary antibody testing (Appendix Table 2) had a higher percentage of persons in the 45-to-64−year age group (43.8% vs 40.9%) and a lower percentage of persons in the 65-to-74−year age group (3.3% vs 5.3%) compared with the group of HCWs that did not undergo testing (P < .001). Gender, race, ethnicity, comorbid conditions, SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, and work locations were not different between groups. The tested group had higher proportions of clinicians (physicians, nurses, allied HCWs I and II) than the untested nonparticipant group (P = .014).

SARS-CoV-2 PCR Tests on HCWs

More than one-third (34.1%; 938/2,749) of HCWs had a documented nasopharyngeal PCR test between March 23 and June 26, 2020 (Table). Of all PCRs performed, 262 were positive, giving an overall PCR positivity rate of 27.9%. Positivity was 51.4% in March and 36.6% in April. The reasons for PCR testing were not available, but likely represent a combination of exposure-related testing among asymptomatic individuals and diagnostic testing of symptomatic HCWs. In contrast, serology testing was indicative of prior infection and yielded a cumulative seroprevalence at the end of the surge. Findings were similar among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1).

Work Location and Job Function

Among all HCWs (Table, Figure 2), there were differences in seropositivity by work location (P = .001). The largest number of HCWs worked in inpatient units (1,348/2,749, 49%), and the second largest in offices (554/2,749, 20%). The highest seropositivity rate was in the EDs, at 36.4% (64/176), followed by radiology suites, at 32.7% (17/52); the seropositivity rate in office locations was 25.8% (143/554). Among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1, Appendix Figure 1), the rank order according to proportion seropositive by work location was similar to that of the whole group (P = .004), except that the second highest seropositivity rate was in the inpatient units (33.9% [323/953]). In the group of HCWs residing in NYC, office locations had a seropositivity of 27.4% (102/372). The seropositivity rates for both groups working in office locations were slightly higher than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC reported for the same period.¹⁶

Among all HCWs, there were differences in seropositivity by job function (P = .001). The greatest proportion of HCWs were allied HCW II (23% [631/2,749]), followed by nurses (22.2% [611/2,749]) and physicians (21.3% [585/2,749] ). Seropositivity was highest for nonclinical staff (44.0% [51/116]), followed by nurses (37.5% [229/611]) and allied clinical HCW I and II (34.5% [143/414] and 32.0% [202/631], respectively). It was lowest for administrative staff (20.9% [42/201]) and pharmacists (11.1% [5/45]). Among HCWs residing in NYC, the rank order according to proportion seropositive by location was similar to that of the whole group. Administrative staff seropositivity was 18.3% (20/109). Administrative staff seropositivity for both groups was marginally lower than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC for the same period.¹⁶

Odds Ratios for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity

For all HCWs, in unadjusted models (Appendix Table 3), age 45 to 64 years and Black race were associated with increased odds of being seropositive (1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49 and 2.26; 95% CI, 1.51-3.37, respectively). Increased odds were seen for HCWs working in the ED (1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36) and inpatient units (1.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.69), and decreased odds were seen for those working in the laboratory and pharmacy (0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.86). Increased odds for seropositivity were found for nurses (2.27; 95% CI, 1.56-3.31), allied HCW I (2.00; 95% CI, 1.34-2.97), allied HCW II (1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.60), and nonclinical staff (2.97; 95% CI,1.80-4.90).

After adjusting for all covariates, HCWs who were Black remained at increased odds for being seropositive in the two final models (adjusted OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.38-3.81 and adjusted OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.78-4.85), as did those who had a BMI >30 kg/m², with an adjusted OR of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.05-1.77) in one of the final models (Appendix Table 3). None of the other comorbid conditions had increased ORs. Those who worked in the ED and inpatient units also remained at increased odds after adjusting for covariates (2.27; 95% CI, 1.53-3.37 and 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14-1.92, respectively; Figure 3). Other job functions that had increased odds for seropositivity were nurses (2.54; 95% CI, 1.64-3.94), allied HCW I (1.83; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) and II (1.70; 95% CI, 1.10-2.63), and nonclinical staff (2.51; 95% CI, 1.42-4.43).

Having a positive PCR for SAR-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal swabs was strongly associated with seropositivity (OR, 47.26; 95% CI, 29.30-76.23 and OR, 44.79; 95% CI, 27.87-72.00) in the two multivariate-adjusted models. These findings were confirmed when the analyses were performed on HCWs who resided in NYC (Appendix Table 4 and Appendix Figure 2).

In a large inner-city New York hospital, we report a cumulative SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 30.2% in HCWs at the end of the first surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections in NYC. We identified the highest seropositivity rates for nonclinical staff and nurses, followed by allied HCWs, with the odds of being seropositive ranging from 1.7 to 2.5. The work locations with the highest seroprevalences were the ED and inpatient units, with 2.3-fold and 1.5-fold increased odds of seropositivity, respectively.

Serosurveillance studies have reported the trajectory of community prevalence in NYC over the first wave. A 6.3% prevalence was reported in samples collected between March 23 and April 1, 2020.¹⁷ In a study by Rosenberg et al¹⁸ with testing performed from April 9 through April 28, 2020, prevalence increased to 22.7%. Serosurveillance data from the NYC Department of Health show prevalence ranging from 20.1% to 23.3% (average 22%) during the study period.¹⁶ Compared to the estimated seroprevalence of 9.3% in the United States,¹⁹ these rates established NYC as an early epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic, with our institution’s HCW seroprevalence considerably higher than NYC community serosurveillance rates, 2.2 times higher than reported in the earlier HCW study in the greater NYC area,¹³ and higher than the 27% rate during May 2020 recently reported in another NYC hospital.²⁰

Data from studies of hospital transmission and effects of mitigation measures, such as a universal masking policy for HCWs and patients, clearly demonstrate the high effectiveness of these measures in reducing hospital transmissions.^21,22 This suggests HCW seroprevalence in institutions with well-implemented infection control and universal masking policies may not be a consequence of workplace exposures, but rather may be reflective of community rates.²³ Our institution’s response commenced February 3, 2020, with implementation of social distancing, a universal masking policy, transmission-based precautions, and use of fitted N95 masks. Mid-March, elective surgeries were canceled, and inpatient visitation suspended. During the surge, these measures were widely and consistently implemented for all categories of HCWs throughout the work environment, based on emerging guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NYC Department of Health. Our overall observed HCW seroprevalence, well above that of the community, with differences in categories of job function and work locations, is therefore an important finding. Our sample of 2,749 HCWs lived in NYC and its surrounding suburbs and nearby states. There is heterogeneity in community seroprevalence between areas outside of NYC and NYC (an epicenter) itself. We therefore analyzed our data in the subset with NYC zip codes, confirming a similar overall prevalence and increased odds of seropositivity in nurses, allied HCWs, and nonclinical staff.

Physicians and administrative and office staff had seropositivity rates of 18.1%, 20.9%, and 25.8%, respectively, consistent with community rates and illustrating the effectiveness of PPE in the hospital setting. Since PPE use was part of a universal policy applied to all HCWs in our institution, other possible reasons may explain the differences we found. We speculate that the close working relationship nurses have with their patients resulted in a longer duration and higher frequency of daily interactions, increasing the risk for transmission and causing breakthrough infections.^24,25 This increased risk is reflected in a study in which 28% of hospitalized patients were nurses and 9% certified nursing assistants.²⁶

The CDC recently redefined close contact with someone with COVID-19 as a cumulative total of >15 minutes over 24 hours.²⁵ Thus, several multiple short periods of exposure can increase risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2; such exposure is characteristic of the job function of nurses, nursing staff, and nonclinical staff. Further, housekeeping, transportation, and security officers are all nonclinical staff with significant and multiple exposures to COVID-19 patients during the surge, and for security officers, to continuous public traffic in and out of the hospital. SARS-CoV-2 spreads by virus shedding in large droplets and aerosols, with droplet nuclei <5 microns in size efficiently dispersed in air, an important additional mode of transmission.^27-30 Airborne transmission coupled with virus shedding in asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons, which has been shown to cause secondary attack rates of up to 32%, are other factors that likely contributed to the increased seroprevalence in this group.³¹ Our observation is consistent with the Birmingham study, which reported the highest rate in housekeeping staff, with a prevalence of 34.5%, compared to 44% in this study.⁶ Similar reasons for high seropositivity rates apply to the two groups of allied HCWs (eg, medical assistants and patient care technicians, social workers, nutritionists and therapists), whose job functions place them in intermittent but significant proximity with inpatients and outpatients.

Consistent with public health data showing that minorities are disproportionately affected by this disease, we found that Black HCWs were three times more likely to be seropositive.³² However, an unexpected observation was the association between obesity and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. A possible explanation for this association may be inability to achieve optimal fit testing for N95 masks, thereby increasing the risk of exposure to droplet nuclei. This is important given that obesity is associated with poorer outcomes from COVID-19.

During the height of the first wave in NYC, EDs and inpatient units handled a large volume of COVID-19 patients with high PCR positivity rates (peak of 51% in March in our hospital). It was not unexpected that we observed increased odds of seropositivity in these work locations. As ICUs were at capacity, inpatient units cared for critically ill patients they would not normally have. HCWs in these locations coped with an increased workload, increased demand on PPE supplies, and work fatigue, which contributed to increased risk for hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Reporting seroprevalence at a single institution was a limitation of the study. Approximately 57% of the hospital’s total HCW population was tested for antibodies. It is possible their risk profile influenced their decision to volunteer for testing when it became available, introducing selection bias. A comparison between tested and untested HCWs showed similarity in all demographic measures, including nasopharyngeal PCR testing, except for age. We did not have information on symptoms that would prompt PCR testing. HCWs who underwent voluntary testing were younger compared to those who did not undergo testing. Current NYC serosurveillance data showed higher seropositivity in the 45-to-64–year age group (27.8%-28.6%) compared to the 65-to-74–year age group (24.3%), which suggests that the tested group may overestimate seroprevalence among HCWs relative to a randomly selected sample.³³ Similarly, there were more nurses, allied HCWs, physicians, and administrative staff in the tested group, with the former two having higher SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity compared to community prevalence, which could also overestimate seroprevalence. Our large sample size provided us with the power to detect differences within several different job functions and work locations, a strength of this study. It was not possible to differentiate community- from hospital-acquired infection in our HCWs, a limitation in many observational HCW seroprevalence studies. However, when we analyzed data restricted only to HCWs in NYC, to reduce the effect of differing community prevalences outside the city, our results were unchanged. Since it is possible that nonclinical HCWs are of a lower socioeconomic status compared to others (nurses and allied HCWs), we cannot exclude the possibility that higher SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence associated with lower status explains, partly or completely, the increased odds of seropositivity we observed.³⁴ Due to the high proportion of missing data for race (61.3%), we advise caution in interpreting our finding that the odds of seropositivity were three times higher for Black race, even though consistent with prior literature.³⁴ Healthcare organizations have similar job function and work location categories incorporated in their infrastructure, suggesting that our observations may be generalizable to other hospitals in the United States.

These findings show that during the first surge in NYC, with its increased burden of disease, hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality, seroprevalences varied based on job function and work location within this institution. Nurses were at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as were those who worked in the ED. In preparation for subsequent waves of SARS-CoV-2 and other highly contagious respiratory infections, major medical centers need to enhance efforts aimed at protecting HCWs, with particular attention to these groups. This study also strongly supports the recent CDC guideline prioritizing HCWs to receive COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines that have obtained emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.³⁵

The authors thank all the residents, nurses, and staff of the Department of Family Medicine for their contribution to this work.

SARS-CoV-2 has infected 141 million people worldwide and 31 million people in the United States as of April 20, 2021.^1,2 The influx of hospital admissions and deaths has severely strained healthcare systems worldwide and placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk for acquiring COVID-19.^3-5

Several studies have described the impact of COVID-19 on this heterogeneous group of HCWs. Shields et al reported a seroprevalence of 24.4% in HCWs at University Hospitals Birmingham (UK), with the highest rate, 34.5%, in housekeeping staff.⁶ Steensels et al reported a lower prevalence of 6.4% at a tertiary care center in Belgium, and showed no increased risk for HCWs when directly involved in clinical care.⁷ The authors attributed this to adequate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Other studies have reported seroprevalences ranging from 1.6% to 18%.^8-11 In the New York City (NYC) metro area, Jeremias et al reported a seroprevalence of 9.8% in HCWs and found no difference by job title or work location,¹² whereas Moscola et al reported a seroprevalence of 13.7% and demonstrated a 3% increased risk for those working in service or maintenance.¹³ Antibody tests were conducted between March and April 2020 in all but two of these studies; testing in these two studies was performed between April 13 and June 23, 2020, with one reporting a seroprevalence of 6%¹¹ and the other, 13.7%.¹³

NYC became the earliest pandemic epicenter in the United States following untracked transmission from ongoing circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe.¹⁴ As a result, the COVID-19 surge in NYC commenced in March and largely subsided by the end of May 2020. Most HCW data reported to date do not reflect the situation at the end of the surge, and may underestimate true seroprevalence. We describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCWs in a large inner-city hospital in NYC, with antibody testing conducted from May 18 to June 26, 2020, at the subsidence of the surge. To further our understanding of occupational risk among different groups of HCWs, we examined associations of seroprevalence with HCWs’ job function and work location.

This was a cross-sectional seroprevalence study conducted in the BronxCare Health System located in South and Central Bronx, an area that experienced one of the highest incidences of SARS-CoV-2 infections within NYC’s five boroughs.

HCWs were offered voluntary testing for serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between May 18 and June 26, 2020. Testing occurred in the institution’s auditorium, a central and easily accessible location. Weekly emails were sent to all employees and department heads during the testing period, offering antibody testing and providing location and testing time information. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) assay measuring total qualitative antibodies was used; the assay has a reported sensitivity of 97.1% 14 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result and a specificity of 100%.¹⁵

Demographic and work-related information was abstracted from electronic medical records, including all comorbid conditions that affected 30 or more HCWs. Pulmonary diagnoses, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were grouped as chronic lung disease, and cardiovascular diseases, including hypertension, as chronic heart disease. Personal identifiers and data were delinked upon completion of data abstraction. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board.

Job Function and Work Location

HCWs were grouped by job function as follows: physicians; nurses (including physician assistants and nurse practitioners); allied HCW I (medical assistants, patient care, and electrocardiogram, radiology, and ear, nose and throat technicians); allied HCW II (social workers, dieticians and nutritionists, registration clerks and unit associates, physical and occupational therapists); nonclinical staff (patient transporters, housekeeping staff, and security staff); pharmacists; engineering; and administrative staff. Respiratory therapists were considered as a separate group as their work placed them at high risk for respiratory diseases.

Work locations were as follows: clinics (including dental, outpatient, and satellite clinics), emergency departments (ED), inpatient units (including floors and intensive care units [ICU]), radiology suite, laboratory and pharmacy, and offices.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated using χ² analyses. All demographic variables were tested against serology status (positive/negative). A binary logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs). Eight separate univariate unadjusted ORs were calculated by running each predictor variable against serology status (dependent variable), which included the six categorical variables—race, ethnicity, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR results—and the two main predictors—job function and work location. To obtain adjusted ORs, two final separate multivariable logistic regression analyses were executed including the six covariates listed. Due to high collinearity between job function and work location (χ² = 3030.13, df = 35 [6 levels of work location – 1]*[8 levels of job function – 1]; P < .001), we included only one of the main predictors in each model. The regressions were specified such that the reference groups for the work location and job function variables were office work and administration, respectively. This choice was made based on the fact that their nonclinical functions do not confer an exposure risk in excess of that experienced by typical community populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the subset of HCWs whose address zip codes indicated residence within NYC to exclude the effect of different community seroprevalences in areas outside of NYC. The 95% CI for seroprevalence of antibodies within tested HCWs was estimated using the Clopper-Pearson binomial method.

Among all HCWs in the institution (N = 4,807), 2,749 (57.2%) underwent voluntary testing. Of those who underwent testing, 831 were positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1), a seroprevalence of 30.2% (95% CI, 29%-32%). Among the age groups, the 45-to-64−year group had the highest seropositivity at 33% (400/1203), and those ≥75 years of age, the lowest at 16.7% (2/12) (P < .009).

Among all tested HCWs, 70.1% (1,928/2,749) resided in NYC. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in this subset was 32% (616/1,928) (Figure 1). Demographic and comorbid conditions in HCWs who lived in NYC were similar to those of the whole group (Appendix Table 1).

HCWs who underwent voluntary antibody testing (Appendix Table 2) had a higher percentage of persons in the 45-to-64−year age group (43.8% vs 40.9%) and a lower percentage of persons in the 65-to-74−year age group (3.3% vs 5.3%) compared with the group of HCWs that did not undergo testing (P < .001). Gender, race, ethnicity, comorbid conditions, SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, and work locations were not different between groups. The tested group had higher proportions of clinicians (physicians, nurses, allied HCWs I and II) than the untested nonparticipant group (P = .014).

SARS-CoV-2 PCR Tests on HCWs

More than one-third (34.1%; 938/2,749) of HCWs had a documented nasopharyngeal PCR test between March 23 and June 26, 2020 (Table). Of all PCRs performed, 262 were positive, giving an overall PCR positivity rate of 27.9%. Positivity was 51.4% in March and 36.6% in April. The reasons for PCR testing were not available, but likely represent a combination of exposure-related testing among asymptomatic individuals and diagnostic testing of symptomatic HCWs. In contrast, serology testing was indicative of prior infection and yielded a cumulative seroprevalence at the end of the surge. Findings were similar among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1).

Work Location and Job Function

Among all HCWs (Table, Figure 2), there were differences in seropositivity by work location (P = .001). The largest number of HCWs worked in inpatient units (1,348/2,749, 49%), and the second largest in offices (554/2,749, 20%). The highest seropositivity rate was in the EDs, at 36.4% (64/176), followed by radiology suites, at 32.7% (17/52); the seropositivity rate in office locations was 25.8% (143/554). Among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1, Appendix Figure 1), the rank order according to proportion seropositive by work location was similar to that of the whole group (P = .004), except that the second highest seropositivity rate was in the inpatient units (33.9% [323/953]). In the group of HCWs residing in NYC, office locations had a seropositivity of 27.4% (102/372). The seropositivity rates for both groups working in office locations were slightly higher than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC reported for the same period.¹⁶

Among all HCWs, there were differences in seropositivity by job function (P = .001). The greatest proportion of HCWs were allied HCW II (23% [631/2,749]), followed by nurses (22.2% [611/2,749]) and physicians (21.3% [585/2,749] ). Seropositivity was highest for nonclinical staff (44.0% [51/116]), followed by nurses (37.5% [229/611]) and allied clinical HCW I and II (34.5% [143/414] and 32.0% [202/631], respectively). It was lowest for administrative staff (20.9% [42/201]) and pharmacists (11.1% [5/45]). Among HCWs residing in NYC, the rank order according to proportion seropositive by location was similar to that of the whole group. Administrative staff seropositivity was 18.3% (20/109). Administrative staff seropositivity for both groups was marginally lower than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC for the same period.¹⁶

Odds Ratios for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity

For all HCWs, in unadjusted models (Appendix Table 3), age 45 to 64 years and Black race were associated with increased odds of being seropositive (1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49 and 2.26; 95% CI, 1.51-3.37, respectively). Increased odds were seen for HCWs working in the ED (1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36) and inpatient units (1.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.69), and decreased odds were seen for those working in the laboratory and pharmacy (0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.86). Increased odds for seropositivity were found for nurses (2.27; 95% CI, 1.56-3.31), allied HCW I (2.00; 95% CI, 1.34-2.97), allied HCW II (1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.60), and nonclinical staff (2.97; 95% CI,1.80-4.90).

After adjusting for all covariates, HCWs who were Black remained at increased odds for being seropositive in the two final models (adjusted OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.38-3.81 and adjusted OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.78-4.85), as did those who had a BMI >30 kg/m², with an adjusted OR of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.05-1.77) in one of the final models (Appendix Table 3). None of the other comorbid conditions had increased ORs. Those who worked in the ED and inpatient units also remained at increased odds after adjusting for covariates (2.27; 95% CI, 1.53-3.37 and 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14-1.92, respectively; Figure 3). Other job functions that had increased odds for seropositivity were nurses (2.54; 95% CI, 1.64-3.94), allied HCW I (1.83; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) and II (1.70; 95% CI, 1.10-2.63), and nonclinical staff (2.51; 95% CI, 1.42-4.43).

Having a positive PCR for SAR-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal swabs was strongly associated with seropositivity (OR, 47.26; 95% CI, 29.30-76.23 and OR, 44.79; 95% CI, 27.87-72.00) in the two multivariate-adjusted models. These findings were confirmed when the analyses were performed on HCWs who resided in NYC (Appendix Table 4 and Appendix Figure 2).

In a large inner-city New York hospital, we report a cumulative SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 30.2% in HCWs at the end of the first surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections in NYC. We identified the highest seropositivity rates for nonclinical staff and nurses, followed by allied HCWs, with the odds of being seropositive ranging from 1.7 to 2.5. The work locations with the highest seroprevalences were the ED and inpatient units, with 2.3-fold and 1.5-fold increased odds of seropositivity, respectively.

Serosurveillance studies have reported the trajectory of community prevalence in NYC over the first wave. A 6.3% prevalence was reported in samples collected between March 23 and April 1, 2020.¹⁷ In a study by Rosenberg et al¹⁸ with testing performed from April 9 through April 28, 2020, prevalence increased to 22.7%. Serosurveillance data from the NYC Department of Health show prevalence ranging from 20.1% to 23.3% (average 22%) during the study period.¹⁶ Compared to the estimated seroprevalence of 9.3% in the United States,¹⁹ these rates established NYC as an early epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic, with our institution’s HCW seroprevalence considerably higher than NYC community serosurveillance rates, 2.2 times higher than reported in the earlier HCW study in the greater NYC area,¹³ and higher than the 27% rate during May 2020 recently reported in another NYC hospital.²⁰

Data from studies of hospital transmission and effects of mitigation measures, such as a universal masking policy for HCWs and patients, clearly demonstrate the high effectiveness of these measures in reducing hospital transmissions.^21,22 This suggests HCW seroprevalence in institutions with well-implemented infection control and universal masking policies may not be a consequence of workplace exposures, but rather may be reflective of community rates.²³ Our institution’s response commenced February 3, 2020, with implementation of social distancing, a universal masking policy, transmission-based precautions, and use of fitted N95 masks. Mid-March, elective surgeries were canceled, and inpatient visitation suspended. During the surge, these measures were widely and consistently implemented for all categories of HCWs throughout the work environment, based on emerging guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NYC Department of Health. Our overall observed HCW seroprevalence, well above that of the community, with differences in categories of job function and work locations, is therefore an important finding. Our sample of 2,749 HCWs lived in NYC and its surrounding suburbs and nearby states. There is heterogeneity in community seroprevalence between areas outside of NYC and NYC (an epicenter) itself. We therefore analyzed our data in the subset with NYC zip codes, confirming a similar overall prevalence and increased odds of seropositivity in nurses, allied HCWs, and nonclinical staff.

Physicians and administrative and office staff had seropositivity rates of 18.1%, 20.9%, and 25.8%, respectively, consistent with community rates and illustrating the effectiveness of PPE in the hospital setting. Since PPE use was part of a universal policy applied to all HCWs in our institution, other possible reasons may explain the differences we found. We speculate that the close working relationship nurses have with their patients resulted in a longer duration and higher frequency of daily interactions, increasing the risk for transmission and causing breakthrough infections.^24,25 This increased risk is reflected in a study in which 28% of hospitalized patients were nurses and 9% certified nursing assistants.²⁶

The CDC recently redefined close contact with someone with COVID-19 as a cumulative total of >15 minutes over 24 hours.²⁵ Thus, several multiple short periods of exposure can increase risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2; such exposure is characteristic of the job function of nurses, nursing staff, and nonclinical staff. Further, housekeeping, transportation, and security officers are all nonclinical staff with significant and multiple exposures to COVID-19 patients during the surge, and for security officers, to continuous public traffic in and out of the hospital. SARS-CoV-2 spreads by virus shedding in large droplets and aerosols, with droplet nuclei <5 microns in size efficiently dispersed in air, an important additional mode of transmission.^27-30 Airborne transmission coupled with virus shedding in asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons, which has been shown to cause secondary attack rates of up to 32%, are other factors that likely contributed to the increased seroprevalence in this group.³¹ Our observation is consistent with the Birmingham study, which reported the highest rate in housekeeping staff, with a prevalence of 34.5%, compared to 44% in this study.⁶ Similar reasons for high seropositivity rates apply to the two groups of allied HCWs (eg, medical assistants and patient care technicians, social workers, nutritionists and therapists), whose job functions place them in intermittent but significant proximity with inpatients and outpatients.

Consistent with public health data showing that minorities are disproportionately affected by this disease, we found that Black HCWs were three times more likely to be seropositive.³² However, an unexpected observation was the association between obesity and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. A possible explanation for this association may be inability to achieve optimal fit testing for N95 masks, thereby increasing the risk of exposure to droplet nuclei. This is important given that obesity is associated with poorer outcomes from COVID-19.

During the height of the first wave in NYC, EDs and inpatient units handled a large volume of COVID-19 patients with high PCR positivity rates (peak of 51% in March in our hospital). It was not unexpected that we observed increased odds of seropositivity in these work locations. As ICUs were at capacity, inpatient units cared for critically ill patients they would not normally have. HCWs in these locations coped with an increased workload, increased demand on PPE supplies, and work fatigue, which contributed to increased risk for hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Reporting seroprevalence at a single institution was a limitation of the study. Approximately 57% of the hospital’s total HCW population was tested for antibodies. It is possible their risk profile influenced their decision to volunteer for testing when it became available, introducing selection bias. A comparison between tested and untested HCWs showed similarity in all demographic measures, including nasopharyngeal PCR testing, except for age. We did not have information on symptoms that would prompt PCR testing. HCWs who underwent voluntary testing were younger compared to those who did not undergo testing. Current NYC serosurveillance data showed higher seropositivity in the 45-to-64–year age group (27.8%-28.6%) compared to the 65-to-74–year age group (24.3%), which suggests that the tested group may overestimate seroprevalence among HCWs relative to a randomly selected sample.³³ Similarly, there were more nurses, allied HCWs, physicians, and administrative staff in the tested group, with the former two having higher SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity compared to community prevalence, which could also overestimate seroprevalence. Our large sample size provided us with the power to detect differences within several different job functions and work locations, a strength of this study. It was not possible to differentiate community- from hospital-acquired infection in our HCWs, a limitation in many observational HCW seroprevalence studies. However, when we analyzed data restricted only to HCWs in NYC, to reduce the effect of differing community prevalences outside the city, our results were unchanged. Since it is possible that nonclinical HCWs are of a lower socioeconomic status compared to others (nurses and allied HCWs), we cannot exclude the possibility that higher SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence associated with lower status explains, partly or completely, the increased odds of seropositivity we observed.³⁴ Due to the high proportion of missing data for race (61.3%), we advise caution in interpreting our finding that the odds of seropositivity were three times higher for Black race, even though consistent with prior literature.³⁴ Healthcare organizations have similar job function and work location categories incorporated in their infrastructure, suggesting that our observations may be generalizable to other hospitals in the United States.

These findings show that during the first surge in NYC, with its increased burden of disease, hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality, seroprevalences varied based on job function and work location within this institution. Nurses were at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as were those who worked in the ED. In preparation for subsequent waves of SARS-CoV-2 and other highly contagious respiratory infections, major medical centers need to enhance efforts aimed at protecting HCWs, with particular attention to these groups. This study also strongly supports the recent CDC guideline prioritizing HCWs to receive COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines that have obtained emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.³⁵

The authors thank all the residents, nurses, and staff of the Department of Family Medicine for their contribution to this work.

SARS-CoV-2 has infected 141 million people worldwide and 31 million people in the United States as of April 20, 2021.^1,2 The influx of hospital admissions and deaths has severely strained healthcare systems worldwide and placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk for acquiring COVID-19.^3-5

Several studies have described the impact of COVID-19 on this heterogeneous group of HCWs. Shields et al reported a seroprevalence of 24.4% in HCWs at University Hospitals Birmingham (UK), with the highest rate, 34.5%, in housekeeping staff.⁶ Steensels et al reported a lower prevalence of 6.4% at a tertiary care center in Belgium, and showed no increased risk for HCWs when directly involved in clinical care.⁷ The authors attributed this to adequate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Other studies have reported seroprevalences ranging from 1.6% to 18%.^8-11 In the New York City (NYC) metro area, Jeremias et al reported a seroprevalence of 9.8% in HCWs and found no difference by job title or work location,¹² whereas Moscola et al reported a seroprevalence of 13.7% and demonstrated a 3% increased risk for those working in service or maintenance.¹³ Antibody tests were conducted between March and April 2020 in all but two of these studies; testing in these two studies was performed between April 13 and June 23, 2020, with one reporting a seroprevalence of 6%¹¹ and the other, 13.7%.¹³

NYC became the earliest pandemic epicenter in the United States following untracked transmission from ongoing circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe.¹⁴ As a result, the COVID-19 surge in NYC commenced in March and largely subsided by the end of May 2020. Most HCW data reported to date do not reflect the situation at the end of the surge, and may underestimate true seroprevalence. We describe SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCWs in a large inner-city hospital in NYC, with antibody testing conducted from May 18 to June 26, 2020, at the subsidence of the surge. To further our understanding of occupational risk among different groups of HCWs, we examined associations of seroprevalence with HCWs’ job function and work location.

This was a cross-sectional seroprevalence study conducted in the BronxCare Health System located in South and Central Bronx, an area that experienced one of the highest incidences of SARS-CoV-2 infections within NYC’s five boroughs.

HCWs were offered voluntary testing for serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between May 18 and June 26, 2020. Testing occurred in the institution’s auditorium, a central and easily accessible location. Weekly emails were sent to all employees and department heads during the testing period, offering antibody testing and providing location and testing time information. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) assay measuring total qualitative antibodies was used; the assay has a reported sensitivity of 97.1% 14 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result and a specificity of 100%.¹⁵

Demographic and work-related information was abstracted from electronic medical records, including all comorbid conditions that affected 30 or more HCWs. Pulmonary diagnoses, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were grouped as chronic lung disease, and cardiovascular diseases, including hypertension, as chronic heart disease. Personal identifiers and data were delinked upon completion of data abstraction. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board.

Job Function and Work Location

HCWs were grouped by job function as follows: physicians; nurses (including physician assistants and nurse practitioners); allied HCW I (medical assistants, patient care, and electrocardiogram, radiology, and ear, nose and throat technicians); allied HCW II (social workers, dieticians and nutritionists, registration clerks and unit associates, physical and occupational therapists); nonclinical staff (patient transporters, housekeeping staff, and security staff); pharmacists; engineering; and administrative staff. Respiratory therapists were considered as a separate group as their work placed them at high risk for respiratory diseases.

Work locations were as follows: clinics (including dental, outpatient, and satellite clinics), emergency departments (ED), inpatient units (including floors and intensive care units [ICU]), radiology suite, laboratory and pharmacy, and offices.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated using χ² analyses. All demographic variables were tested against serology status (positive/negative). A binary logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs). Eight separate univariate unadjusted ORs were calculated by running each predictor variable against serology status (dependent variable), which included the six categorical variables—race, ethnicity, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR results—and the two main predictors—job function and work location. To obtain adjusted ORs, two final separate multivariable logistic regression analyses were executed including the six covariates listed. Due to high collinearity between job function and work location (χ² = 3030.13, df = 35 [6 levels of work location – 1]*[8 levels of job function – 1]; P < .001), we included only one of the main predictors in each model. The regressions were specified such that the reference groups for the work location and job function variables were office work and administration, respectively. This choice was made based on the fact that their nonclinical functions do not confer an exposure risk in excess of that experienced by typical community populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the subset of HCWs whose address zip codes indicated residence within NYC to exclude the effect of different community seroprevalences in areas outside of NYC. The 95% CI for seroprevalence of antibodies within tested HCWs was estimated using the Clopper-Pearson binomial method.

Among all HCWs in the institution (N = 4,807), 2,749 (57.2%) underwent voluntary testing. Of those who underwent testing, 831 were positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1), a seroprevalence of 30.2% (95% CI, 29%-32%). Among the age groups, the 45-to-64−year group had the highest seropositivity at 33% (400/1203), and those ≥75 years of age, the lowest at 16.7% (2/12) (P < .009).

Among all tested HCWs, 70.1% (1,928/2,749) resided in NYC. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in this subset was 32% (616/1,928) (Figure 1). Demographic and comorbid conditions in HCWs who lived in NYC were similar to those of the whole group (Appendix Table 1).

HCWs who underwent voluntary antibody testing (Appendix Table 2) had a higher percentage of persons in the 45-to-64−year age group (43.8% vs 40.9%) and a lower percentage of persons in the 65-to-74−year age group (3.3% vs 5.3%) compared with the group of HCWs that did not undergo testing (P < .001). Gender, race, ethnicity, comorbid conditions, SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, and work locations were not different between groups. The tested group had higher proportions of clinicians (physicians, nurses, allied HCWs I and II) than the untested nonparticipant group (P = .014).

SARS-CoV-2 PCR Tests on HCWs

More than one-third (34.1%; 938/2,749) of HCWs had a documented nasopharyngeal PCR test between March 23 and June 26, 2020 (Table). Of all PCRs performed, 262 were positive, giving an overall PCR positivity rate of 27.9%. Positivity was 51.4% in March and 36.6% in April. The reasons for PCR testing were not available, but likely represent a combination of exposure-related testing among asymptomatic individuals and diagnostic testing of symptomatic HCWs. In contrast, serology testing was indicative of prior infection and yielded a cumulative seroprevalence at the end of the surge. Findings were similar among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1).

Work Location and Job Function

Among all HCWs (Table, Figure 2), there were differences in seropositivity by work location (P = .001). The largest number of HCWs worked in inpatient units (1,348/2,749, 49%), and the second largest in offices (554/2,749, 20%). The highest seropositivity rate was in the EDs, at 36.4% (64/176), followed by radiology suites, at 32.7% (17/52); the seropositivity rate in office locations was 25.8% (143/554). Among HCWs residing in NYC (Appendix Table 1, Appendix Figure 1), the rank order according to proportion seropositive by work location was similar to that of the whole group (P = .004), except that the second highest seropositivity rate was in the inpatient units (33.9% [323/953]). In the group of HCWs residing in NYC, office locations had a seropositivity of 27.4% (102/372). The seropositivity rates for both groups working in office locations were slightly higher than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC reported for the same period.¹⁶

Among all HCWs, there were differences in seropositivity by job function (P = .001). The greatest proportion of HCWs were allied HCW II (23% [631/2,749]), followed by nurses (22.2% [611/2,749]) and physicians (21.3% [585/2,749] ). Seropositivity was highest for nonclinical staff (44.0% [51/116]), followed by nurses (37.5% [229/611]) and allied clinical HCW I and II (34.5% [143/414] and 32.0% [202/631], respectively). It was lowest for administrative staff (20.9% [42/201]) and pharmacists (11.1% [5/45]). Among HCWs residing in NYC, the rank order according to proportion seropositive by location was similar to that of the whole group. Administrative staff seropositivity was 18.3% (20/109). Administrative staff seropositivity for both groups was marginally lower than the 22% community seroprevalence in NYC for the same period.¹⁶

Odds Ratios for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity

For all HCWs, in unadjusted models (Appendix Table 3), age 45 to 64 years and Black race were associated with increased odds of being seropositive (1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49 and 2.26; 95% CI, 1.51-3.37, respectively). Increased odds were seen for HCWs working in the ED (1.64; 95% CI, 1.14-2.36) and inpatient units (1.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.69), and decreased odds were seen for those working in the laboratory and pharmacy (0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.86). Increased odds for seropositivity were found for nurses (2.27; 95% CI, 1.56-3.31), allied HCW I (2.00; 95% CI, 1.34-2.97), allied HCW II (1.78; 95% CI, 1.22-2.60), and nonclinical staff (2.97; 95% CI,1.80-4.90).

After adjusting for all covariates, HCWs who were Black remained at increased odds for being seropositive in the two final models (adjusted OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.38-3.81 and adjusted OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.78-4.85), as did those who had a BMI >30 kg/m², with an adjusted OR of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.05-1.77) in one of the final models (Appendix Table 3). None of the other comorbid conditions had increased ORs. Those who worked in the ED and inpatient units also remained at increased odds after adjusting for covariates (2.27; 95% CI, 1.53-3.37 and 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14-1.92, respectively; Figure 3). Other job functions that had increased odds for seropositivity were nurses (2.54; 95% CI, 1.64-3.94), allied HCW I (1.83; 95% CI, 1.15-2.89) and II (1.70; 95% CI, 1.10-2.63), and nonclinical staff (2.51; 95% CI, 1.42-4.43).

Having a positive PCR for SAR-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal swabs was strongly associated with seropositivity (OR, 47.26; 95% CI, 29.30-76.23 and OR, 44.79; 95% CI, 27.87-72.00) in the two multivariate-adjusted models. These findings were confirmed when the analyses were performed on HCWs who resided in NYC (Appendix Table 4 and Appendix Figure 2).

In a large inner-city New York hospital, we report a cumulative SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 30.2% in HCWs at the end of the first surge of SARS-CoV-2 infections in NYC. We identified the highest seropositivity rates for nonclinical staff and nurses, followed by allied HCWs, with the odds of being seropositive ranging from 1.7 to 2.5. The work locations with the highest seroprevalences were the ED and inpatient units, with 2.3-fold and 1.5-fold increased odds of seropositivity, respectively.

Serosurveillance studies have reported the trajectory of community prevalence in NYC over the first wave. A 6.3% prevalence was reported in samples collected between March 23 and April 1, 2020.¹⁷ In a study by Rosenberg et al¹⁸ with testing performed from April 9 through April 28, 2020, prevalence increased to 22.7%. Serosurveillance data from the NYC Department of Health show prevalence ranging from 20.1% to 23.3% (average 22%) during the study period.¹⁶ Compared to the estimated seroprevalence of 9.3% in the United States,¹⁹ these rates established NYC as an early epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic, with our institution’s HCW seroprevalence considerably higher than NYC community serosurveillance rates, 2.2 times higher than reported in the earlier HCW study in the greater NYC area,¹³ and higher than the 27% rate during May 2020 recently reported in another NYC hospital.²⁰

Data from studies of hospital transmission and effects of mitigation measures, such as a universal masking policy for HCWs and patients, clearly demonstrate the high effectiveness of these measures in reducing hospital transmissions.^21,22 This suggests HCW seroprevalence in institutions with well-implemented infection control and universal masking policies may not be a consequence of workplace exposures, but rather may be reflective of community rates.²³ Our institution’s response commenced February 3, 2020, with implementation of social distancing, a universal masking policy, transmission-based precautions, and use of fitted N95 masks. Mid-March, elective surgeries were canceled, and inpatient visitation suspended. During the surge, these measures were widely and consistently implemented for all categories of HCWs throughout the work environment, based on emerging guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NYC Department of Health. Our overall observed HCW seroprevalence, well above that of the community, with differences in categories of job function and work locations, is therefore an important finding. Our sample of 2,749 HCWs lived in NYC and its surrounding suburbs and nearby states. There is heterogeneity in community seroprevalence between areas outside of NYC and NYC (an epicenter) itself. We therefore analyzed our data in the subset with NYC zip codes, confirming a similar overall prevalence and increased odds of seropositivity in nurses, allied HCWs, and nonclinical staff.

Physicians and administrative and office staff had seropositivity rates of 18.1%, 20.9%, and 25.8%, respectively, consistent with community rates and illustrating the effectiveness of PPE in the hospital setting. Since PPE use was part of a universal policy applied to all HCWs in our institution, other possible reasons may explain the differences we found. We speculate that the close working relationship nurses have with their patients resulted in a longer duration and higher frequency of daily interactions, increasing the risk for transmission and causing breakthrough infections.^24,25 This increased risk is reflected in a study in which 28% of hospitalized patients were nurses and 9% certified nursing assistants.²⁶

The CDC recently redefined close contact with someone with COVID-19 as a cumulative total of >15 minutes over 24 hours.²⁵ Thus, several multiple short periods of exposure can increase risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2; such exposure is characteristic of the job function of nurses, nursing staff, and nonclinical staff. Further, housekeeping, transportation, and security officers are all nonclinical staff with significant and multiple exposures to COVID-19 patients during the surge, and for security officers, to continuous public traffic in and out of the hospital. SARS-CoV-2 spreads by virus shedding in large droplets and aerosols, with droplet nuclei <5 microns in size efficiently dispersed in air, an important additional mode of transmission.^27-30 Airborne transmission coupled with virus shedding in asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons, which has been shown to cause secondary attack rates of up to 32%, are other factors that likely contributed to the increased seroprevalence in this group.³¹ Our observation is consistent with the Birmingham study, which reported the highest rate in housekeeping staff, with a prevalence of 34.5%, compared to 44% in this study.⁶ Similar reasons for high seropositivity rates apply to the two groups of allied HCWs (eg, medical assistants and patient care technicians, social workers, nutritionists and therapists), whose job functions place them in intermittent but significant proximity with inpatients and outpatients.

Consistent with public health data showing that minorities are disproportionately affected by this disease, we found that Black HCWs were three times more likely to be seropositive.³² However, an unexpected observation was the association between obesity and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. A possible explanation for this association may be inability to achieve optimal fit testing for N95 masks, thereby increasing the risk of exposure to droplet nuclei. This is important given that obesity is associated with poorer outcomes from COVID-19.

During the height of the first wave in NYC, EDs and inpatient units handled a large volume of COVID-19 patients with high PCR positivity rates (peak of 51% in March in our hospital). It was not unexpected that we observed increased odds of seropositivity in these work locations. As ICUs were at capacity, inpatient units cared for critically ill patients they would not normally have. HCWs in these locations coped with an increased workload, increased demand on PPE supplies, and work fatigue, which contributed to increased risk for hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Reporting seroprevalence at a single institution was a limitation of the study. Approximately 57% of the hospital’s total HCW population was tested for antibodies. It is possible their risk profile influenced their decision to volunteer for testing when it became available, introducing selection bias. A comparison between tested and untested HCWs showed similarity in all demographic measures, including nasopharyngeal PCR testing, except for age. We did not have information on symptoms that would prompt PCR testing. HCWs who underwent voluntary testing were younger compared to those who did not undergo testing. Current NYC serosurveillance data showed higher seropositivity in the 45-to-64–year age group (27.8%-28.6%) compared to the 65-to-74–year age group (24.3%), which suggests that the tested group may overestimate seroprevalence among HCWs relative to a randomly selected sample.³³ Similarly, there were more nurses, allied HCWs, physicians, and administrative staff in the tested group, with the former two having higher SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity compared to community prevalence, which could also overestimate seroprevalence. Our large sample size provided us with the power to detect differences within several different job functions and work locations, a strength of this study. It was not possible to differentiate community- from hospital-acquired infection in our HCWs, a limitation in many observational HCW seroprevalence studies. However, when we analyzed data restricted only to HCWs in NYC, to reduce the effect of differing community prevalences outside the city, our results were unchanged. Since it is possible that nonclinical HCWs are of a lower socioeconomic status compared to others (nurses and allied HCWs), we cannot exclude the possibility that higher SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence associated with lower status explains, partly or completely, the increased odds of seropositivity we observed.³⁴ Due to the high proportion of missing data for race (61.3%), we advise caution in interpreting our finding that the odds of seropositivity were three times higher for Black race, even though consistent with prior literature.³⁴ Healthcare organizations have similar job function and work location categories incorporated in their infrastructure, suggesting that our observations may be generalizable to other hospitals in the United States.

These findings show that during the first surge in NYC, with its increased burden of disease, hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality, seroprevalences varied based on job function and work location within this institution. Nurses were at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as were those who worked in the ED. In preparation for subsequent waves of SARS-CoV-2 and other highly contagious respiratory infections, major medical centers need to enhance efforts aimed at protecting HCWs, with particular attention to these groups. This study also strongly supports the recent CDC guideline prioritizing HCWs to receive COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines that have obtained emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.³⁵

The authors thank all the residents, nurses, and staff of the Department of Family Medicine for their contribution to this work.

India is emerging as one of the world’s largest hotspots for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19)—second only to the United States—with more than 13,000,000 documented infections since the first case was recorded on January 30, 2020.^1,2 Kashmir, a northern territory of India, reported its first case of COVID-19 on March 18, 2020, from the central District Srinagar; this region has accounted for more cases of COVID-19 than any other district throughout the pandemic.³ The large majority of healthcare in District Srinagar is provided by three tertiary care institutions, one district hospital, two subdistrict hospitals, and 70 primary healthcare centers. Potential occupational exposures place healthcare workers (HCWs) at higher risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection, which in turn may serve as an important source of infection for their families and other community members.^4-6 Given the high frequency and geographic variability of asymptomatic infection, growing evidence suggests this hidden reservoir is a source of infection for the general population.^7,8

Many countries have started testing for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, both at the population level and in specific groups, such as HCWs. Seroepidemiological studies are crucial to understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many seroepidemiological studies have been conducted among community populations, but there are insufficient data on HCWs. The World Health Organization also encouraged its member states to conduct seroepidemiological studies to attain a better understanding of COVID-19 infection prevalence and distribution.^9-11 Therefore, to quantify the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs, we conducted a seroepidemiological study by testing for SARS-CoV-2–specific immunoglobulin (IgG) to gain insight into the extent of infection among specific subgroups of HCWs and to identify risk-factor profiles associated with seropositivity.

Study Design and Settings

We conducted this seroepidemiological study to ascertain the presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. The 2-week period of data collection began on June 15, 2020. As part of healthcare system pandemic preparedness efforts, India’s Ministry of Health provided specific guidelines for health facilities to manage COVID-19. Hospitals were categorized as dedicated COVID and non-COVID hospitals. Dedicated COVID hospitals provided comprehensive care exclusively to patients with COVID-19 and were equipped with fully functional intensive care units, ventilators, and beds with reliable access to oxygen support.¹² In addition, infection prevention and control strategies to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection were implemented according to guidelines specified by India’s National Center for Disease Control.¹³ To strengthen service provision, HCWs from other hospitals, including resident physicians, were relocated to these dedicated COVID hospitals. The additional staff were selected by administrative leadership, without input from HCWs.

Study Population and Data Collection

We approached administrative heads of the hospitals in District Srinagar for permission to conduct our study and to invite their HCWs to participate in the study. As Figure 1 shows, we were denied permission by the administrative heads of two tertiary care hospitals. Finally, with a point person serving as a study liaison at each institution, HCWs from three dedicated COVID and seven non-COVID tertiary care hospitals, two subdistrict hospitals, and six primary healthcare centers across the District Srinagar were invited to participate. The sample primary healthcare centers were each selected randomly, after stratification, from six major regions of the district. All frontline HCWs, including physicians, administrative and laboratory personnel, technicians, field workers involved in surveillance activity, and other supporting staff were eligible for the study.

We collected information on an interview form using Epicollect5, a free data-gathering tool widely used in health research.¹⁴ Physicians specifically trained in the use of Epicollect5 conducted the face-to-face interview on a prespecified day and recorded the collected information through mobile phones. This information included the participants’ role in providing care to patients with COVID-19 and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (eg, history of travel since January 1, 2020, symptoms of an influenza-like illness [ILI] in the 4 weeks prior to the interview, close contact with a COVID-19 case). We defined close contact as an unmasked exposure within 6 feet of an infected individual for at least 15 minutes, irrespective of location (ie, community or the hospital).

Following the interview, trained phlebotomists collected 3 to 5 mL of venous blood under aseptic conditions. We strictly adhered to standard operating procedures during collection, transportation, and testing of blood samples. Following collection, the blood samples remained undisturbed for at least 30 minutes before centrifugation, which was performed at the collection site (or at the central laboratory for sites lacking the capability). The samples were then transported for further processing and testing through a cold chain supply line, using vaccine carriers with conditioned icepacks. All testing procedures were conducted with strict adherence to the manufacturers’ guidelines.

Laboratory Procedure

In accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, we used a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay to detect SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies in serum samples. The assay is an automated two-step immunoassay for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies against the nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2 in human serum and plasma. The sensitivity and specificity of this test are 100% and 99%, respectively. The test result was considered positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG if the index value was ≥1.4, consistent with guidance provided by the manufacturer.¹⁵

The IgG values were also entered into Epicollect5. Two trained medical interns independently entered the laboratory results in two separate forms. A third medical intern reviewed these forms for discrepancies, in response to which they referenced the source data for adjudication. The information gathered during the interview and the laboratory results were linked with the help of a unique identification number, which was generated at the time of the interview.

Statistical Analysis

We estimated the proportion (and logit-transformed 95% CI) of HCWs with a positive SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibody level, the primary outcome of interest. We compared seroprevalence rates by gender, age group, specific occupational group, and type of health facility (dedicated COVID hospital vs non-COVID hospital). Seroprevalence was also estimated separately for HCWs who reported symptoms in the past 4 weeks, had a history of exposure to a known case of COVID-19, or had undergone testing by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In the case of zero seroprevalences, Jeffreys 95% CIs were reported. We used a chi-square test to report two-sided P values for comparison of seroprevalence between groups. When the expected frequency was <5 in more than 20% of the cells, the exact test was used instead of the chi-square test. We additionally performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the independent association between place of work (primary independent variable) and seropositivity (dependent variable). We adjusted for the following observable covariates by including them as categorical variables: age, gender, occupational group, and history of close contact with a patient who was COVID-positive. We performed data analysis using Stata, version 15.1 (StataCorp LP). The Institutional Ethics Committee of Government Medical College, Srinagar, approved the study (Reference No. 1003/ETH/GMC dated 13-05-2020). We obtained written, informed consent from all participants.

Of the 7,346 HCWs we were granted permission to approach, 2,915 (39.7%) agreed to participate in the study. The participation rate was 49% at the dedicated COVID hospitals (57% physicians and 47% nonphysicians) and 39% at the non-COVID hospitals (46% physicians and 36% nonphysicians). We analyzed information gathered from 2,905 HCWs (Epicollect5 interview forms were missing for nine participants, and the laboratory report was missing for one participant).

The mean age of the participants was 38.6 years, and 35.8% of participants identified as female (Table 1). One third (33.7%) of the participants were physicians, nearly half of whom were residents. In our sample, the overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%).

Of the 2,905 participating HCWs, 123 (4.2%) reported an ILI (ie, fever and cough) in the 4 weeks preceding the interview, and 339 (11.7%) reported close contact with a person with COVID-19 (Table 2). A total of 760 (26.2%) HCWs had undergone RT-PCR testing, 29 (3.8%) of whom had a positive result. Stratifying by workplace, history of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR positivity was reported by 4 of 77 (5.1%) participants from dedicated COVID hospitals compared to (3.7%) participants from the non-COVID hospital (P = .528).

As Table 2 also demonstrates, we found a significantly higher seropositivity rate among HCWs who had a history of ILI (P < .001), a history of positive RT-PCR (P < .001), history of ever being put under quarantine (P = .009), and a self-reported history of close contact with a person with COVID-19 (P = .014). Healthcare workers who had ever worked at a dedicated COVID hospital had a significantly lower seroprevalence of infection (P = .004).

Among HCWs who reported no ILI symptoms in the 4 weeks prior to the interview but who had positive RT-PCR test, 20.8% were seropositive. Of HCWs who reported both ILI and a positive RT-PCR test result, 60.0% were seropositive. Compared to employment at a non-COVID hospital, HCWs working in dedicated COVID hospitals had a reduced multivariate-adjusted risk of seropositivity (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.66).

We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs in different hospital settings in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. In general, seroprevalence was low (2.5%), with little difference across gender or occupational group.

Seroprevalence studies of HCWs across divergent workplace environments have revealed estimates ranging from 1% to 10.2%.^16-19 Generally, the seroprevalence rates among HCWs are not significantly different from those of the general population, which reflects how different the dynamics of COVID-19 are compared to other infections in healthcare settings. The low seroprevalence observed in our study coincides with the overall low infection rate in the community population. During the study period, District Srinagar reported a median of 28 new infections daily (interquartile range, 17-46), which is indicative of the early phase of the pandemic in the population at the time of the study.²⁰

Among the HCW occupational groups, ambulance drivers and housekeeping staff had the highest seroprevalence rates, followed by nurses and physicians. Possible explanations for higher seropositivity in these groups are improper use or inadequate supply of protective gear and lack of training on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), resulting in increased exposure risk.²¹ Concordance of HCW and community infection rates in specific geographic areas suggests that community exposure may be the dominant source of healthcare exposure and infection. Additionally, careful in-hospital behavior of HCWs in dedicated COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behavior, which may partially explain our finding that employment at dedicated COVID hospitals was associated with a markedly lower chance of seropositivity. A study of 6,510 HCWs in Chicago, Illinois, showed high seropositivity rates among support service workers, medical assistants, and nurses, with nurses identified as having a markedly higher adjusted odds of seropositivity relative to administrators. The authors of the study concluded that exposure in the community setting plays a crucial role in transmission among HCWs.²² Similarly, higher seroprevalence among housekeeping, nonadministrative staff, and other support service staff has been reported elsewhere.²³ Certain underlying factors related to socioeconomic status and lifestyle may also contribute to higher seroprevalence in some occupational groups.²⁴ Nonadherence to masking, social distancing, and proper hand hygiene outside the hospital setting could result in community-acquired infection.

Interestingly, participants who were working in a dedicated COVID hospital or who had ever worked at one had a seroprevalence of 0.6%, much lower than the 2.8% observed among other participants. This difference remained statistically significant after controlling for age, sex, place of work, and occupational group. As these facilities were dedicated to the management and care of patients with COVID-19, the hospital staff strictly adhered to safety precautions, with particular vigilance during patient contact. These hospitals also strictly adhered to infection prevention and control practices based on the latest guidelines released by India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.¹³

A commitment was made to provide adequate PPE to the dedicated COVID hospitals and staff, commensurate with expected infected patient volumes and associated exposure risks. Healthcare workers were specifically trained on proper donning and doffing of PPE, self-health monitoring, and protocols for reporting symptoms and PPE breaches during patient encounters. Healthcare workers were regularly tested for COVID-19 using nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Of critical importance, these hospitals implemented a buddy system wherein a team of two or more staff members was responsible for ensuring each other’s safety, proper PPE use, conformance to other protective measures, and reporting breaches of PPE compliance.²⁵ Universal masking was mandatory for all hospital staff and patients at the COVID-focused facilities, with the additional use of N-95 masks, gloves, and face shields during times of patient contact. Administrative measures, including visitor restrictions and environmental sanitation, were rigorously enforced. Also, being a potentially high-risk area for transmission of infection, these facilities implemented staff-rationing to reduce the duration of exposure to the healthcare staff. Third, the HCWs of COVID-dedicated hospitals were provided with separate living accommodations during the period in which they were employed at a dedicated COVID hospital.

In contrast, in non-COVID hospitals, with the exception of HCWs, patients and the hospital visitors were not subject to a masking policy. Moreover, an adequate and timely supply of PPE was not prioritized at the non-COVID facilities due to resource constraints. Further, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. Though routine infection prevention and control activities were performed at non-COVID hospitals, we did not assess adherence to infection prevention and control guidelines in the two different categories of hospitals. Our results are also supported by evidence from studies conducted in different hospital settings, the findings of which reiterate the importance of fundamental principles of prevention (eg, proper masking, hand hygiene, and distancing) and are of particular importance in resource-limited settings.^17,26,27 The only published study quantifying seroprevalence among HCWs in India was performed in a single hospital setting with separate COVID and non-COVID units. The authors of that study reported a higher seroprevalence among HCWs in the COVID unit. However, this difference seems to be confounded by other factors as revealed by the multivariable analysis result.²³

We found a two-fold higher seroprevalence (4.4%) in HCWs who reported close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Respiratory infections pose a greater health risk to HCWs in an occupational setting. Substantial evidence has emerged demonstrating that the respiratory system is the dominant route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with proximity and ventilation as key predictive factors.²⁸ Globally, among thousands of HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2, one of the leading risk factors identified was close contact with a patient with COVID-19; other identified risk factors were lack of PPE, poor infection prevention and control practices, work overload, and a preexisting health condition.²⁹

The seroprevalence estimate among participants who reported an ILI in the 4 weeks preceding the interview was only 12.2%, suggesting an alternative etiology of these symptoms. Among those who reported a previously positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, only 27.6% showed the presence of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies. The inability to mount an antibody-mediated immune response or early conversion to seronegative status during the convalescence phase has been suggested as an explanation for such discordant findings.³⁰ On the contrary, seropositivity among participants who reported having a negative RT-PCR test was 1.9%. There are few plausible explanations for such observations. First, several studies have reported false-negative result rates from RT-PCR testing ranging from 2% to 29%.^31-33 Second, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 assay is influenced by the timing of the test after the onset of symptoms or RT-PCR positivity. The sensitivity of the assay we used varies from 53.1% at day 7 to 100% at day 17 postinfection.³⁴ Variable viral load and differences in duration of viral shedding are other possible reasons for false-negative RT-PCR results.^35,36

In our study, seroconversion among asymptomatic HCWs who were RT-PCR-positive was 20.8%. Among HCWs who reported an ILI and were RT-PCR-positive, seropositivity was 60%. In one study, 40% of asymptomatic and 13% of symptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19 became seronegative after initial seropositivity—that is, 8 weeks after hospital discharge.³⁷

Serological testing offers insight into both the exposure history and residual COVID-19 susceptibility of HCWs. However, current immunological knowledge does not allow us to conclude that seropositivity conveys high-level immunity against reinfection. As the epidemic evolves, HCWs will continue to be exposed to COVID-19 in the community and the workplace. Serial cross-sectional serosurveys can help monitor the progression of the pandemic within the healthcare setting and guide hospital authorities in resource allocation.

Strengths and Limitations

We used the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, which has exhibited a high level of consistency and performance characteristics when tested in different patient populations. The participation rate was acceptable compared to similar studies, and we included all the major hospitals in the District Srinagar. The findings from our study can therefore be considered representative of the HCWs in the district.

The study results should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. First, information on risk factors for seropositivity were based on participant report. Also, we did not collect information on the timing of symptoms or the date on which a participant became RT-PCR-positive. Second, information regarding place of exposure (ie, community or hospital setting) was not recorded, limiting conclusions regarding the effect of workplace exposures. Third, given the voluntary nature of participation in the study, there is a possibility of selection bias that may have limited the generalizability of our findings. For example, some HCWs with a recent exposure to COVID-19 or those who were symptomatic at the time of the study might not have participated based on the absence of an individual benefit from IgG testing in the early phase of infection. Conversely, some HCWs who had symptoms in the distant past might have been more likely to have participated in the study. However, we believe that selection bias does not vitiate the validity of the associations based on the plausible assumption that infection risk should be similar between respondents and nonrespondents due to comparable work environments. Finally, with a cross-sectional study design, we cannot ascertain the reconversion from an initial positive-IgG to negative-IgG status, which warrants a cohort study.

We conclude that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was low among HCWs of District Srinagar at the time of the study. Healthcare workers in a dedicated COVID hospital or HCWs who had ever worked in such a facility had lower seroprevalence, suggesting both adherence to and effectiveness of standard protective measures during contact with patients who had COVID-19. Nonetheless, the careful in-hospital behavior of the HCWs at the COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behaviors, which lead to community-acquired infection. On the contrary, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. We believe that our findings highlight the value of implementing infection prevention and control measures in the hospital setting. Moreover, training and retraining of sanitation and other housekeeping staff on standard hygienic practices and appropriate use of the protective gear may further help reduce their rates of exposure.

The authors thank Principal and Dean of the Government Medical College, Srinagar, Professor Samia Rashid, and District Commissioner, Srinagar, Shahid Iqbal Chowdhary for their support. We also acknowledge the support rendered by the Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir; Chief Medical Officer Srinagar; Block Medical Officers; and Zonal Medical Officers of District Srinagar, Kashmir, and extend our appreciation to the medical interns for their efforts in data collection, and to laboratory in-charge Gulzar Ahmad Wani, PhD scholar, Biochemistry, and his staff, who were involved in this study. Finally, we thank the study participants for their understanding of the importance of this study and for their time and participation.

Data shall be made available on request through the corresponding author.

India is emerging as one of the world’s largest hotspots for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19)—second only to the United States—with more than 13,000,000 documented infections since the first case was recorded on January 30, 2020.^1,2 Kashmir, a northern territory of India, reported its first case of COVID-19 on March 18, 2020, from the central District Srinagar; this region has accounted for more cases of COVID-19 than any other district throughout the pandemic.³ The large majority of healthcare in District Srinagar is provided by three tertiary care institutions, one district hospital, two subdistrict hospitals, and 70 primary healthcare centers. Potential occupational exposures place healthcare workers (HCWs) at higher risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection, which in turn may serve as an important source of infection for their families and other community members.^4-6 Given the high frequency and geographic variability of asymptomatic infection, growing evidence suggests this hidden reservoir is a source of infection for the general population.^7,8

Many countries have started testing for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, both at the population level and in specific groups, such as HCWs. Seroepidemiological studies are crucial to understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many seroepidemiological studies have been conducted among community populations, but there are insufficient data on HCWs. The World Health Organization also encouraged its member states to conduct seroepidemiological studies to attain a better understanding of COVID-19 infection prevalence and distribution.^9-11 Therefore, to quantify the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs, we conducted a seroepidemiological study by testing for SARS-CoV-2–specific immunoglobulin (IgG) to gain insight into the extent of infection among specific subgroups of HCWs and to identify risk-factor profiles associated with seropositivity.

Study Design and Settings

We conducted this seroepidemiological study to ascertain the presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. The 2-week period of data collection began on June 15, 2020. As part of healthcare system pandemic preparedness efforts, India’s Ministry of Health provided specific guidelines for health facilities to manage COVID-19. Hospitals were categorized as dedicated COVID and non-COVID hospitals. Dedicated COVID hospitals provided comprehensive care exclusively to patients with COVID-19 and were equipped with fully functional intensive care units, ventilators, and beds with reliable access to oxygen support.¹² In addition, infection prevention and control strategies to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection were implemented according to guidelines specified by India’s National Center for Disease Control.¹³ To strengthen service provision, HCWs from other hospitals, including resident physicians, were relocated to these dedicated COVID hospitals. The additional staff were selected by administrative leadership, without input from HCWs.

Study Population and Data Collection

We approached administrative heads of the hospitals in District Srinagar for permission to conduct our study and to invite their HCWs to participate in the study. As Figure 1 shows, we were denied permission by the administrative heads of two tertiary care hospitals. Finally, with a point person serving as a study liaison at each institution, HCWs from three dedicated COVID and seven non-COVID tertiary care hospitals, two subdistrict hospitals, and six primary healthcare centers across the District Srinagar were invited to participate. The sample primary healthcare centers were each selected randomly, after stratification, from six major regions of the district. All frontline HCWs, including physicians, administrative and laboratory personnel, technicians, field workers involved in surveillance activity, and other supporting staff were eligible for the study.

We collected information on an interview form using Epicollect5, a free data-gathering tool widely used in health research.¹⁴ Physicians specifically trained in the use of Epicollect5 conducted the face-to-face interview on a prespecified day and recorded the collected information through mobile phones. This information included the participants’ role in providing care to patients with COVID-19 and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (eg, history of travel since January 1, 2020, symptoms of an influenza-like illness [ILI] in the 4 weeks prior to the interview, close contact with a COVID-19 case). We defined close contact as an unmasked exposure within 6 feet of an infected individual for at least 15 minutes, irrespective of location (ie, community or the hospital).

Following the interview, trained phlebotomists collected 3 to 5 mL of venous blood under aseptic conditions. We strictly adhered to standard operating procedures during collection, transportation, and testing of blood samples. Following collection, the blood samples remained undisturbed for at least 30 minutes before centrifugation, which was performed at the collection site (or at the central laboratory for sites lacking the capability). The samples were then transported for further processing and testing through a cold chain supply line, using vaccine carriers with conditioned icepacks. All testing procedures were conducted with strict adherence to the manufacturers’ guidelines.

Laboratory Procedure

In accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, we used a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay to detect SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies in serum samples. The assay is an automated two-step immunoassay for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies against the nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2 in human serum and plasma. The sensitivity and specificity of this test are 100% and 99%, respectively. The test result was considered positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG if the index value was ≥1.4, consistent with guidance provided by the manufacturer.¹⁵

The IgG values were also entered into Epicollect5. Two trained medical interns independently entered the laboratory results in two separate forms. A third medical intern reviewed these forms for discrepancies, in response to which they referenced the source data for adjudication. The information gathered during the interview and the laboratory results were linked with the help of a unique identification number, which was generated at the time of the interview.

Statistical Analysis

We estimated the proportion (and logit-transformed 95% CI) of HCWs with a positive SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibody level, the primary outcome of interest. We compared seroprevalence rates by gender, age group, specific occupational group, and type of health facility (dedicated COVID hospital vs non-COVID hospital). Seroprevalence was also estimated separately for HCWs who reported symptoms in the past 4 weeks, had a history of exposure to a known case of COVID-19, or had undergone testing by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In the case of zero seroprevalences, Jeffreys 95% CIs were reported. We used a chi-square test to report two-sided P values for comparison of seroprevalence between groups. When the expected frequency was <5 in more than 20% of the cells, the exact test was used instead of the chi-square test. We additionally performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the independent association between place of work (primary independent variable) and seropositivity (dependent variable). We adjusted for the following observable covariates by including them as categorical variables: age, gender, occupational group, and history of close contact with a patient who was COVID-positive. We performed data analysis using Stata, version 15.1 (StataCorp LP). The Institutional Ethics Committee of Government Medical College, Srinagar, approved the study (Reference No. 1003/ETH/GMC dated 13-05-2020). We obtained written, informed consent from all participants.

Of the 7,346 HCWs we were granted permission to approach, 2,915 (39.7%) agreed to participate in the study. The participation rate was 49% at the dedicated COVID hospitals (57% physicians and 47% nonphysicians) and 39% at the non-COVID hospitals (46% physicians and 36% nonphysicians). We analyzed information gathered from 2,905 HCWs (Epicollect5 interview forms were missing for nine participants, and the laboratory report was missing for one participant).

The mean age of the participants was 38.6 years, and 35.8% of participants identified as female (Table 1). One third (33.7%) of the participants were physicians, nearly half of whom were residents. In our sample, the overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%).

Of the 2,905 participating HCWs, 123 (4.2%) reported an ILI (ie, fever and cough) in the 4 weeks preceding the interview, and 339 (11.7%) reported close contact with a person with COVID-19 (Table 2). A total of 760 (26.2%) HCWs had undergone RT-PCR testing, 29 (3.8%) of whom had a positive result. Stratifying by workplace, history of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR positivity was reported by 4 of 77 (5.1%) participants from dedicated COVID hospitals compared to (3.7%) participants from the non-COVID hospital (P = .528).

As Table 2 also demonstrates, we found a significantly higher seropositivity rate among HCWs who had a history of ILI (P < .001), a history of positive RT-PCR (P < .001), history of ever being put under quarantine (P = .009), and a self-reported history of close contact with a person with COVID-19 (P = .014). Healthcare workers who had ever worked at a dedicated COVID hospital had a significantly lower seroprevalence of infection (P = .004).

Among HCWs who reported no ILI symptoms in the 4 weeks prior to the interview but who had positive RT-PCR test, 20.8% were seropositive. Of HCWs who reported both ILI and a positive RT-PCR test result, 60.0% were seropositive. Compared to employment at a non-COVID hospital, HCWs working in dedicated COVID hospitals had a reduced multivariate-adjusted risk of seropositivity (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.66).

We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs in different hospital settings in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. In general, seroprevalence was low (2.5%), with little difference across gender or occupational group.

Seroprevalence studies of HCWs across divergent workplace environments have revealed estimates ranging from 1% to 10.2%.^16-19 Generally, the seroprevalence rates among HCWs are not significantly different from those of the general population, which reflects how different the dynamics of COVID-19 are compared to other infections in healthcare settings. The low seroprevalence observed in our study coincides with the overall low infection rate in the community population. During the study period, District Srinagar reported a median of 28 new infections daily (interquartile range, 17-46), which is indicative of the early phase of the pandemic in the population at the time of the study.²⁰

Among the HCW occupational groups, ambulance drivers and housekeeping staff had the highest seroprevalence rates, followed by nurses and physicians. Possible explanations for higher seropositivity in these groups are improper use or inadequate supply of protective gear and lack of training on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), resulting in increased exposure risk.²¹ Concordance of HCW and community infection rates in specific geographic areas suggests that community exposure may be the dominant source of healthcare exposure and infection. Additionally, careful in-hospital behavior of HCWs in dedicated COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behavior, which may partially explain our finding that employment at dedicated COVID hospitals was associated with a markedly lower chance of seropositivity. A study of 6,510 HCWs in Chicago, Illinois, showed high seropositivity rates among support service workers, medical assistants, and nurses, with nurses identified as having a markedly higher adjusted odds of seropositivity relative to administrators. The authors of the study concluded that exposure in the community setting plays a crucial role in transmission among HCWs.²² Similarly, higher seroprevalence among housekeeping, nonadministrative staff, and other support service staff has been reported elsewhere.²³ Certain underlying factors related to socioeconomic status and lifestyle may also contribute to higher seroprevalence in some occupational groups.²⁴ Nonadherence to masking, social distancing, and proper hand hygiene outside the hospital setting could result in community-acquired infection.

Interestingly, participants who were working in a dedicated COVID hospital or who had ever worked at one had a seroprevalence of 0.6%, much lower than the 2.8% observed among other participants. This difference remained statistically significant after controlling for age, sex, place of work, and occupational group. As these facilities were dedicated to the management and care of patients with COVID-19, the hospital staff strictly adhered to safety precautions, with particular vigilance during patient contact. These hospitals also strictly adhered to infection prevention and control practices based on the latest guidelines released by India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.¹³

A commitment was made to provide adequate PPE to the dedicated COVID hospitals and staff, commensurate with expected infected patient volumes and associated exposure risks. Healthcare workers were specifically trained on proper donning and doffing of PPE, self-health monitoring, and protocols for reporting symptoms and PPE breaches during patient encounters. Healthcare workers were regularly tested for COVID-19 using nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Of critical importance, these hospitals implemented a buddy system wherein a team of two or more staff members was responsible for ensuring each other’s safety, proper PPE use, conformance to other protective measures, and reporting breaches of PPE compliance.²⁵ Universal masking was mandatory for all hospital staff and patients at the COVID-focused facilities, with the additional use of N-95 masks, gloves, and face shields during times of patient contact. Administrative measures, including visitor restrictions and environmental sanitation, were rigorously enforced. Also, being a potentially high-risk area for transmission of infection, these facilities implemented staff-rationing to reduce the duration of exposure to the healthcare staff. Third, the HCWs of COVID-dedicated hospitals were provided with separate living accommodations during the period in which they were employed at a dedicated COVID hospital.

In contrast, in non-COVID hospitals, with the exception of HCWs, patients and the hospital visitors were not subject to a masking policy. Moreover, an adequate and timely supply of PPE was not prioritized at the non-COVID facilities due to resource constraints. Further, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. Though routine infection prevention and control activities were performed at non-COVID hospitals, we did not assess adherence to infection prevention and control guidelines in the two different categories of hospitals. Our results are also supported by evidence from studies conducted in different hospital settings, the findings of which reiterate the importance of fundamental principles of prevention (eg, proper masking, hand hygiene, and distancing) and are of particular importance in resource-limited settings.^17,26,27 The only published study quantifying seroprevalence among HCWs in India was performed in a single hospital setting with separate COVID and non-COVID units. The authors of that study reported a higher seroprevalence among HCWs in the COVID unit. However, this difference seems to be confounded by other factors as revealed by the multivariable analysis result.²³

We found a two-fold higher seroprevalence (4.4%) in HCWs who reported close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Respiratory infections pose a greater health risk to HCWs in an occupational setting. Substantial evidence has emerged demonstrating that the respiratory system is the dominant route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with proximity and ventilation as key predictive factors.²⁸ Globally, among thousands of HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2, one of the leading risk factors identified was close contact with a patient with COVID-19; other identified risk factors were lack of PPE, poor infection prevention and control practices, work overload, and a preexisting health condition.²⁹

The seroprevalence estimate among participants who reported an ILI in the 4 weeks preceding the interview was only 12.2%, suggesting an alternative etiology of these symptoms. Among those who reported a previously positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, only 27.6% showed the presence of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies. The inability to mount an antibody-mediated immune response or early conversion to seronegative status during the convalescence phase has been suggested as an explanation for such discordant findings.³⁰ On the contrary, seropositivity among participants who reported having a negative RT-PCR test was 1.9%. There are few plausible explanations for such observations. First, several studies have reported false-negative result rates from RT-PCR testing ranging from 2% to 29%.^31-33 Second, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 assay is influenced by the timing of the test after the onset of symptoms or RT-PCR positivity. The sensitivity of the assay we used varies from 53.1% at day 7 to 100% at day 17 postinfection.³⁴ Variable viral load and differences in duration of viral shedding are other possible reasons for false-negative RT-PCR results.^35,36

In our study, seroconversion among asymptomatic HCWs who were RT-PCR-positive was 20.8%. Among HCWs who reported an ILI and were RT-PCR-positive, seropositivity was 60%. In one study, 40% of asymptomatic and 13% of symptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19 became seronegative after initial seropositivity—that is, 8 weeks after hospital discharge.³⁷

Serological testing offers insight into both the exposure history and residual COVID-19 susceptibility of HCWs. However, current immunological knowledge does not allow us to conclude that seropositivity conveys high-level immunity against reinfection. As the epidemic evolves, HCWs will continue to be exposed to COVID-19 in the community and the workplace. Serial cross-sectional serosurveys can help monitor the progression of the pandemic within the healthcare setting and guide hospital authorities in resource allocation.

Strengths and Limitations

We used the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, which has exhibited a high level of consistency and performance characteristics when tested in different patient populations. The participation rate was acceptable compared to similar studies, and we included all the major hospitals in the District Srinagar. The findings from our study can therefore be considered representative of the HCWs in the district.

The study results should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. First, information on risk factors for seropositivity were based on participant report. Also, we did not collect information on the timing of symptoms or the date on which a participant became RT-PCR-positive. Second, information regarding place of exposure (ie, community or hospital setting) was not recorded, limiting conclusions regarding the effect of workplace exposures. Third, given the voluntary nature of participation in the study, there is a possibility of selection bias that may have limited the generalizability of our findings. For example, some HCWs with a recent exposure to COVID-19 or those who were symptomatic at the time of the study might not have participated based on the absence of an individual benefit from IgG testing in the early phase of infection. Conversely, some HCWs who had symptoms in the distant past might have been more likely to have participated in the study. However, we believe that selection bias does not vitiate the validity of the associations based on the plausible assumption that infection risk should be similar between respondents and nonrespondents due to comparable work environments. Finally, with a cross-sectional study design, we cannot ascertain the reconversion from an initial positive-IgG to negative-IgG status, which warrants a cohort study.

We conclude that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was low among HCWs of District Srinagar at the time of the study. Healthcare workers in a dedicated COVID hospital or HCWs who had ever worked in such a facility had lower seroprevalence, suggesting both adherence to and effectiveness of standard protective measures during contact with patients who had COVID-19. Nonetheless, the careful in-hospital behavior of the HCWs at the COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behaviors, which lead to community-acquired infection. On the contrary, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. We believe that our findings highlight the value of implementing infection prevention and control measures in the hospital setting. Moreover, training and retraining of sanitation and other housekeeping staff on standard hygienic practices and appropriate use of the protective gear may further help reduce their rates of exposure.

The authors thank Principal and Dean of the Government Medical College, Srinagar, Professor Samia Rashid, and District Commissioner, Srinagar, Shahid Iqbal Chowdhary for their support. We also acknowledge the support rendered by the Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir; Chief Medical Officer Srinagar; Block Medical Officers; and Zonal Medical Officers of District Srinagar, Kashmir, and extend our appreciation to the medical interns for their efforts in data collection, and to laboratory in-charge Gulzar Ahmad Wani, PhD scholar, Biochemistry, and his staff, who were involved in this study. Finally, we thank the study participants for their understanding of the importance of this study and for their time and participation.

Data shall be made available on request through the corresponding author.

India is emerging as one of the world’s largest hotspots for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19)—second only to the United States—with more than 13,000,000 documented infections since the first case was recorded on January 30, 2020.^1,2 Kashmir, a northern territory of India, reported its first case of COVID-19 on March 18, 2020, from the central District Srinagar; this region has accounted for more cases of COVID-19 than any other district throughout the pandemic.³ The large majority of healthcare in District Srinagar is provided by three tertiary care institutions, one district hospital, two subdistrict hospitals, and 70 primary healthcare centers. Potential occupational exposures place healthcare workers (HCWs) at higher risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection, which in turn may serve as an important source of infection for their families and other community members.^4-6 Given the high frequency and geographic variability of asymptomatic infection, growing evidence suggests this hidden reservoir is a source of infection for the general population.^7,8

Many countries have started testing for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, both at the population level and in specific groups, such as HCWs. Seroepidemiological studies are crucial to understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Many seroepidemiological studies have been conducted among community populations, but there are insufficient data on HCWs. The World Health Organization also encouraged its member states to conduct seroepidemiological studies to attain a better understanding of COVID-19 infection prevalence and distribution.^9-11 Therefore, to quantify the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs, we conducted a seroepidemiological study by testing for SARS-CoV-2–specific immunoglobulin (IgG) to gain insight into the extent of infection among specific subgroups of HCWs and to identify risk-factor profiles associated with seropositivity.

Study Design and Settings

We conducted this seroepidemiological study to ascertain the presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. The 2-week period of data collection began on June 15, 2020. As part of healthcare system pandemic preparedness efforts, India’s Ministry of Health provided specific guidelines for health facilities to manage COVID-19. Hospitals were categorized as dedicated COVID and non-COVID hospitals. Dedicated COVID hospitals provided comprehensive care exclusively to patients with COVID-19 and were equipped with fully functional intensive care units, ventilators, and beds with reliable access to oxygen support.¹² In addition, infection prevention and control strategies to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection were implemented according to guidelines specified by India’s National Center for Disease Control.¹³ To strengthen service provision, HCWs from other hospitals, including resident physicians, were relocated to these dedicated COVID hospitals. The additional staff were selected by administrative leadership, without input from HCWs.

Study Population and Data Collection

We approached administrative heads of the hospitals in District Srinagar for permission to conduct our study and to invite their HCWs to participate in the study. As Figure 1 shows, we were denied permission by the administrative heads of two tertiary care hospitals. Finally, with a point person serving as a study liaison at each institution, HCWs from three dedicated COVID and seven non-COVID tertiary care hospitals, two subdistrict hospitals, and six primary healthcare centers across the District Srinagar were invited to participate. The sample primary healthcare centers were each selected randomly, after stratification, from six major regions of the district. All frontline HCWs, including physicians, administrative and laboratory personnel, technicians, field workers involved in surveillance activity, and other supporting staff were eligible for the study.

We collected information on an interview form using Epicollect5, a free data-gathering tool widely used in health research.¹⁴ Physicians specifically trained in the use of Epicollect5 conducted the face-to-face interview on a prespecified day and recorded the collected information through mobile phones. This information included the participants’ role in providing care to patients with COVID-19 and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (eg, history of travel since January 1, 2020, symptoms of an influenza-like illness [ILI] in the 4 weeks prior to the interview, close contact with a COVID-19 case). We defined close contact as an unmasked exposure within 6 feet of an infected individual for at least 15 minutes, irrespective of location (ie, community or the hospital).

Following the interview, trained phlebotomists collected 3 to 5 mL of venous blood under aseptic conditions. We strictly adhered to standard operating procedures during collection, transportation, and testing of blood samples. Following collection, the blood samples remained undisturbed for at least 30 minutes before centrifugation, which was performed at the collection site (or at the central laboratory for sites lacking the capability). The samples were then transported for further processing and testing through a cold chain supply line, using vaccine carriers with conditioned icepacks. All testing procedures were conducted with strict adherence to the manufacturers’ guidelines.

Laboratory Procedure

In accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, we used a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay to detect SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies in serum samples. The assay is an automated two-step immunoassay for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies against the nucleocapsid of SARS-CoV-2 in human serum and plasma. The sensitivity and specificity of this test are 100% and 99%, respectively. The test result was considered positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG if the index value was ≥1.4, consistent with guidance provided by the manufacturer.¹⁵

The IgG values were also entered into Epicollect5. Two trained medical interns independently entered the laboratory results in two separate forms. A third medical intern reviewed these forms for discrepancies, in response to which they referenced the source data for adjudication. The information gathered during the interview and the laboratory results were linked with the help of a unique identification number, which was generated at the time of the interview.

Statistical Analysis

We estimated the proportion (and logit-transformed 95% CI) of HCWs with a positive SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibody level, the primary outcome of interest. We compared seroprevalence rates by gender, age group, specific occupational group, and type of health facility (dedicated COVID hospital vs non-COVID hospital). Seroprevalence was also estimated separately for HCWs who reported symptoms in the past 4 weeks, had a history of exposure to a known case of COVID-19, or had undergone testing by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). In the case of zero seroprevalences, Jeffreys 95% CIs were reported. We used a chi-square test to report two-sided P values for comparison of seroprevalence between groups. When the expected frequency was <5 in more than 20% of the cells, the exact test was used instead of the chi-square test. We additionally performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the independent association between place of work (primary independent variable) and seropositivity (dependent variable). We adjusted for the following observable covariates by including them as categorical variables: age, gender, occupational group, and history of close contact with a patient who was COVID-positive. We performed data analysis using Stata, version 15.1 (StataCorp LP). The Institutional Ethics Committee of Government Medical College, Srinagar, approved the study (Reference No. 1003/ETH/GMC dated 13-05-2020). We obtained written, informed consent from all participants.

Of the 7,346 HCWs we were granted permission to approach, 2,915 (39.7%) agreed to participate in the study. The participation rate was 49% at the dedicated COVID hospitals (57% physicians and 47% nonphysicians) and 39% at the non-COVID hospitals (46% physicians and 36% nonphysicians). We analyzed information gathered from 2,905 HCWs (Epicollect5 interview forms were missing for nine participants, and the laboratory report was missing for one participant).

The mean age of the participants was 38.6 years, and 35.8% of participants identified as female (Table 1). One third (33.7%) of the participants were physicians, nearly half of whom were residents. In our sample, the overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%).

Of the 2,905 participating HCWs, 123 (4.2%) reported an ILI (ie, fever and cough) in the 4 weeks preceding the interview, and 339 (11.7%) reported close contact with a person with COVID-19 (Table 2). A total of 760 (26.2%) HCWs had undergone RT-PCR testing, 29 (3.8%) of whom had a positive result. Stratifying by workplace, history of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR positivity was reported by 4 of 77 (5.1%) participants from dedicated COVID hospitals compared to (3.7%) participants from the non-COVID hospital (P = .528).

As Table 2 also demonstrates, we found a significantly higher seropositivity rate among HCWs who had a history of ILI (P < .001), a history of positive RT-PCR (P < .001), history of ever being put under quarantine (P = .009), and a self-reported history of close contact with a person with COVID-19 (P = .014). Healthcare workers who had ever worked at a dedicated COVID hospital had a significantly lower seroprevalence of infection (P = .004).

Among HCWs who reported no ILI symptoms in the 4 weeks prior to the interview but who had positive RT-PCR test, 20.8% were seropositive. Of HCWs who reported both ILI and a positive RT-PCR test result, 60.0% were seropositive. Compared to employment at a non-COVID hospital, HCWs working in dedicated COVID hospitals had a reduced multivariate-adjusted risk of seropositivity (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.66).

We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs in different hospital settings in the District Srinagar of Kashmir, India. In general, seroprevalence was low (2.5%), with little difference across gender or occupational group.

Seroprevalence studies of HCWs across divergent workplace environments have revealed estimates ranging from 1% to 10.2%.^16-19 Generally, the seroprevalence rates among HCWs are not significantly different from those of the general population, which reflects how different the dynamics of COVID-19 are compared to other infections in healthcare settings. The low seroprevalence observed in our study coincides with the overall low infection rate in the community population. During the study period, District Srinagar reported a median of 28 new infections daily (interquartile range, 17-46), which is indicative of the early phase of the pandemic in the population at the time of the study.²⁰

Among the HCW occupational groups, ambulance drivers and housekeeping staff had the highest seroprevalence rates, followed by nurses and physicians. Possible explanations for higher seropositivity in these groups are improper use or inadequate supply of protective gear and lack of training on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), resulting in increased exposure risk.²¹ Concordance of HCW and community infection rates in specific geographic areas suggests that community exposure may be the dominant source of healthcare exposure and infection. Additionally, careful in-hospital behavior of HCWs in dedicated COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behavior, which may partially explain our finding that employment at dedicated COVID hospitals was associated with a markedly lower chance of seropositivity. A study of 6,510 HCWs in Chicago, Illinois, showed high seropositivity rates among support service workers, medical assistants, and nurses, with nurses identified as having a markedly higher adjusted odds of seropositivity relative to administrators. The authors of the study concluded that exposure in the community setting plays a crucial role in transmission among HCWs.²² Similarly, higher seroprevalence among housekeeping, nonadministrative staff, and other support service staff has been reported elsewhere.²³ Certain underlying factors related to socioeconomic status and lifestyle may also contribute to higher seroprevalence in some occupational groups.²⁴ Nonadherence to masking, social distancing, and proper hand hygiene outside the hospital setting could result in community-acquired infection.

Interestingly, participants who were working in a dedicated COVID hospital or who had ever worked at one had a seroprevalence of 0.6%, much lower than the 2.8% observed among other participants. This difference remained statistically significant after controlling for age, sex, place of work, and occupational group. As these facilities were dedicated to the management and care of patients with COVID-19, the hospital staff strictly adhered to safety precautions, with particular vigilance during patient contact. These hospitals also strictly adhered to infection prevention and control practices based on the latest guidelines released by India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.¹³

A commitment was made to provide adequate PPE to the dedicated COVID hospitals and staff, commensurate with expected infected patient volumes and associated exposure risks. Healthcare workers were specifically trained on proper donning and doffing of PPE, self-health monitoring, and protocols for reporting symptoms and PPE breaches during patient encounters. Healthcare workers were regularly tested for COVID-19 using nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Of critical importance, these hospitals implemented a buddy system wherein a team of two or more staff members was responsible for ensuring each other’s safety, proper PPE use, conformance to other protective measures, and reporting breaches of PPE compliance.²⁵ Universal masking was mandatory for all hospital staff and patients at the COVID-focused facilities, with the additional use of N-95 masks, gloves, and face shields during times of patient contact. Administrative measures, including visitor restrictions and environmental sanitation, were rigorously enforced. Also, being a potentially high-risk area for transmission of infection, these facilities implemented staff-rationing to reduce the duration of exposure to the healthcare staff. Third, the HCWs of COVID-dedicated hospitals were provided with separate living accommodations during the period in which they were employed at a dedicated COVID hospital.

In contrast, in non-COVID hospitals, with the exception of HCWs, patients and the hospital visitors were not subject to a masking policy. Moreover, an adequate and timely supply of PPE was not prioritized at the non-COVID facilities due to resource constraints. Further, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. Though routine infection prevention and control activities were performed at non-COVID hospitals, we did not assess adherence to infection prevention and control guidelines in the two different categories of hospitals. Our results are also supported by evidence from studies conducted in different hospital settings, the findings of which reiterate the importance of fundamental principles of prevention (eg, proper masking, hand hygiene, and distancing) and are of particular importance in resource-limited settings.^17,26,27 The only published study quantifying seroprevalence among HCWs in India was performed in a single hospital setting with separate COVID and non-COVID units. The authors of that study reported a higher seroprevalence among HCWs in the COVID unit. However, this difference seems to be confounded by other factors as revealed by the multivariable analysis result.²³

We found a two-fold higher seroprevalence (4.4%) in HCWs who reported close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Respiratory infections pose a greater health risk to HCWs in an occupational setting. Substantial evidence has emerged demonstrating that the respiratory system is the dominant route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, with proximity and ventilation as key predictive factors.²⁸ Globally, among thousands of HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2, one of the leading risk factors identified was close contact with a patient with COVID-19; other identified risk factors were lack of PPE, poor infection prevention and control practices, work overload, and a preexisting health condition.²⁹

The seroprevalence estimate among participants who reported an ILI in the 4 weeks preceding the interview was only 12.2%, suggesting an alternative etiology of these symptoms. Among those who reported a previously positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, only 27.6% showed the presence of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG antibodies. The inability to mount an antibody-mediated immune response or early conversion to seronegative status during the convalescence phase has been suggested as an explanation for such discordant findings.³⁰ On the contrary, seropositivity among participants who reported having a negative RT-PCR test was 1.9%. There are few plausible explanations for such observations. First, several studies have reported false-negative result rates from RT-PCR testing ranging from 2% to 29%.^31-33 Second, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 assay is influenced by the timing of the test after the onset of symptoms or RT-PCR positivity. The sensitivity of the assay we used varies from 53.1% at day 7 to 100% at day 17 postinfection.³⁴ Variable viral load and differences in duration of viral shedding are other possible reasons for false-negative RT-PCR results.^35,36

In our study, seroconversion among asymptomatic HCWs who were RT-PCR-positive was 20.8%. Among HCWs who reported an ILI and were RT-PCR-positive, seropositivity was 60%. In one study, 40% of asymptomatic and 13% of symptomatic patients who tested positive for COVID-19 became seronegative after initial seropositivity—that is, 8 weeks after hospital discharge.³⁷

Serological testing offers insight into both the exposure history and residual COVID-19 susceptibility of HCWs. However, current immunological knowledge does not allow us to conclude that seropositivity conveys high-level immunity against reinfection. As the epidemic evolves, HCWs will continue to be exposed to COVID-19 in the community and the workplace. Serial cross-sectional serosurveys can help monitor the progression of the pandemic within the healthcare setting and guide hospital authorities in resource allocation.

Strengths and Limitations

We used the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, which has exhibited a high level of consistency and performance characteristics when tested in different patient populations. The participation rate was acceptable compared to similar studies, and we included all the major hospitals in the District Srinagar. The findings from our study can therefore be considered representative of the HCWs in the district.

The study results should be interpreted in the context of the following limitations. First, information on risk factors for seropositivity were based on participant report. Also, we did not collect information on the timing of symptoms or the date on which a participant became RT-PCR-positive. Second, information regarding place of exposure (ie, community or hospital setting) was not recorded, limiting conclusions regarding the effect of workplace exposures. Third, given the voluntary nature of participation in the study, there is a possibility of selection bias that may have limited the generalizability of our findings. For example, some HCWs with a recent exposure to COVID-19 or those who were symptomatic at the time of the study might not have participated based on the absence of an individual benefit from IgG testing in the early phase of infection. Conversely, some HCWs who had symptoms in the distant past might have been more likely to have participated in the study. However, we believe that selection bias does not vitiate the validity of the associations based on the plausible assumption that infection risk should be similar between respondents and nonrespondents due to comparable work environments. Finally, with a cross-sectional study design, we cannot ascertain the reconversion from an initial positive-IgG to negative-IgG status, which warrants a cohort study.

We conclude that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was low among HCWs of District Srinagar at the time of the study. Healthcare workers in a dedicated COVID hospital or HCWs who had ever worked in such a facility had lower seroprevalence, suggesting both adherence to and effectiveness of standard protective measures during contact with patients who had COVID-19. Nonetheless, the careful in-hospital behavior of the HCWs at the COVID hospitals may have had a spillover effect on their out-of-hospital behaviors, which lead to community-acquired infection. On the contrary, lack of testing of asymptomatic patients at non-COVID hospitals may have resulted in nosocomial transmission from asymptomatic carriers. We believe that our findings highlight the value of implementing infection prevention and control measures in the hospital setting. Moreover, training and retraining of sanitation and other housekeeping staff on standard hygienic practices and appropriate use of the protective gear may further help reduce their rates of exposure.

The authors thank Principal and Dean of the Government Medical College, Srinagar, Professor Samia Rashid, and District Commissioner, Srinagar, Shahid Iqbal Chowdhary for their support. We also acknowledge the support rendered by the Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir; Chief Medical Officer Srinagar; Block Medical Officers; and Zonal Medical Officers of District Srinagar, Kashmir, and extend our appreciation to the medical interns for their efforts in data collection, and to laboratory in-charge Gulzar Ahmad Wani, PhD scholar, Biochemistry, and his staff, who were involved in this study. Finally, we thank the study participants for their understanding of the importance of this study and for their time and participation.

Data shall be made available on request through the corresponding author.

Febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days often undergo diagnostic testing to evaluate for invasive bacterial infections (IBI; ie, bacteremia and meningitis) and are subsequently hospitalized pending culture results. Only 1% to 2% of infants 0 to 60 days old have an IBI,^1-3 and most hospitalized infants are discharged once physicians feel confident that pathogens are unlikely to be isolated from blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cultures. Practice regarding duration of hospitalization while awaiting blood and CSF culture results is not standardized in this population. Longer hospitalizations can lead to increased costs and familial stress, including difficulty with breastfeeding and anxiety in newly postpartum mothers.^4,5

In 2010, an institutional evidence-based guideline for the management of febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days recommended discharge after 36 hours of observation if all cultures were negative.⁶ However, recent studies demonstrate that 85% to 93% of pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 Assuming a 2% prevalence of IBI, if 15% of pathogens were identified after 24 hours of incubation, only one out of 333 infants would have an IBI identified after 24 hours of hospital observation.⁷

Furthermore, a review of our institution’s electronic health records (EHR) over the past 5 years revealed that an observation period of 24 hours would have resulted in the discharge of three infants with an IBI. Two infants had bacteremia; both were discharged from the emergency department (ED) without antibiotics, returned to care after cultures were reported positive at 27 hours, and had no adverse outcomes. The third infant had meningitis, but also had an abnormal CSF Gram stain, which led to a longer hospitalization.

In 2019, our institution appraised the emerging literature and institutional data supporting the low absolute risk of missed IBI, and also leveraged local consensus among key stakeholders to update its evidence-based guideline for the evaluation and management of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger. The updated guideline recommends that clinicians consider discharging well-appearing neonates and infants if blood and CSF cultures remain negative at 24 hours.¹⁰ The objective of this study was to decrease the average hospital culture observation time (COT; culture incubation to hospital discharge) from 38 to 30 hours over a 12-month period in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days.

Context

Improvement efforts were conducted at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC), a large, urban, academic hospital that admitted more than 8,000 noncritically ill patients to the hospital medicine (HM) service from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019. Hospital medicine teams, located at both the main and satellite campuses, are staffed by attending physicians, fellows, residents, medical students, and nurse practitioners. The two campuses, which are about 20 miles apart, share clinician providers but have distinct nursing pools.

Microbiology services for all CCHMC patients are provided at the main campus. Blood and CSF cultures at the satellite campus are transported to the main campus for incubation and monitoring via an urgent courier service. The microbiology laboratory at CCHMC uses a continuous monitoring system for blood cultures (BACT/ALERT Virtuo, BioMérieux). The system automatically alerts laboratory technicians of positive cultures; these results are reported to clinical providers within 30 minutes of detection. Laboratory technicians manually evaluate CSF cultures once daily for 5 days.

Improvement Team

Our improvement team included three HM attending physicians; two HM fellows; a pediatric chief resident; two nurses, who represented nursing pools at the main and satellite campuses; and a clinical pharmacist, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program at CCHMC. Supporting members for the improvement team included the CCHMC laboratory director; the microbiology laboratory director; an infectious disease physician, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program; and nursing directors of the HM units at both campuses.

Evidence-Based Guideline

Our improvement initiative was based on recommendations from the updated CCHMC Evidence-Based Care Guideline for Management of Infants 0 to 60 days with Fever of Unknown Source.¹⁰ This guideline, published in May 2019, was developed by a multidisciplinary working group composed of key stakeholders from HM, community pediatrics, emergency medicine, the pediatric residency program, infectious disease, and laboratory medicine. Several improvement team members were participants on the committee that published the evidence-based guideline. The committee first performed a systematic literature review and critical appraisal of the literature. Care recommendations were formulated via a consensus process directed by best evidence, patient and family preferences, and clinical expertise; the recommendations were subsequently reviewed and approved by clinical experts who were not involved in the development process.

Based on evidence review and multistakeholder consensus, the updated guideline recommends clinicians consider discharging neonates and infants aged 60 days and younger if there is no culture growth after an observation period of 24 hours (as documented in the EHR) and patients are otherwise medically ready for discharge (ie, well appearing with adequate oral intake).^10,11 In addition, prior to discharge, there must be a documented working phone number on file for the patient’s parents/guardians, an established outpatient follow-up plan within 24 hours, and communication with the primary pediatrician who is in agreement with discharge at 24 hours.

Study Population

Infants 0 to 60 days old who had a documented or reported fever without an apparent source based on history and physical exam upon presentation to the ED, and who were subsequently admitted to the HM service at CCHMC between October 30, 2018, and July 10, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. We excluded infants who were admitted to other clinical services (eg, intensive care unit); had organisms identified on blood, urine, or CSF culture within 24 hours of incubation; had positive herpes simplex virus testing; had skin/soft tissue infections or another clearly documented source of bacterial infection; or had an alternative indication for hospitalization (eg, need for intravenous fluid or deep suctioning) after cultures had incubated for 24 hours. Infants who had a positive blood, urine, or CSF culture result after 24 hours of incubation were included in the study population. Organisms were classified as pathogen or contaminant based on treatment decisions made by the care team.

Improvement Activities

Key drivers critical to success of the improvement efforts were: (1) clearly defined standard of care for duration of observation in febrile infants 0 to 60 days old; (2) improved understanding of microbiology lab procedures; (3) effective communication of discharge criteria between providers and nurses; and (4) transparency of data with feedback (Figure 1).

Education and Structured Dissemination of Evidence-Based Guideline

The CCHMC febrile infant guideline¹⁰ was disseminated to HM physicians, residents, and nurses via the following means: (1) in-person announcements at staff meetings and educational conferences, (2) published highlights from the guideline in weekly newsletters, and (3) email announcements. Additionally, members of the study team educated HM attending physicians, nursing staff from the medical units at both campuses, and resident physicians about recent studies demonstrating safety of shorter length of stay (LOS) in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days. The study team also provided residents, physicians, and nurses with data on the number of positive blood and CSF cultures and outcomes of patients at CCHMC within the past 5 years. In addition, team members led a journal club for residents discussing an article⁷ describing time-to-positivity of blood and CSF cultures in febrile infants. For ongoing engagement, the evidence-based guideline and a detailed explanation of microbiology procedures were published in the resident handbook, an internal resource that includes vital clinical pearls and practice guidelines across specialties. (Each resident receives an updated hard copy each year, and there is also an online link to the resource in the EHR.) Information about the guideline and COT was also included in the monthly chief resident’s orientation script, which is relayed to all residents on the first day of their HM rotation.

Clear Communication of Microbiology Procedures

Team members created a detailed process map describing the processing protocols for blood and CSF cultures collected at both CCHMC campuses. This information was shared with HM attending physicians and nurses via in-person announcements at staff meetings, flyers in team workrooms, and email communications. Residents received information on microbiology protocols via in-person announcements at educational conferences and dissemination in the weekly residency newsletter.Important information communicated included:

1. Definition of culture start time. We conveyed that there may be a delay of up to 4 hours between culture collection at the satellite campus and culture incubation at the main campus laboratory. As a result, the time of blood or CSF sample arrival to the main campus laboratory was a more accurate reflection of the culture incubation start time than the culture collection time.

2. Explanation of CSF culture processing. We discussed the process by which these cultures are plated upon arrival at the microbiology laboratory and read once per day in the morning. Therefore, a culture incubated at midnight would be evaluated once at 9 hours and not again until 33 hours.

Modification of Febrile Infant Order Set

Enhancements to the febrile infant order set improved communication and cultivated a shared mental model regarding discharge goals among all members of the care team. The EHR order set for febrile infants was updated as follows: (1) mandatory free-text fields that established the culture start time for blood and CSF cultures were added, (2) culture start time was clearly defined (ie, the time culture arrives at the main campus laboratory), and (3) a change was made in the default discharge criteria¹¹ to “culture observation for 24 hours,” with the ability to modify COT (Appendix Figure 1). We embedded hyperlinks to the guideline and microbiology process map within the updated order set, which allowed providers to easily access this information and refresh their knowledge of the recommendations (Appendix Figure 1).

Identification of Failures and Follow-up With Near-Time Feedback

All cases of febrile infants were tracked weekly. For infants hospitalized longer than 24 hours, the study team contacted the discharging clinicians to discuss reasons for prolonged hospitalization, with an emphasis on identifying system-level barriers to earlier discharge.

Study of the Interventions

The institutional microbiology database was queried weekly to identify all infants 0 to 60 days old who had a blood culture obtained and were hospitalized on the HM service. Study team members conducted targeted EHR review to determine whether patients met exclusion criteria and to identify reasons for prolonged COT. Baseline data were collected retrospectively for a 3-month period prior to initiation of improvement activities. During the study period, queries were conducted weekly and reviewed by study team members to evaluate the impact of improvement activities and to inform new interventions.

Measures

Our primary outcome measure was COT, defined as the hours between final culture incubation and hospital discharge. The operational definition for “final culture incubation” was the documented time of arrival of the last collected culture to the microbiology laboratory. Our goal COT was 30 hours to account for a subset of patients whose blood and/or CSF culture were obtained overnight (ie, after 9 pm), since subsequent discharge times would likely and practically be delayed beyond 24 hours. Our secondary outcome measure was LOS, defined as the time between ED arrival and hospital discharge. Process measures included the proportion of patients for whom the febrile infant EHR order set was used and the proportion of patients for whom medical discharge criteria (ie, blood and CSF culture observed for ”xx” hours) and culture incubation start times were entered using the order set. Balancing measures included identification of IBI after hospital discharge, 48-hour ED revisits, and 7-day hospital readmissions.

Analysis

Measures were evaluated using statistical process control charts and run charts, and Western Electric rules were employed to determine special cause variation.¹² Annotated X-bar S control charts tracked the impact of improvement activities on average COT and LOS for all infants. Given that a relatively small number of patients (ie, two to four) met inclusion criteria each week, average COT was calculated per five patients.

This study was considered exempt from review by the CCHMC Institutional Review Board.

Of the 184 infants in this study, 46 were included as part of baseline data collection, and 138 were included during the intervention period. The median age was 26.6 days (range, 3-59 days); 52% of patients were female; two-thirds were non-Hispanic White; 22% were Black, and 5% were Hispanic (Appendix Table).

Average COT decreased from 38 hours to 32 hours with improvement activities (Figure 2) and was sustained for a total of 17 months. There were small decreases in COT after initial education was provided to attendings, nurses, and residents.

After the launch of the updated order set, median usage of the EHR order set increased from 50% to 80%. Medical discharge criteria were entered for 80 (96%) of the 83 patients for whom the updated order set was applied; culture incubation start times were entered for 78 (94%) of these patients.

No infants in our cohort were found to have IBI after hospital discharge. There were no ED revisits within 48 hours of discharge, and there were no hospital readmissions within 7 days of index discharge. Furthermore, none of the patients included in the study had growth of a pathogenic organism after 24 hours.

Of the 138 infants hospitalized during the intervention period, 77 (56%) had a COT greater than 30 hours. Among these 77 patients, 49 (64%) had their final culture incubated between 9 pm and 4 am; Furthermore, 11 (14%) had missing, abnormal, pretreated, or uninterpretable CSF studies, 7 (9%) had ongoing fevers, and 4 (5%) remained hospitalized due to family preference or inability to obtain timely outpatient follow-up.

Our study aimed to decrease the average COT from 38 hours to 30 hours among hospitalized infants aged 60 days and younger over a period of 12 months. An intervention featuring implementation of an evidence-based guideline through education, laboratory procedure transparency, creation of a standardized EHR order set, and near-time feedback was associated with a shorter average COT of 32 hours, sustained over a 17-month period. No infants with bacteremia or meningitis were inappropriately discharged during this study.

Interpretation

Prior to our improvement efforts, most febrile infants at CCHMC were observed for at least 36 hours based on a prior institutional guideline,⁶ despite recent evidence suggesting that most pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 The goal of this improvement initiative was to bridge the gap between emerging evidence and clinical practice by developing and disseminating an updated evidence-based guideline to safely decrease the hospital observation time in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger.

Similar to previous studies aimed at improving diagnosis and management among febrile infants,^13-16 generation and structured dissemination of an institutional evidence-based guideline was crucial to safely shortening COT in our population. These prior studies established a goal COT of 36 to 42 hours for hospitalized febrile infants.^13,15,16 Our study incorporated emerging evidence and local experience into an updated evidence-based practice guideline to further reduce COT to 32 hours for hospitalized infants. Key factors contributing to our success included multidisciplinary engagement, specifically partnering with nurses and resident physicians in designing and implementing our initiatives. Furthermore, improved transparency of culture monitoring practices allowed clinicians to better understand the recommended observation periods. Finally, we employed a standardized EHR order set as a no-cost, one-time, high-reliability intervention to establish 24 hours of culture monitoring as the default and to enhance transparency around start time for culture incubation.

Average COT remained stable at 32 hours for 17 months after initiation of the intervention. During the intervention period, 64% patients with hospital stays longer than 30 hours had cultures obtained between 9 pm to 4 am. These patients often remained hospitalized for longer than 30 hours to allow for a daytime hospital discharge. Additionally, CSF cultures were only monitored manually once per day between 8 am and 10 am. As a result, CSF cultures obtained in the evening (eg, 9 pm) would be evaluated once at roughly 12 hours of incubation, and then the following morning at 36 hours of incubation. In cases where CSF studies (eg, cell count, protein, Gram stain) were abnormal, uninterpretable, or could not be obtained, clinicians monitored CSF cultures closer to 36 hours from incubation. While evidence-based guidelines and local data support safe early discharge of febrile infants, clinicians presented with incomplete or uninterpretable data were appropriately more likely to observe infants for longer periods to confirm negative cultures.

Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, this single-center study was conducted at a quaternary care medical center with a robust quality improvement infrastructure. Our interventions took advantage of the existing processes in place that ensure timely discharge of medically ready patients.¹¹ Furthermore, microbiology laboratory practices are unique to our institution. These factors limit the generalizability of this work. Second, due to small numbers of eligible infants, analyses were conducted per five patients. Infrequent hospitalizations limited our ability to learn quickly from PDSA cycles. Finally, we did not measure cost savings attributable to shorter hospital stays. However, in addition to financial savings from charges and decreased nonmedical costs such as lost earnings and childcare,¹⁷ shorter hospitalizations have many additional benefits, such as promoting bonding and breastfeeding and decreasing exposure to nosocomial infections. Shorter hospitalizations, with clearly communicated discharge times, also serve to optimize patient throughput.

Implementation of a clinical practice guideline resulted in reduction of average COT from 38 to 32 hours in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger, with no cases of missed IBI. Engagement of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the generation and structured dissemination of the evidence-based guideline, improved transparency of the microbiological blood and CSF culture process, and standardization of EHR order sets were crucial to the success of this work. Cultures incubated overnight and daily CSF culture-monitoring practices primarily contributed to an average LOS of more than 30 hours.

Future work will include collaboration with emergency physicians to improve evaluation efficiency and decrease LOS in the ED for febrile infants. Additionally, creation of an automated data dashboard of COT and LOS will provide clinicians with real-time feedback on hospitalization practices.

The authors thank Dr Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, as well as the members of the 2019 Fever of Uncertain Source Evidence-Based Guideline Committee. We also thank the James M Anderson Center for Health System Excellence and the Rapid Cycle Improvement Collaborative for their support with guideline development as well as design and execution of our improvement efforts.

Febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days often undergo diagnostic testing to evaluate for invasive bacterial infections (IBI; ie, bacteremia and meningitis) and are subsequently hospitalized pending culture results. Only 1% to 2% of infants 0 to 60 days old have an IBI,^1-3 and most hospitalized infants are discharged once physicians feel confident that pathogens are unlikely to be isolated from blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cultures. Practice regarding duration of hospitalization while awaiting blood and CSF culture results is not standardized in this population. Longer hospitalizations can lead to increased costs and familial stress, including difficulty with breastfeeding and anxiety in newly postpartum mothers.^4,5

In 2010, an institutional evidence-based guideline for the management of febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days recommended discharge after 36 hours of observation if all cultures were negative.⁶ However, recent studies demonstrate that 85% to 93% of pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 Assuming a 2% prevalence of IBI, if 15% of pathogens were identified after 24 hours of incubation, only one out of 333 infants would have an IBI identified after 24 hours of hospital observation.⁷

Furthermore, a review of our institution’s electronic health records (EHR) over the past 5 years revealed that an observation period of 24 hours would have resulted in the discharge of three infants with an IBI. Two infants had bacteremia; both were discharged from the emergency department (ED) without antibiotics, returned to care after cultures were reported positive at 27 hours, and had no adverse outcomes. The third infant had meningitis, but also had an abnormal CSF Gram stain, which led to a longer hospitalization.

In 2019, our institution appraised the emerging literature and institutional data supporting the low absolute risk of missed IBI, and also leveraged local consensus among key stakeholders to update its evidence-based guideline for the evaluation and management of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger. The updated guideline recommends that clinicians consider discharging well-appearing neonates and infants if blood and CSF cultures remain negative at 24 hours.¹⁰ The objective of this study was to decrease the average hospital culture observation time (COT; culture incubation to hospital discharge) from 38 to 30 hours over a 12-month period in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days.

Context

Improvement efforts were conducted at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC), a large, urban, academic hospital that admitted more than 8,000 noncritically ill patients to the hospital medicine (HM) service from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019. Hospital medicine teams, located at both the main and satellite campuses, are staffed by attending physicians, fellows, residents, medical students, and nurse practitioners. The two campuses, which are about 20 miles apart, share clinician providers but have distinct nursing pools.

Microbiology services for all CCHMC patients are provided at the main campus. Blood and CSF cultures at the satellite campus are transported to the main campus for incubation and monitoring via an urgent courier service. The microbiology laboratory at CCHMC uses a continuous monitoring system for blood cultures (BACT/ALERT Virtuo, BioMérieux). The system automatically alerts laboratory technicians of positive cultures; these results are reported to clinical providers within 30 minutes of detection. Laboratory technicians manually evaluate CSF cultures once daily for 5 days.

Improvement Team

Our improvement team included three HM attending physicians; two HM fellows; a pediatric chief resident; two nurses, who represented nursing pools at the main and satellite campuses; and a clinical pharmacist, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program at CCHMC. Supporting members for the improvement team included the CCHMC laboratory director; the microbiology laboratory director; an infectious disease physician, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program; and nursing directors of the HM units at both campuses.

Evidence-Based Guideline

Our improvement initiative was based on recommendations from the updated CCHMC Evidence-Based Care Guideline for Management of Infants 0 to 60 days with Fever of Unknown Source.¹⁰ This guideline, published in May 2019, was developed by a multidisciplinary working group composed of key stakeholders from HM, community pediatrics, emergency medicine, the pediatric residency program, infectious disease, and laboratory medicine. Several improvement team members were participants on the committee that published the evidence-based guideline. The committee first performed a systematic literature review and critical appraisal of the literature. Care recommendations were formulated via a consensus process directed by best evidence, patient and family preferences, and clinical expertise; the recommendations were subsequently reviewed and approved by clinical experts who were not involved in the development process.

Based on evidence review and multistakeholder consensus, the updated guideline recommends clinicians consider discharging neonates and infants aged 60 days and younger if there is no culture growth after an observation period of 24 hours (as documented in the EHR) and patients are otherwise medically ready for discharge (ie, well appearing with adequate oral intake).^10,11 In addition, prior to discharge, there must be a documented working phone number on file for the patient’s parents/guardians, an established outpatient follow-up plan within 24 hours, and communication with the primary pediatrician who is in agreement with discharge at 24 hours.

Study Population

Infants 0 to 60 days old who had a documented or reported fever without an apparent source based on history and physical exam upon presentation to the ED, and who were subsequently admitted to the HM service at CCHMC between October 30, 2018, and July 10, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. We excluded infants who were admitted to other clinical services (eg, intensive care unit); had organisms identified on blood, urine, or CSF culture within 24 hours of incubation; had positive herpes simplex virus testing; had skin/soft tissue infections or another clearly documented source of bacterial infection; or had an alternative indication for hospitalization (eg, need for intravenous fluid or deep suctioning) after cultures had incubated for 24 hours. Infants who had a positive blood, urine, or CSF culture result after 24 hours of incubation were included in the study population. Organisms were classified as pathogen or contaminant based on treatment decisions made by the care team.

Improvement Activities

Key drivers critical to success of the improvement efforts were: (1) clearly defined standard of care for duration of observation in febrile infants 0 to 60 days old; (2) improved understanding of microbiology lab procedures; (3) effective communication of discharge criteria between providers and nurses; and (4) transparency of data with feedback (Figure 1).

Education and Structured Dissemination of Evidence-Based Guideline

The CCHMC febrile infant guideline¹⁰ was disseminated to HM physicians, residents, and nurses via the following means: (1) in-person announcements at staff meetings and educational conferences, (2) published highlights from the guideline in weekly newsletters, and (3) email announcements. Additionally, members of the study team educated HM attending physicians, nursing staff from the medical units at both campuses, and resident physicians about recent studies demonstrating safety of shorter length of stay (LOS) in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days. The study team also provided residents, physicians, and nurses with data on the number of positive blood and CSF cultures and outcomes of patients at CCHMC within the past 5 years. In addition, team members led a journal club for residents discussing an article⁷ describing time-to-positivity of blood and CSF cultures in febrile infants. For ongoing engagement, the evidence-based guideline and a detailed explanation of microbiology procedures were published in the resident handbook, an internal resource that includes vital clinical pearls and practice guidelines across specialties. (Each resident receives an updated hard copy each year, and there is also an online link to the resource in the EHR.) Information about the guideline and COT was also included in the monthly chief resident’s orientation script, which is relayed to all residents on the first day of their HM rotation.

Clear Communication of Microbiology Procedures

Team members created a detailed process map describing the processing protocols for blood and CSF cultures collected at both CCHMC campuses. This information was shared with HM attending physicians and nurses via in-person announcements at staff meetings, flyers in team workrooms, and email communications. Residents received information on microbiology protocols via in-person announcements at educational conferences and dissemination in the weekly residency newsletter.Important information communicated included:

1. Definition of culture start time. We conveyed that there may be a delay of up to 4 hours between culture collection at the satellite campus and culture incubation at the main campus laboratory. As a result, the time of blood or CSF sample arrival to the main campus laboratory was a more accurate reflection of the culture incubation start time than the culture collection time.

2. Explanation of CSF culture processing. We discussed the process by which these cultures are plated upon arrival at the microbiology laboratory and read once per day in the morning. Therefore, a culture incubated at midnight would be evaluated once at 9 hours and not again until 33 hours.

Modification of Febrile Infant Order Set

Enhancements to the febrile infant order set improved communication and cultivated a shared mental model regarding discharge goals among all members of the care team. The EHR order set for febrile infants was updated as follows: (1) mandatory free-text fields that established the culture start time for blood and CSF cultures were added, (2) culture start time was clearly defined (ie, the time culture arrives at the main campus laboratory), and (3) a change was made in the default discharge criteria¹¹ to “culture observation for 24 hours,” with the ability to modify COT (Appendix Figure 1). We embedded hyperlinks to the guideline and microbiology process map within the updated order set, which allowed providers to easily access this information and refresh their knowledge of the recommendations (Appendix Figure 1).

Identification of Failures and Follow-up With Near-Time Feedback

All cases of febrile infants were tracked weekly. For infants hospitalized longer than 24 hours, the study team contacted the discharging clinicians to discuss reasons for prolonged hospitalization, with an emphasis on identifying system-level barriers to earlier discharge.

Study of the Interventions

The institutional microbiology database was queried weekly to identify all infants 0 to 60 days old who had a blood culture obtained and were hospitalized on the HM service. Study team members conducted targeted EHR review to determine whether patients met exclusion criteria and to identify reasons for prolonged COT. Baseline data were collected retrospectively for a 3-month period prior to initiation of improvement activities. During the study period, queries were conducted weekly and reviewed by study team members to evaluate the impact of improvement activities and to inform new interventions.

Measures

Our primary outcome measure was COT, defined as the hours between final culture incubation and hospital discharge. The operational definition for “final culture incubation” was the documented time of arrival of the last collected culture to the microbiology laboratory. Our goal COT was 30 hours to account for a subset of patients whose blood and/or CSF culture were obtained overnight (ie, after 9 pm), since subsequent discharge times would likely and practically be delayed beyond 24 hours. Our secondary outcome measure was LOS, defined as the time between ED arrival and hospital discharge. Process measures included the proportion of patients for whom the febrile infant EHR order set was used and the proportion of patients for whom medical discharge criteria (ie, blood and CSF culture observed for ”xx” hours) and culture incubation start times were entered using the order set. Balancing measures included identification of IBI after hospital discharge, 48-hour ED revisits, and 7-day hospital readmissions.

Analysis

Measures were evaluated using statistical process control charts and run charts, and Western Electric rules were employed to determine special cause variation.¹² Annotated X-bar S control charts tracked the impact of improvement activities on average COT and LOS for all infants. Given that a relatively small number of patients (ie, two to four) met inclusion criteria each week, average COT was calculated per five patients.

This study was considered exempt from review by the CCHMC Institutional Review Board.

Of the 184 infants in this study, 46 were included as part of baseline data collection, and 138 were included during the intervention period. The median age was 26.6 days (range, 3-59 days); 52% of patients were female; two-thirds were non-Hispanic White; 22% were Black, and 5% were Hispanic (Appendix Table).

Average COT decreased from 38 hours to 32 hours with improvement activities (Figure 2) and was sustained for a total of 17 months. There were small decreases in COT after initial education was provided to attendings, nurses, and residents.

After the launch of the updated order set, median usage of the EHR order set increased from 50% to 80%. Medical discharge criteria were entered for 80 (96%) of the 83 patients for whom the updated order set was applied; culture incubation start times were entered for 78 (94%) of these patients.

No infants in our cohort were found to have IBI after hospital discharge. There were no ED revisits within 48 hours of discharge, and there were no hospital readmissions within 7 days of index discharge. Furthermore, none of the patients included in the study had growth of a pathogenic organism after 24 hours.

Of the 138 infants hospitalized during the intervention period, 77 (56%) had a COT greater than 30 hours. Among these 77 patients, 49 (64%) had their final culture incubated between 9 pm and 4 am; Furthermore, 11 (14%) had missing, abnormal, pretreated, or uninterpretable CSF studies, 7 (9%) had ongoing fevers, and 4 (5%) remained hospitalized due to family preference or inability to obtain timely outpatient follow-up.

Our study aimed to decrease the average COT from 38 hours to 30 hours among hospitalized infants aged 60 days and younger over a period of 12 months. An intervention featuring implementation of an evidence-based guideline through education, laboratory procedure transparency, creation of a standardized EHR order set, and near-time feedback was associated with a shorter average COT of 32 hours, sustained over a 17-month period. No infants with bacteremia or meningitis were inappropriately discharged during this study.

Interpretation

Prior to our improvement efforts, most febrile infants at CCHMC were observed for at least 36 hours based on a prior institutional guideline,⁶ despite recent evidence suggesting that most pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 The goal of this improvement initiative was to bridge the gap between emerging evidence and clinical practice by developing and disseminating an updated evidence-based guideline to safely decrease the hospital observation time in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger.

Similar to previous studies aimed at improving diagnosis and management among febrile infants,^13-16 generation and structured dissemination of an institutional evidence-based guideline was crucial to safely shortening COT in our population. These prior studies established a goal COT of 36 to 42 hours for hospitalized febrile infants.^13,15,16 Our study incorporated emerging evidence and local experience into an updated evidence-based practice guideline to further reduce COT to 32 hours for hospitalized infants. Key factors contributing to our success included multidisciplinary engagement, specifically partnering with nurses and resident physicians in designing and implementing our initiatives. Furthermore, improved transparency of culture monitoring practices allowed clinicians to better understand the recommended observation periods. Finally, we employed a standardized EHR order set as a no-cost, one-time, high-reliability intervention to establish 24 hours of culture monitoring as the default and to enhance transparency around start time for culture incubation.

Average COT remained stable at 32 hours for 17 months after initiation of the intervention. During the intervention period, 64% patients with hospital stays longer than 30 hours had cultures obtained between 9 pm to 4 am. These patients often remained hospitalized for longer than 30 hours to allow for a daytime hospital discharge. Additionally, CSF cultures were only monitored manually once per day between 8 am and 10 am. As a result, CSF cultures obtained in the evening (eg, 9 pm) would be evaluated once at roughly 12 hours of incubation, and then the following morning at 36 hours of incubation. In cases where CSF studies (eg, cell count, protein, Gram stain) were abnormal, uninterpretable, or could not be obtained, clinicians monitored CSF cultures closer to 36 hours from incubation. While evidence-based guidelines and local data support safe early discharge of febrile infants, clinicians presented with incomplete or uninterpretable data were appropriately more likely to observe infants for longer periods to confirm negative cultures.

Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, this single-center study was conducted at a quaternary care medical center with a robust quality improvement infrastructure. Our interventions took advantage of the existing processes in place that ensure timely discharge of medically ready patients.¹¹ Furthermore, microbiology laboratory practices are unique to our institution. These factors limit the generalizability of this work. Second, due to small numbers of eligible infants, analyses were conducted per five patients. Infrequent hospitalizations limited our ability to learn quickly from PDSA cycles. Finally, we did not measure cost savings attributable to shorter hospital stays. However, in addition to financial savings from charges and decreased nonmedical costs such as lost earnings and childcare,¹⁷ shorter hospitalizations have many additional benefits, such as promoting bonding and breastfeeding and decreasing exposure to nosocomial infections. Shorter hospitalizations, with clearly communicated discharge times, also serve to optimize patient throughput.

Implementation of a clinical practice guideline resulted in reduction of average COT from 38 to 32 hours in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger, with no cases of missed IBI. Engagement of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the generation and structured dissemination of the evidence-based guideline, improved transparency of the microbiological blood and CSF culture process, and standardization of EHR order sets were crucial to the success of this work. Cultures incubated overnight and daily CSF culture-monitoring practices primarily contributed to an average LOS of more than 30 hours.

Future work will include collaboration with emergency physicians to improve evaluation efficiency and decrease LOS in the ED for febrile infants. Additionally, creation of an automated data dashboard of COT and LOS will provide clinicians with real-time feedback on hospitalization practices.

The authors thank Dr Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, as well as the members of the 2019 Fever of Uncertain Source Evidence-Based Guideline Committee. We also thank the James M Anderson Center for Health System Excellence and the Rapid Cycle Improvement Collaborative for their support with guideline development as well as design and execution of our improvement efforts.

Febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days often undergo diagnostic testing to evaluate for invasive bacterial infections (IBI; ie, bacteremia and meningitis) and are subsequently hospitalized pending culture results. Only 1% to 2% of infants 0 to 60 days old have an IBI,^1-3 and most hospitalized infants are discharged once physicians feel confident that pathogens are unlikely to be isolated from blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cultures. Practice regarding duration of hospitalization while awaiting blood and CSF culture results is not standardized in this population. Longer hospitalizations can lead to increased costs and familial stress, including difficulty with breastfeeding and anxiety in newly postpartum mothers.^4,5

In 2010, an institutional evidence-based guideline for the management of febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days recommended discharge after 36 hours of observation if all cultures were negative.⁶ However, recent studies demonstrate that 85% to 93% of pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 Assuming a 2% prevalence of IBI, if 15% of pathogens were identified after 24 hours of incubation, only one out of 333 infants would have an IBI identified after 24 hours of hospital observation.⁷

Furthermore, a review of our institution’s electronic health records (EHR) over the past 5 years revealed that an observation period of 24 hours would have resulted in the discharge of three infants with an IBI. Two infants had bacteremia; both were discharged from the emergency department (ED) without antibiotics, returned to care after cultures were reported positive at 27 hours, and had no adverse outcomes. The third infant had meningitis, but also had an abnormal CSF Gram stain, which led to a longer hospitalization.

In 2019, our institution appraised the emerging literature and institutional data supporting the low absolute risk of missed IBI, and also leveraged local consensus among key stakeholders to update its evidence-based guideline for the evaluation and management of febrile infants aged 60 days and younger. The updated guideline recommends that clinicians consider discharging well-appearing neonates and infants if blood and CSF cultures remain negative at 24 hours.¹⁰ The objective of this study was to decrease the average hospital culture observation time (COT; culture incubation to hospital discharge) from 38 to 30 hours over a 12-month period in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days.

Context

Improvement efforts were conducted at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC), a large, urban, academic hospital that admitted more than 8,000 noncritically ill patients to the hospital medicine (HM) service from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019. Hospital medicine teams, located at both the main and satellite campuses, are staffed by attending physicians, fellows, residents, medical students, and nurse practitioners. The two campuses, which are about 20 miles apart, share clinician providers but have distinct nursing pools.

Microbiology services for all CCHMC patients are provided at the main campus. Blood and CSF cultures at the satellite campus are transported to the main campus for incubation and monitoring via an urgent courier service. The microbiology laboratory at CCHMC uses a continuous monitoring system for blood cultures (BACT/ALERT Virtuo, BioMérieux). The system automatically alerts laboratory technicians of positive cultures; these results are reported to clinical providers within 30 minutes of detection. Laboratory technicians manually evaluate CSF cultures once daily for 5 days.

Improvement Team

Our improvement team included three HM attending physicians; two HM fellows; a pediatric chief resident; two nurses, who represented nursing pools at the main and satellite campuses; and a clinical pharmacist, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program at CCHMC. Supporting members for the improvement team included the CCHMC laboratory director; the microbiology laboratory director; an infectious disease physician, who is a co-leader of the antimicrobial stewardship program; and nursing directors of the HM units at both campuses.

Evidence-Based Guideline

Our improvement initiative was based on recommendations from the updated CCHMC Evidence-Based Care Guideline for Management of Infants 0 to 60 days with Fever of Unknown Source.¹⁰ This guideline, published in May 2019, was developed by a multidisciplinary working group composed of key stakeholders from HM, community pediatrics, emergency medicine, the pediatric residency program, infectious disease, and laboratory medicine. Several improvement team members were participants on the committee that published the evidence-based guideline. The committee first performed a systematic literature review and critical appraisal of the literature. Care recommendations were formulated via a consensus process directed by best evidence, patient and family preferences, and clinical expertise; the recommendations were subsequently reviewed and approved by clinical experts who were not involved in the development process.

Based on evidence review and multistakeholder consensus, the updated guideline recommends clinicians consider discharging neonates and infants aged 60 days and younger if there is no culture growth after an observation period of 24 hours (as documented in the EHR) and patients are otherwise medically ready for discharge (ie, well appearing with adequate oral intake).^10,11 In addition, prior to discharge, there must be a documented working phone number on file for the patient’s parents/guardians, an established outpatient follow-up plan within 24 hours, and communication with the primary pediatrician who is in agreement with discharge at 24 hours.

Study Population

Infants 0 to 60 days old who had a documented or reported fever without an apparent source based on history and physical exam upon presentation to the ED, and who were subsequently admitted to the HM service at CCHMC between October 30, 2018, and July 10, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. We excluded infants who were admitted to other clinical services (eg, intensive care unit); had organisms identified on blood, urine, or CSF culture within 24 hours of incubation; had positive herpes simplex virus testing; had skin/soft tissue infections or another clearly documented source of bacterial infection; or had an alternative indication for hospitalization (eg, need for intravenous fluid or deep suctioning) after cultures had incubated for 24 hours. Infants who had a positive blood, urine, or CSF culture result after 24 hours of incubation were included in the study population. Organisms were classified as pathogen or contaminant based on treatment decisions made by the care team.

Improvement Activities

Key drivers critical to success of the improvement efforts were: (1) clearly defined standard of care for duration of observation in febrile infants 0 to 60 days old; (2) improved understanding of microbiology lab procedures; (3) effective communication of discharge criteria between providers and nurses; and (4) transparency of data with feedback (Figure 1).

Education and Structured Dissemination of Evidence-Based Guideline

The CCHMC febrile infant guideline¹⁰ was disseminated to HM physicians, residents, and nurses via the following means: (1) in-person announcements at staff meetings and educational conferences, (2) published highlights from the guideline in weekly newsletters, and (3) email announcements. Additionally, members of the study team educated HM attending physicians, nursing staff from the medical units at both campuses, and resident physicians about recent studies demonstrating safety of shorter length of stay (LOS) in febrile infants aged 0 to 60 days. The study team also provided residents, physicians, and nurses with data on the number of positive blood and CSF cultures and outcomes of patients at CCHMC within the past 5 years. In addition, team members led a journal club for residents discussing an article⁷ describing time-to-positivity of blood and CSF cultures in febrile infants. For ongoing engagement, the evidence-based guideline and a detailed explanation of microbiology procedures were published in the resident handbook, an internal resource that includes vital clinical pearls and practice guidelines across specialties. (Each resident receives an updated hard copy each year, and there is also an online link to the resource in the EHR.) Information about the guideline and COT was also included in the monthly chief resident’s orientation script, which is relayed to all residents on the first day of their HM rotation.

Clear Communication of Microbiology Procedures

Team members created a detailed process map describing the processing protocols for blood and CSF cultures collected at both CCHMC campuses. This information was shared with HM attending physicians and nurses via in-person announcements at staff meetings, flyers in team workrooms, and email communications. Residents received information on microbiology protocols via in-person announcements at educational conferences and dissemination in the weekly residency newsletter.Important information communicated included:

1. Definition of culture start time. We conveyed that there may be a delay of up to 4 hours between culture collection at the satellite campus and culture incubation at the main campus laboratory. As a result, the time of blood or CSF sample arrival to the main campus laboratory was a more accurate reflection of the culture incubation start time than the culture collection time.

2. Explanation of CSF culture processing. We discussed the process by which these cultures are plated upon arrival at the microbiology laboratory and read once per day in the morning. Therefore, a culture incubated at midnight would be evaluated once at 9 hours and not again until 33 hours.

Modification of Febrile Infant Order Set

Enhancements to the febrile infant order set improved communication and cultivated a shared mental model regarding discharge goals among all members of the care team. The EHR order set for febrile infants was updated as follows: (1) mandatory free-text fields that established the culture start time for blood and CSF cultures were added, (2) culture start time was clearly defined (ie, the time culture arrives at the main campus laboratory), and (3) a change was made in the default discharge criteria¹¹ to “culture observation for 24 hours,” with the ability to modify COT (Appendix Figure 1). We embedded hyperlinks to the guideline and microbiology process map within the updated order set, which allowed providers to easily access this information and refresh their knowledge of the recommendations (Appendix Figure 1).

Identification of Failures and Follow-up With Near-Time Feedback

All cases of febrile infants were tracked weekly. For infants hospitalized longer than 24 hours, the study team contacted the discharging clinicians to discuss reasons for prolonged hospitalization, with an emphasis on identifying system-level barriers to earlier discharge.

Study of the Interventions

The institutional microbiology database was queried weekly to identify all infants 0 to 60 days old who had a blood culture obtained and were hospitalized on the HM service. Study team members conducted targeted EHR review to determine whether patients met exclusion criteria and to identify reasons for prolonged COT. Baseline data were collected retrospectively for a 3-month period prior to initiation of improvement activities. During the study period, queries were conducted weekly and reviewed by study team members to evaluate the impact of improvement activities and to inform new interventions.

Measures

Our primary outcome measure was COT, defined as the hours between final culture incubation and hospital discharge. The operational definition for “final culture incubation” was the documented time of arrival of the last collected culture to the microbiology laboratory. Our goal COT was 30 hours to account for a subset of patients whose blood and/or CSF culture were obtained overnight (ie, after 9 pm), since subsequent discharge times would likely and practically be delayed beyond 24 hours. Our secondary outcome measure was LOS, defined as the time between ED arrival and hospital discharge. Process measures included the proportion of patients for whom the febrile infant EHR order set was used and the proportion of patients for whom medical discharge criteria (ie, blood and CSF culture observed for ”xx” hours) and culture incubation start times were entered using the order set. Balancing measures included identification of IBI after hospital discharge, 48-hour ED revisits, and 7-day hospital readmissions.

Analysis

Measures were evaluated using statistical process control charts and run charts, and Western Electric rules were employed to determine special cause variation.¹² Annotated X-bar S control charts tracked the impact of improvement activities on average COT and LOS for all infants. Given that a relatively small number of patients (ie, two to four) met inclusion criteria each week, average COT was calculated per five patients.

This study was considered exempt from review by the CCHMC Institutional Review Board.

Of the 184 infants in this study, 46 were included as part of baseline data collection, and 138 were included during the intervention period. The median age was 26.6 days (range, 3-59 days); 52% of patients were female; two-thirds were non-Hispanic White; 22% were Black, and 5% were Hispanic (Appendix Table).

Average COT decreased from 38 hours to 32 hours with improvement activities (Figure 2) and was sustained for a total of 17 months. There were small decreases in COT after initial education was provided to attendings, nurses, and residents.

After the launch of the updated order set, median usage of the EHR order set increased from 50% to 80%. Medical discharge criteria were entered for 80 (96%) of the 83 patients for whom the updated order set was applied; culture incubation start times were entered for 78 (94%) of these patients.

No infants in our cohort were found to have IBI after hospital discharge. There were no ED revisits within 48 hours of discharge, and there were no hospital readmissions within 7 days of index discharge. Furthermore, none of the patients included in the study had growth of a pathogenic organism after 24 hours.

Of the 138 infants hospitalized during the intervention period, 77 (56%) had a COT greater than 30 hours. Among these 77 patients, 49 (64%) had their final culture incubated between 9 pm and 4 am; Furthermore, 11 (14%) had missing, abnormal, pretreated, or uninterpretable CSF studies, 7 (9%) had ongoing fevers, and 4 (5%) remained hospitalized due to family preference or inability to obtain timely outpatient follow-up.

Our study aimed to decrease the average COT from 38 hours to 30 hours among hospitalized infants aged 60 days and younger over a period of 12 months. An intervention featuring implementation of an evidence-based guideline through education, laboratory procedure transparency, creation of a standardized EHR order set, and near-time feedback was associated with a shorter average COT of 32 hours, sustained over a 17-month period. No infants with bacteremia or meningitis were inappropriately discharged during this study.

Interpretation

Prior to our improvement efforts, most febrile infants at CCHMC were observed for at least 36 hours based on a prior institutional guideline,⁶ despite recent evidence suggesting that most pathogens in blood and CSF cultures grow within 24 hours of incubation.^7-9 The goal of this improvement initiative was to bridge the gap between emerging evidence and clinical practice by developing and disseminating an updated evidence-based guideline to safely decrease the hospital observation time in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger.

Similar to previous studies aimed at improving diagnosis and management among febrile infants,^13-16 generation and structured dissemination of an institutional evidence-based guideline was crucial to safely shortening COT in our population. These prior studies established a goal COT of 36 to 42 hours for hospitalized febrile infants.^13,15,16 Our study incorporated emerging evidence and local experience into an updated evidence-based practice guideline to further reduce COT to 32 hours for hospitalized infants. Key factors contributing to our success included multidisciplinary engagement, specifically partnering with nurses and resident physicians in designing and implementing our initiatives. Furthermore, improved transparency of culture monitoring practices allowed clinicians to better understand the recommended observation periods. Finally, we employed a standardized EHR order set as a no-cost, one-time, high-reliability intervention to establish 24 hours of culture monitoring as the default and to enhance transparency around start time for culture incubation.

Average COT remained stable at 32 hours for 17 months after initiation of the intervention. During the intervention period, 64% patients with hospital stays longer than 30 hours had cultures obtained between 9 pm to 4 am. These patients often remained hospitalized for longer than 30 hours to allow for a daytime hospital discharge. Additionally, CSF cultures were only monitored manually once per day between 8 am and 10 am. As a result, CSF cultures obtained in the evening (eg, 9 pm) would be evaluated once at roughly 12 hours of incubation, and then the following morning at 36 hours of incubation. In cases where CSF studies (eg, cell count, protein, Gram stain) were abnormal, uninterpretable, or could not be obtained, clinicians monitored CSF cultures closer to 36 hours from incubation. While evidence-based guidelines and local data support safe early discharge of febrile infants, clinicians presented with incomplete or uninterpretable data were appropriately more likely to observe infants for longer periods to confirm negative cultures.

Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, this single-center study was conducted at a quaternary care medical center with a robust quality improvement infrastructure. Our interventions took advantage of the existing processes in place that ensure timely discharge of medically ready patients.¹¹ Furthermore, microbiology laboratory practices are unique to our institution. These factors limit the generalizability of this work. Second, due to small numbers of eligible infants, analyses were conducted per five patients. Infrequent hospitalizations limited our ability to learn quickly from PDSA cycles. Finally, we did not measure cost savings attributable to shorter hospital stays. However, in addition to financial savings from charges and decreased nonmedical costs such as lost earnings and childcare,¹⁷ shorter hospitalizations have many additional benefits, such as promoting bonding and breastfeeding and decreasing exposure to nosocomial infections. Shorter hospitalizations, with clearly communicated discharge times, also serve to optimize patient throughput.

Implementation of a clinical practice guideline resulted in reduction of average COT from 38 to 32 hours in febrile infants aged 60 days and younger, with no cases of missed IBI. Engagement of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the generation and structured dissemination of the evidence-based guideline, improved transparency of the microbiological blood and CSF culture process, and standardization of EHR order sets were crucial to the success of this work. Cultures incubated overnight and daily CSF culture-monitoring practices primarily contributed to an average LOS of more than 30 hours.

Future work will include collaboration with emergency physicians to improve evaluation efficiency and decrease LOS in the ED for febrile infants. Additionally, creation of an automated data dashboard of COT and LOS will provide clinicians with real-time feedback on hospitalization practices.

The authors thank Dr Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, as well as the members of the 2019 Fever of Uncertain Source Evidence-Based Guideline Committee. We also thank the James M Anderson Center for Health System Excellence and the Rapid Cycle Improvement Collaborative for their support with guideline development as well as design and execution of our improvement efforts.

Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of hospitalization in infants aged <1 year in the United States.^1-3 Estimates suggest that 1.5% to 2.0% of US infants require hospitalization every year, with a median (interquartile range) length of stay of 2 days (1-4),³ incurring direct medical costs of $555 million annually.¹ Evidence suggests that few interventions, aside from supportive care, are effective for bronchiolitis.^4-7 Adherence to standardized clinical guidelines could improve outcomes and resource use by streamlining care and limiting ineffective interventions, thereby decreasing hospital length of stay, which is a major medical cost.^8-13 For this reason, many hospitals have adopted bronchiolitis guidelines, although institutional practices vary.^14,15

Two relatively unexplored methods to reduce the inpatient burden of bronchiolitis are the use of observation units (OU) and home oxygen therapy (HOT). Motivated by research demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of an emergency department (ED)–based HOT protocol,¹⁶ where 36 of 37 patients with mild hypoxemia discharged on HOT avoided hospital admission, our institution implemented an observation unit and home oxygen therapy (OU-HOT) protocol designed to return children with bronchiolitis home earlier from the hospital. In the first winter season of implementation (2010 to 2011), the OU-HOT protocol was associated with significant reductions in length of stay and substantial cost savings, without an increase in return visits to the ED or inpatient readmissions.¹⁷ The objectives of this study were to determine whether these encouraging initial findings persisted and to measure the long-term impact of the OU-HOT protocol.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children hospitalized with bronchiolitis at Primary Children’s Hospital, a freestanding children’s hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. Discharge diagnosis and procedures codes, as well as laboratory, imaging, pharmacy, and supply costs, were obtained from the Intermountain Healthcare enterprise data warehouse. A crosswalk available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was used to convert International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 discharge diagnosis and procedure codes to ICD-9 equivalents.¹⁸ This study was approved by the University of Utah institutional review board (00110419).

Patients

Children aged 3 to 24 months who were discharged with a diagnosis of bronchiolitis (466.xx) during winter seasons from 2007 to 2019 were included. A winter season was defined as November 1 to April 30. Both observation and inpatient encounters were included in the cohort. We excluded patients with discharge diagnosis or procedure codes indicating tracheostomy (519.0-519.09, V44.0, V55.0, 31.1, 31.21, 31.41, 31.74, 97.23), ventilator dependence (V46.1x), chronic lung disease (518.83, 770.7), or pulmonary hypertension (416.xx). Patients with both bronchiolitis and a concurrent diagnosis, such as otitis media or pneumonia, were included unless exclusion criteria were met.

Intervention and Process Measures

Our institution implemented the OU-HOT protocol at the start of the 2010-2011 winter season.¹⁷ The aim of the OU-HOT protocol was to discharge children with bronchiolitis home sooner by increasing use of both an OU, with frequent assessment of discharge readiness, and HOT to help children become ready for discharge. Similar to most OUs, admission to our unit was limited to patients who met hospital admission criteria, and had a short anticipated length of stay (<48 hours). As a self-contained 20-bed unit providing 24-hour dedicated pediatrician/pediatric emergency medicine physician and nursing coverage, the OU actively monitored patients’ discharge readiness, with a goal to facilitate patient throughput more akin to an ED rather than a traditional inpatient unit. Patients who could not be discharged from the OU within 48 hours were transferred to the inpatient unit. Although the OU existed at the time of protocol implementation, its use for patients with bronchiolitis was not actively encouraged until implementation.

Hospitalized patients—in either inpatient or observation units—were eligible for discharge on HOT if they met the following criteria: hypoxemia was the only indication for continued hospitalization, the child’s oxygen requirement was <0.5 L/min for at least 6 hours (0.8 L/min for children aged >1 year), the child’s caregiver(s) were willing to manage oxygen at home, and the child had reliable access to primary care provider follow up. We used two process measures across winter seasons: (1) the percentage of patients discharged from the OU, and (2) the percentage of patients discharged with HOT. The percentage of patients discharged on HOT was estimated by a manual chart review and an electronic medical record (EMR) HOT flag that came into existence with our hospital system’s adoption of a new EMR (2017-2019). Chart review randomly sampled patients from 2007-2017, totaling 457 patients. To estimate the reliability of this method, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the EMR HOT flag using chart review as the gold standard.

Outcome Measures

The main outcome measure was mean hospital length of stay. Balancing measures were revisit rates (stratified into ED visits and readmissions) and annual per-population bronchiolitis admission rates. Visits were considered revisits if they occurred within 7 days of initial hospital discharge, and included visits to Primary Children’s Hospital as well as 22 other Intermountain Healthcare hospitals. Population estimates from the Utah Department of Health were used to calculate the annual population-based rate of bronchiolitis admissions to Primary Children’s Hospital.¹⁹ Annual admission rates were calculated per 10,000 children aged 3 to 24 months who resided in Utah each year of the study period, and were evaluated to determine if patients were admitted more frequently after OU-HOT implementation. Secondary outcome measures included the percentage of patients discharged within 24 hours and mean inflation-adjusted cost per episode of care (in 2019 dollars). Hospitalization costs were determined using Intermountain Healthcare’s internal cost accounting system, an activity-based method that aggregates costs of individual resources according to date of service.²⁰ Costs were adjusted to 2019 dollars and were defined as the total costs of a patient’s initial hospitalization as well as any 7-day revisit encounters.

Data Analysis

Demographic data were compared before and after OU-HOT protocol implementation using Pearson chi-square tests. Multivariable linear or logistic regression models were used to compare measures before and after OU-HOT protocol implementation via an interrupted time-series approach. The interrupted time-series analysis measured two types of changes after protocol implementation during the 2010-2011 winter season: (1) any immediate change in the level of an outcome (immediate effect) and (2) any change of an outcome going forward over time (change in slope).²¹ Covariates in the regression models included patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance type, as well as presence of an underlying complex chronic condition, mechanical ventilation use, and pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission during hospitalization. Data were analyzed in STATA 15 (StataCorp LLC).²²

A total of 7,116 patients met inclusion criteria over the study period (2,061 pre-implementation, 5,055 post-implementation). A comparison of patient characteristics before and after HOT protocol implementation is presented in Table 1. Patients were similar in terms of age, sex, and insurance type. Patients in the postimplementation period were more likely to have a complex chronic condition, require admission to the PICU, and need mechanical ventilation (P < .01). Differences between cohorts with regard to race/ethnicity distribution largely were a result of improved capture of these data elements in the postimplementation period. For example, 30% of patients were classified as “race/ethnicity unknown” in the preimplementation cohort, compared with 4% of patients in the postimplementation period.

Process Measures

Figure 1 shows trends in OU and HOT use by winter season. The percentage of patients discharged from the OU increased immediately after OU-HOT protocol implementation (absolute 26.9% immediate increase; 95% CI, 21.9-42.2). The change in the proportion of OU use per season also increased (change in slope +3.9% per season; 95% CI, 3.4%-4.4%). The percentage of patients discharged with HOT increased immediately after OU-HOT protocol implementation (26.0% immediate change; 95% CI, 18.9%-33.1%); however, the immediate increase in HOT discharges was coupled with a declining rate of HOT discharges per season in the postprotocol period compared with the preprotocol period (change in slope –4.5% per season; 95% CI, –7.5% to –1.5%). Our chart review and EMR flag included 1,354 patients, or 19.0% of our cohort. Our EMR flag for HOT in the last two seasons of the study had a positive predictive value of 100% (5 of 5 identified by EMR flag as receiving HOT were confirmed by chart review) and negative predictive value of 89% (31 of 35 identified by EMR flag as not receiving HOT were confirmed by chart review). The specificity of the EMR flag was 100% (31 of 31 of those confirmed by chart review as not receiving HOT, who were correctly identified by EMR) and the sensitivity was 55% (5 of 9 of those confirmed by chart review as receiving HOT, who were correctly identified by EMR).

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

Trends in length of stay across winter seasons are presented in Figure 2. The OU-HOT protocol was associated with an immediate reduction of 30.6 hours in mean length of stay (95% CI, –37.1 to –24.2). The rate of change in length of stay postimplementation did not differ significantly from the rate of change preimplementation (change in slope –0.6 hours per season; 95% CI, –2.3 to 1.1 hours). The percentage of patients discharged within 24 hours of admission rose immediately after protocol implementation, by 23.8 absolute percentage points (95% CI, 11.7-28.8). Slopes of the preintervention and postintervention regression lines did not differ significantly (change in slope –0.1% per season; 95% CI, –1.4% to 1.1%). Immediate decreases in length of stay were accompanied by an immediate decrease in mean cost per episode of care (–$4,181; 95% CI, –$4,829 to –$3,533). Protocol implementation also was associated with a decreased slope in cost postimplementation (change in slope –$403 per season; 95% CI, –$543 to –$264). The total cost savings, estimated by the product of the average cost savings per episode of care and the number of bronchiolitis admissions included in the study after OU-HOT implementation, amounted to $21.1 million over the 9-year period, or $2.3 million per winter season.

Balancing Measures

We observed an immediate reduction in 7-day hospital revisits (–1.1% immediate change; 95% CI, –1.8% to –0.4%), but an increasing slope in revisits after implementation (change in slope 0.4% per season; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.8%) (Figure 3). Stratifying revisits into ED visits and readmissions revealed that the revisit findings reflected changes in ED return visits, for which there was an immediate reduction at the time of implementation (–1.0% immediate change; 95% CI, –1.6% to –0.4%), but an increasing slope postimplementation (change in slope 0.5% per season; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8). Neither an immediate intervention effect (0.0% immediate change; 95% CI, –0.5% to 0.4%) nor a change in slope (change in slope 0.0% per season; 95% CI, –0.1% to 0.1%) were observed for inpatient readmissions alone. The annual rate of bronchiolitis admissions to Primary Children’s Hospital per 10,000 children who reside in Utah decreased after implementation of the OU-HOT protocol (immediate intervention effect –6.2 admissions; 95% CI, –10.8 to –1.6; change in slope –1.8 admissions per season; 95% CI, –2.8 to –0.69).

Our OU-HOT protocol was associated with immediate improvements in care delivered to children hospitalized for bronchiolitis, including decreased length of stay and cost savings. These improvements in outcomes largely have been sustained over a 9-year period. The OU-HOT protocol also appears to be safe as evidenced by a stable rate of readmissions over the study period and only a small increase in revisits to EDs across Intermountain Healthcare facilities, which see most children in the catchment area. Our OU-HOT protocol represents a combination of two interventions: (1) the creation of an OU focused on discharge within 24 to 48 hours of admission and (2) encouragement to discharge children with HOT. We found that use of the OU and a commitment to timely discharges has been sustained in recent years, while the commitment to HOT has appeared to wane.

Earlier investigations have evaluated the efficacy of HOT in the ED setting to prevent hospital admissions, finding high levels of caregiver comfort, estimating $1,300 per patient cost savings, and reporting readmission rates of approximately 5%.^16,23-25 Our study is unique in addressing HOT among a population of patients already hospitalized with bronchiolitis. The cost reductions we observed with our OU-HOT protocol were similar to those noted in the ED-based HOT protocols. However, we recorded lower readmission rates, likely because of the additional time allotted to caregivers to better gauge illness trajectory in the inpatient setting vs the ED, as well as additional time for hospitalized patients to reach the plateau or convalescent phase of illness. The small increase in ED revisits that we measured in recent years might be related to the concurrent rise in patient acuity and complexity.

Considering that length of stay has remained low despite less commitment to HOT, our results suggest that the OU might be the more impactful of the two interventions, and these data support the use of such a unit for a subset of patients with bronchiolitis. However, it is important to note that while the EMR HOT flag demonstrated high specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, the sensitivity was low (56%). As a result, it is possible that we have underestimated HOT use in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 seasons, the final two years of the study. Alternatively, the discrepancy between sustained outcomes and lagging use of HOT could be explained by improved identification of patients who would experience the greatest benefit with oxygen in terms of length of stay reductions, with fewer patients discharged on HOT but greater per-patient benefit. Finally, in an era that encourages reduced monitor use and less aggressive response to transient mild desaturations,^13,26,27 it is possible that fewer patients are identified with clinically actionable hypoxemia around the time they would be otherwise discharged.

Our OU-HOT model is not unprecedented. Increasingly, other formerly inpatient indications are being successfully managed in the observation, outpatient, and home setting, such as parenteral antibiotic treatment^28,29 and chemotherapy administration.³⁰ Considering the inpatient burden of bronchiolitis, similar strategies to expedite discharge are needed. Although outpatient intravenous antibiotic and chemotherapy administration have been widely adopted, we are aware of only one other pediatric health care system in the United States (Children’s Hospital Colorado) that routinely discharges inpatients with bronchiolitis on HOT.

This study has several limitations. First, although the interrupted time-series analysis is designed to account for trends that precede an intervention and covariates that differ before and after the intervention, it is possible that important unmeasured patient factors or changes in practice patterns differed between the pre- and post-intervention cohorts. There were no major changes to the OU-HOT protocol or discharge criteria after implementation, but individual practice management of bronchiolitis during the study period likely has evolved as new evidence emerges. Second, one could postulate that the increase in discharges within 24 hours and accompanying decreases in average length of stay and cost could be achieved by hospitalizing healthier patients over time, which the presence of an OU might incentivize. To the contrary, we found that population-based bronchiolitis admission rates have declined and disease severity appears to be increased since implementation of the OU-HOT protocol. The increase in medically complex children and PICU use in our postimplementation cohort aligns with recently published data suggesting these are national trends.^3,31 Third, HOT use was estimated from a sample of the cohort using a chart review and a newly available EMR flag. A low sensitivity and a small sample for the positive predictive value are limitations of the EMR flag.

Additionally, there are almost certainly unmeasured ambulatory burdens of HOT not captured by this study. ED-based protocols have estimated that patients discharged with HOT have a median of two follow-up ambulatory visits before oxygen is discontinued³²; however, the ambulatory burden associated with discharge on HOT after a hospitalization and the extent to which demographic factors affect that burden is unknown. Furthermore, one insurance company charged $94 for a month of HOT in 2019; paying even a portion of this charge represents a nontrivial financial burden for many families, even considering inpatient cost savings. Although the decision to discharge on oxygen or remain hospitalized until the child did not need oxygen was left to the parents, their posthospitalization perspectives were not assessed in this study. Although reports indicate that families largely feel positive about HOT after discharge from an ED setting, with 90% of caregivers preferring HOT use to inpatient admission and most reporting no difficulty with home management,²³ it is uncertain whether this would also apply after inpatient hospitalization.

The OU-HOT bronchiolitis protocol was associated with decreases in inpatient length of stay and cost while appearing safe to implement. The sustained use of the OU combined with declining use of HOT suggests that the OU might be the more impactful intervention. As previously inpatient indications such as parenteral antibiotics and chemotherapy increasingly have been administered in observation and outpatient settings, bronchiolitis appears ideal for a similar strategy that allows patients to spend less time in the hospital. Studies are needed to understand the outpatient burden of HOT and the generalizability of our findings.

Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of hospitalization in infants aged <1 year in the United States.^1-3 Estimates suggest that 1.5% to 2.0% of US infants require hospitalization every year, with a median (interquartile range) length of stay of 2 days (1-4),³ incurring direct medical costs of $555 million annually.¹ Evidence suggests that few interventions, aside from supportive care, are effective for bronchiolitis.^4-7 Adherence to standardized clinical guidelines could improve outcomes and resource use by streamlining care and limiting ineffective interventions, thereby decreasing hospital length of stay, which is a major medical cost.^8-13 For this reason, many hospitals have adopted bronchiolitis guidelines, although institutional practices vary.^14,15

Two relatively unexplored methods to reduce the inpatient burden of bronchiolitis are the use of observation units (OU) and home oxygen therapy (HOT). Motivated by research demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of an emergency department (ED)–based HOT protocol,¹⁶ where 36 of 37 patients with mild hypoxemia discharged on HOT avoided hospital admission, our institution implemented an observation unit and home oxygen therapy (OU-HOT) protocol designed to return children with bronchiolitis home earlier from the hospital. In the first winter season of implementation (2010 to 2011), the OU-HOT protocol was associated with significant reductions in length of stay and substantial cost savings, without an increase in return visits to the ED or inpatient readmissions.¹⁷ The objectives of this study were to determine whether these encouraging initial findings persisted and to measure the long-term impact of the OU-HOT protocol.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children hospitalized with bronchiolitis at Primary Children’s Hospital, a freestanding children’s hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. Discharge diagnosis and procedures codes, as well as laboratory, imaging, pharmacy, and supply costs, were obtained from the Intermountain Healthcare enterprise data warehouse. A crosswalk available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was used to convert International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 discharge diagnosis and procedure codes to ICD-9 equivalents.¹⁸ This study was approved by the University of Utah institutional review board (00110419).

Patients

Children aged 3 to 24 months who were discharged with a diagnosis of bronchiolitis (466.xx) during winter seasons from 2007 to 2019 were included. A winter season was defined as November 1 to April 30. Both observation and inpatient encounters were included in the cohort. We excluded patients with discharge diagnosis or procedure codes indicating tracheostomy (519.0-519.09, V44.0, V55.0, 31.1, 31.21, 31.41, 31.74, 97.23), ventilator dependence (V46.1x), chronic lung disease (518.83, 770.7), or pulmonary hypertension (416.xx). Patients with both bronchiolitis and a concurrent diagnosis, such as otitis media or pneumonia, were included unless exclusion criteria were met.

Intervention and Process Measures

Our institution implemented the OU-HOT protocol at the start of the 2010-2011 winter season.¹⁷ The aim of the OU-HOT protocol was to discharge children with bronchiolitis home sooner by increasing use of both an OU, with frequent assessment of discharge readiness, and HOT to help children become ready for discharge. Similar to most OUs, admission to our unit was limited to patients who met hospital admission criteria, and had a short anticipated length of stay (<48 hours). As a self-contained 20-bed unit providing 24-hour dedicated pediatrician/pediatric emergency medicine physician and nursing coverage, the OU actively monitored patients’ discharge readiness, with a goal to facilitate patient throughput more akin to an ED rather than a traditional inpatient unit. Patients who could not be discharged from the OU within 48 hours were transferred to the inpatient unit. Although the OU existed at the time of protocol implementation, its use for patients with bronchiolitis was not actively encouraged until implementation.

Hospitalized patients—in either inpatient or observation units—were eligible for discharge on HOT if they met the following criteria: hypoxemia was the only indication for continued hospitalization, the child’s oxygen requirement was <0.5 L/min for at least 6 hours (0.8 L/min for children aged >1 year), the child’s caregiver(s) were willing to manage oxygen at home, and the child had reliable access to primary care provider follow up. We used two process measures across winter seasons: (1) the percentage of patients discharged from the OU, and (2) the percentage of patients discharged with HOT. The percentage of patients discharged on HOT was estimated by a manual chart review and an electronic medical record (EMR) HOT flag that came into existence with our hospital system’s adoption of a new EMR (2017-2019). Chart review randomly sampled patients from 2007-2017, totaling 457 patients. To estimate the reliability of this method, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the EMR HOT flag using chart review as the gold standard.

Outcome Measures

The main outcome measure was mean hospital length of stay. Balancing measures were revisit rates (stratified into ED visits and readmissions) and annual per-population bronchiolitis admission rates. Visits were considered revisits if they occurred within 7 days of initial hospital discharge, and included visits to Primary Children’s Hospital as well as 22 other Intermountain Healthcare hospitals. Population estimates from the Utah Department of Health were used to calculate the annual population-based rate of bronchiolitis admissions to Primary Children’s Hospital.¹⁹ Annual admission rates were calculated per 10,000 children aged 3 to 24 months who resided in Utah each year of the study period, and were evaluated to determine if patients were admitted more frequently after OU-HOT implementation. Secondary outcome measures included the percentage of patients discharged within 24 hours and mean inflation-adjusted cost per episode of care (in 2019 dollars). Hospitalization costs were determined using Intermountain Healthcare’s internal cost accounting system, an activity-based method that aggregates costs of individual resources according to date of service.²⁰ Costs were adjusted to 2019 dollars and were defined as the total costs of a patient’s initial hospitalization as well as any 7-day revisit encounters.

Data Analysis

Demographic data were compared before and after OU-HOT protocol implementation using Pearson chi-square tests. Multivariable linear or logistic regression models were used to compare measures before and after OU-HOT protocol implementation via an interrupted time-series approach. The interrupted time-series analysis measured two types of changes after protocol implementation during the 2010-2011 winter season: (1) any immediate change in the level of an outcome (immediate effect) and (2) any change of an outcome going forward over time (change in slope).²¹ Covariates in the regression models included patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance type, as well as presence of an underlying complex chronic condition, mechanical ventilation use, and pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission during hospitalization. Data were analyzed in STATA 15 (StataCorp LLC).²²

A total of 7,116 patients met inclusion criteria over the study period (2,061 pre-implementation, 5,055 post-implementation). A comparison of patient characteristics before and after HOT protocol implementation is presented in Table 1. Patients were similar in terms of age, sex, and insurance type. Patients in the postimplementation period were more likely to have a complex chronic condition, require admission to the PICU, and need mechanical ventilation (P < .01). Differences between cohorts with regard to race/ethnicity distribution largely were a result of improved capture of these data elements in the postimplementation period. For example, 30% of patients were classified as “race/ethnicity unknown” in the preimplementation cohort, compared with 4% of patients in the postimplementation period.

Process Measures

Figure 1 shows trends in OU and HOT use by winter season. The percentage of patients discharged from the OU increased immediately after OU-HOT protocol implementation (absolute 26.9% immediate increase; 95% CI, 21.9-42.2). The change in the proportion of OU use per season also increased (change in slope +3.9% per season; 95% CI, 3.4%-4.4%). The percentage of patients discharged with HOT increased immediately after OU-HOT protocol implementation (26.0% immediate change; 95% CI, 18.9%-33.1%); however, the immediate increase in HOT discharges was coupled with a declining rate of HOT discharges per season in the postprotocol period compared with the preprotocol period (change in slope –4.5% per season; 95% CI, –7.5% to –1.5%). Our chart review and EMR flag included 1,354 patients, or 19.0% of our cohort. Our EMR flag for HOT in the last two seasons of the study had a positive predictive value of 100% (5 of 5 identified by EMR flag as receiving HOT were confirmed by chart review) and negative predictive value of 89% (31 of 35 identified by EMR flag as not receiving HOT were confirmed by chart review). The specificity of the EMR flag was 100% (31 of 31 of those confirmed by chart review as not receiving HOT, who were correctly identified by EMR) and the sensitivity was 55% (5 of 9 of those confirmed by chart review as receiving HOT, who were correctly identified by EMR).

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

Trends in length of stay across winter seasons are presented in Figure 2. The OU-HOT protocol was associated with an immediate reduction of 30.6 hours in mean length of stay (95% CI, –37.1 to –24.2). The rate of change in length of stay postimplementation did not differ significantly from the rate of change preimplementation (change in slope –0.6 hours per season; 95% CI, –2.3 to 1.1 hours). The percentage of patients discharged within 24 hours of admission rose immediately after protocol implementation, by 23.8 absolute percentage points (95% CI, 11.7-28.8). Slopes of the preintervention and postintervention regression lines did not differ significantly (change in slope –0.1% per season; 95% CI, –1.4% to 1.1%). Immediate decreases in length of stay were accompanied by an immediate decrease in mean cost per episode of care (–$4,181; 95% CI, –$4,829 to –$3,533). Protocol implementation also was associated with a decreased slope in cost postimplementation (change in slope –$403 per season; 95% CI, –$543 to –$264). The total cost savings, estimated by the product of the average cost savings per episode of care and the number of bronchiolitis admissions included in the study after OU-HOT implementation, amounted to $21.1 million over the 9-year period, or $2.3 million per winter season.

Balancing Measures

We observed an immediate reduction in 7-day hospital revisits (–1.1% immediate change; 95% CI, –1.8% to –0.4%), but an increasing slope in revisits after implementation (change in slope 0.4% per season; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.8%) (Figure 3). Stratifying revisits into ED visits and readmissions revealed that the revisit findings reflected changes in ED return visits, for which there was an immediate reduction at the time of implementation (–1.0% immediate change; 95% CI, –1.6% to –0.4%), but an increasing slope postimplementation (change in slope 0.5% per season; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8). Neither an immediate intervention effect (0.0% immediate change; 95% CI, –0.5% to 0.4%) nor a change in slope (change in slope 0.0% per season; 95% CI, –0.1% to 0.1%) were observed for inpatient readmissions alone. The annual rate of bronchiolitis admissions to Primary Children’s Hospital per 10,000 children who reside in Utah decreased after implementation of the OU-HOT protocol (immediate intervention effect –6.2 admissions; 95% CI, –10.8 to –1.6; change in slope –1.8 admissions per season; 95% CI, –2.8 to –0.69).

Our OU-HOT protocol was associated with immediate improvements in care delivered to children hospitalized for bronchiolitis, including decreased length of stay and cost savings. These improvements in outcomes largely have been sustained over a 9-year period. The OU-HOT protocol also appears to be safe as evidenced by a stable rate of readmissions over the study period and only a small increase in revisits to EDs across Intermountain Healthcare facilities, which see most children in the catchment area. Our OU-HOT protocol represents a combination of two interventions: (1) the creation of an OU focused on discharge within 24 to 48 hours of admission and (2) encouragement to discharge children with HOT. We found that use of the OU and a commitment to timely discharges has been sustained in recent years, while the commitment to HOT has appeared to wane.

Earlier investigations have evaluated the efficacy of HOT in the ED setting to prevent hospital admissions, finding high levels of caregiver comfort, estimating $1,300 per patient cost savings, and reporting readmission rates of approximately 5%.^16,23-25 Our study is unique in addressing HOT among a population of patients already hospitalized with bronchiolitis. The cost reductions we observed with our OU-HOT protocol were similar to those noted in the ED-based HOT protocols. However, we recorded lower readmission rates, likely because of the additional time allotted to caregivers to better gauge illness trajectory in the inpatient setting vs the ED, as well as additional time for hospitalized patients to reach the plateau or convalescent phase of illness. The small increase in ED revisits that we measured in recent years might be related to the concurrent rise in patient acuity and complexity.

Considering that length of stay has remained low despite less commitment to HOT, our results suggest that the OU might be the more impactful of the two interventions, and these data support the use of such a unit for a subset of patients with bronchiolitis. However, it is important to note that while the EMR HOT flag demonstrated high specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, the sensitivity was low (56%). As a result, it is possible that we have underestimated HOT use in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 seasons, the final two years of the study. Alternatively, the discrepancy between sustained outcomes and lagging use of HOT could be explained by improved identification of patients who would experience the greatest benefit with oxygen in terms of length of stay reductions, with fewer patients discharged on HOT but greater per-patient benefit. Finally, in an era that encourages reduced monitor use and less aggressive response to transient mild desaturations,^13,26,27 it is possible that fewer patients are identified with clinically actionable hypoxemia around the time they would be otherwise discharged.

Our OU-HOT model is not unprecedented. Increasingly, other formerly inpatient indications are being successfully managed in the observation, outpatient, and home setting, such as parenteral antibiotic treatment^28,29 and chemotherapy administration.³⁰ Considering the inpatient burden of bronchiolitis, similar strategies to expedite discharge are needed. Although outpatient intravenous antibiotic and chemotherapy administration have been widely adopted, we are aware of only one other pediatric health care system in the United States (Children’s Hospital Colorado) that routinely discharges inpatients with bronchiolitis on HOT.

This study has several limitations. First, although the interrupted time-series analysis is designed to account for trends that precede an intervention and covariates that differ before and after the intervention, it is possible that important unmeasured patient factors or changes in practice patterns differed between the pre- and post-intervention cohorts. There were no major changes to the OU-HOT protocol or discharge criteria after implementation, but individual practice management of bronchiolitis during the study period likely has evolved as new evidence emerges. Second, one could postulate that the increase in discharges within 24 hours and accompanying decreases in average length of stay and cost could be achieved by hospitalizing healthier patients over time, which the presence of an OU might incentivize. To the contrary, we found that population-based bronchiolitis admission rates have declined and disease severity appears to be increased since implementation of the OU-HOT protocol. The increase in medically complex children and PICU use in our postimplementation cohort aligns with recently published data suggesting these are national trends.^3,31 Third, HOT use was estimated from a sample of the cohort using a chart review and a newly available EMR flag. A low sensitivity and a small sample for the positive predictive value are limitations of the EMR flag.

Additionally, there are almost certainly unmeasured ambulatory burdens of HOT not captured by this study. ED-based protocols have estimated that patients discharged with HOT have a median of two follow-up ambulatory visits before oxygen is discontinued³²; however, the ambulatory burden associated with discharge on HOT after a hospitalization and the extent to which demographic factors affect that burden is unknown. Furthermore, one insurance company charged $94 for a month of HOT in 2019; paying even a portion of this charge represents a nontrivial financial burden for many families, even considering inpatient cost savings. Although the decision to discharge on oxygen or remain hospitalized until the child did not need oxygen was left to the parents, their posthospitalization perspectives were not assessed in this study. Although reports indicate that families largely feel positive about HOT after discharge from an ED setting, with 90% of caregivers preferring HOT use to inpatient admission and most reporting no difficulty with home management,²³ it is uncertain whether this would also apply after inpatient hospitalization.

The OU-HOT bronchiolitis protocol was associated with decreases in inpatient length of stay and cost while appearing safe to implement. The sustained use of the OU combined with declining use of HOT suggests that the OU might be the more impactful intervention. As previously inpatient indications such as parenteral antibiotics and chemotherapy increasingly have been administered in observation and outpatient settings, bronchiolitis appears ideal for a similar strategy that allows patients to spend less time in the hospital. Studies are needed to understand the outpatient burden of HOT and the generalizability of our findings.

Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of hospitalization in infants aged <1 year in the United States.^1-3 Estimates suggest that 1.5% to 2.0% of US infants require hospitalization every year, with a median (interquartile range) length of stay of 2 days (1-4),³ incurring direct medical costs of $555 million annually.¹ Evidence suggests that few interventions, aside from supportive care, are effective for bronchiolitis.^4-7 Adherence to standardized clinical guidelines could improve outcomes and resource use by streamlining care and limiting ineffective interventions, thereby decreasing hospital length of stay, which is a major medical cost.^8-13 For this reason, many hospitals have adopted bronchiolitis guidelines, although institutional practices vary.^14,15

Two relatively unexplored methods to reduce the inpatient burden of bronchiolitis are the use of observation units (OU) and home oxygen therapy (HOT). Motivated by research demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of an emergency department (ED)–based HOT protocol,¹⁶ where 36 of 37 patients with mild hypoxemia discharged on HOT avoided hospital admission, our institution implemented an observation unit and home oxygen therapy (OU-HOT) protocol designed to return children with bronchiolitis home earlier from the hospital. In the first winter season of implementation (2010 to 2011), the OU-HOT protocol was associated with significant reductions in length of stay and substantial cost savings, without an increase in return visits to the ED or inpatient readmissions.¹⁷ The objectives of this study were to determine whether these encouraging initial findings persisted and to measure the long-term impact of the OU-HOT protocol.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children hospitalized with bronchiolitis at Primary Children’s Hospital, a freestanding children’s hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. Discharge diagnosis and procedures codes, as well as laboratory, imaging, pharmacy, and supply costs, were obtained from the Intermountain Healthcare enterprise data warehouse. A crosswalk available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was used to convert International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 discharge diagnosis and procedure codes to ICD-9 equivalents.¹⁸ This study was approved by the University of Utah institutional review board (00110419).

Patients

Children aged 3 to 24 months who were discharged with a diagnosis of bronchiolitis (466.xx) during winter seasons from 2007 to 2019 were included. A winter season was defined as November 1 to April 30. Both observation and inpatient encounters were included in the cohort. We excluded patients with discharge diagnosis or procedure codes indicating tracheostomy (519.0-519.09, V44.0, V55.0, 31.1, 31.21, 31.41, 31.74, 97.23), ventilator dependence (V46.1x), chronic lung disease (518.83, 770.7), or pulmonary hypertension (416.xx). Patients with both bronchiolitis and a concurrent diagnosis, such as otitis media or pneumonia, were included unless exclusion criteria were met.

Intervention and Process Measures

Our institution implemented the OU-HOT protocol at the start of the 2010-2011 winter season.¹⁷ The aim of the OU-HOT protocol was to discharge children with bronchiolitis home sooner by increasing use of both an OU, with frequent assessment of discharge readiness, and HOT to help children become ready for discharge. Similar to most OUs, admission to our unit was limited to patients who met hospital admission criteria, and had a short anticipated length of stay (<48 hours). As a self-contained 20-bed unit providing 24-hour dedicated pediatrician/pediatric emergency medicine physician and nursing coverage, the OU actively monitored patients’ discharge readiness, with a goal to facilitate patient throughput more akin to an ED rather than a traditional inpatient unit. Patients who could not be discharged from the OU within 48 hours were transferred to the inpatient unit. Although the OU existed at the time of protocol implementation, its use for patients with bronchiolitis was not actively encouraged until implementation.

Hospitalized patients—in either inpatient or observation units—were eligible for discharge on HOT if they met the following criteria: hypoxemia was the only indication for continued hospitalization, the child’s oxygen requirement was <0.5 L/min for at least 6 hours (0.8 L/min for children aged >1 year), the child’s caregiver(s) were willing to manage oxygen at home, and the child had reliable access to primary care provider follow up. We used two process measures across winter seasons: (1) the percentage of patients discharged from the OU, and (2) the percentage of patients discharged with HOT. The percentage of patients discharged on HOT was estimated by a manual chart review and an electronic medical record (EMR) HOT flag that came into existence with our hospital system’s adoption of a new EMR (2017-2019). Chart review randomly sampled patients from 2007-2017, totaling 457 patients. To estimate the reliability of this method, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the EMR HOT flag using chart review as the gold standard.

Outcome Measures

The main outcome measure was mean hospital length of stay. Balancing measures were revisit rates (stratified into ED visits and readmissions) and annual per-population bronchiolitis admission rates. Visits were considered revisits if they occurred within 7 days of initial hospital discharge, and included visits to Primary Children’s Hospital as well as 22 other Intermountain Healthcare hospitals. Population estimates from the Utah Department of Health were used to calculate the annual population-based rate of bronchiolitis admissions to Primary Children’s Hospital.¹⁹ Annual admission rates were calculated per 10,000 children aged 3 to 24 months who resided in Utah each year of the study period, and were evaluated to determine if patients were admitted more frequently after OU-HOT implementation. Secondary outcome measures included the percentage of patients discharged within 24 hours and mean inflation-adjusted cost per episode of care (in 2019 dollars). Hospitalization costs were determined using Intermountain Healthcare’s internal cost accounting system, an activity-based method that aggregates costs of individual resources according to date of service.²⁰ Costs were adjusted to 2019 dollars and were defined as the total costs of a patient’s initial hospitalization as well as any 7-day revisit encounters.

Data Analysis

Demographic data were compared before and after OU-HOT protocol implementation using Pearson chi-square tests. Multivariable linear or logistic regression models were used to compare measures before and after OU-HOT protocol implementation via an interrupted time-series approach. The interrupted time-series analysis measured two types of changes after protocol implementation during the 2010-2011 winter season: (1) any immediate change in the level of an outcome (immediate effect) and (2) any change of an outcome going forward over time (change in slope).²¹ Covariates in the regression models included patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance type, as well as presence of an underlying complex chronic condition, mechanical ventilation use, and pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission during hospitalization. Data were analyzed in STATA 15 (StataCorp LLC).²²

A total of 7,116 patients met inclusion criteria over the study period (2,061 pre-implementation, 5,055 post-implementation). A comparison of patient characteristics before and after HOT protocol implementation is presented in Table 1. Patients were similar in terms of age, sex, and insurance type. Patients in the postimplementation period were more likely to have a complex chronic condition, require admission to the PICU, and need mechanical ventilation (P < .01). Differences between cohorts with regard to race/ethnicity distribution largely were a result of improved capture of these data elements in the postimplementation period. For example, 30% of patients were classified as “race/ethnicity unknown” in the preimplementation cohort, compared with 4% of patients in the postimplementation period.

Process Measures

Figure 1 shows trends in OU and HOT use by winter season. The percentage of patients discharged from the OU increased immediately after OU-HOT protocol implementation (absolute 26.9% immediate increase; 95% CI, 21.9-42.2). The change in the proportion of OU use per season also increased (change in slope +3.9% per season; 95% CI, 3.4%-4.4%). The percentage of patients discharged with HOT increased immediately after OU-HOT protocol implementation (26.0% immediate change; 95% CI, 18.9%-33.1%); however, the immediate increase in HOT discharges was coupled with a declining rate of HOT discharges per season in the postprotocol period compared with the preprotocol period (change in slope –4.5% per season; 95% CI, –7.5% to –1.5%). Our chart review and EMR flag included 1,354 patients, or 19.0% of our cohort. Our EMR flag for HOT in the last two seasons of the study had a positive predictive value of 100% (5 of 5 identified by EMR flag as receiving HOT were confirmed by chart review) and negative predictive value of 89% (31 of 35 identified by EMR flag as not receiving HOT were confirmed by chart review). The specificity of the EMR flag was 100% (31 of 31 of those confirmed by chart review as not receiving HOT, who were correctly identified by EMR) and the sensitivity was 55% (5 of 9 of those confirmed by chart review as receiving HOT, who were correctly identified by EMR).

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

Trends in length of stay across winter seasons are presented in Figure 2. The OU-HOT protocol was associated with an immediate reduction of 30.6 hours in mean length of stay (95% CI, –37.1 to –24.2). The rate of change in length of stay postimplementation did not differ significantly from the rate of change preimplementation (change in slope –0.6 hours per season; 95% CI, –2.3 to 1.1 hours). The percentage of patients discharged within 24 hours of admission rose immediately after protocol implementation, by 23.8 absolute percentage points (95% CI, 11.7-28.8). Slopes of the preintervention and postintervention regression lines did not differ significantly (change in slope –0.1% per season; 95% CI, –1.4% to 1.1%). Immediate decreases in length of stay were accompanied by an immediate decrease in mean cost per episode of care (–$4,181; 95% CI, –$4,829 to –$3,533). Protocol implementation also was associated with a decreased slope in cost postimplementation (change in slope –$403 per season; 95% CI, –$543 to –$264). The total cost savings, estimated by the product of the average cost savings per episode of care and the number of bronchiolitis admissions included in the study after OU-HOT implementation, amounted to $21.1 million over the 9-year period, or $2.3 million per winter season.

Balancing Measures

We observed an immediate reduction in 7-day hospital revisits (–1.1% immediate change; 95% CI, –1.8% to –0.4%), but an increasing slope in revisits after implementation (change in slope 0.4% per season; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.8%) (Figure 3). Stratifying revisits into ED visits and readmissions revealed that the revisit findings reflected changes in ED return visits, for which there was an immediate reduction at the time of implementation (–1.0% immediate change; 95% CI, –1.6% to –0.4%), but an increasing slope postimplementation (change in slope 0.5% per season; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8). Neither an immediate intervention effect (0.0% immediate change; 95% CI, –0.5% to 0.4%) nor a change in slope (change in slope 0.0% per season; 95% CI, –0.1% to 0.1%) were observed for inpatient readmissions alone. The annual rate of bronchiolitis admissions to Primary Children’s Hospital per 10,000 children who reside in Utah decreased after implementation of the OU-HOT protocol (immediate intervention effect –6.2 admissions; 95% CI, –10.8 to –1.6; change in slope –1.8 admissions per season; 95% CI, –2.8 to –0.69).

Our OU-HOT protocol was associated with immediate improvements in care delivered to children hospitalized for bronchiolitis, including decreased length of stay and cost savings. These improvements in outcomes largely have been sustained over a 9-year period. The OU-HOT protocol also appears to be safe as evidenced by a stable rate of readmissions over the study period and only a small increase in revisits to EDs across Intermountain Healthcare facilities, which see most children in the catchment area. Our OU-HOT protocol represents a combination of two interventions: (1) the creation of an OU focused on discharge within 24 to 48 hours of admission and (2) encouragement to discharge children with HOT. We found that use of the OU and a commitment to timely discharges has been sustained in recent years, while the commitment to HOT has appeared to wane.

Earlier investigations have evaluated the efficacy of HOT in the ED setting to prevent hospital admissions, finding high levels of caregiver comfort, estimating $1,300 per patient cost savings, and reporting readmission rates of approximately 5%.^16,23-25 Our study is unique in addressing HOT among a population of patients already hospitalized with bronchiolitis. The cost reductions we observed with our OU-HOT protocol were similar to those noted in the ED-based HOT protocols. However, we recorded lower readmission rates, likely because of the additional time allotted to caregivers to better gauge illness trajectory in the inpatient setting vs the ED, as well as additional time for hospitalized patients to reach the plateau or convalescent phase of illness. The small increase in ED revisits that we measured in recent years might be related to the concurrent rise in patient acuity and complexity.

Considering that length of stay has remained low despite less commitment to HOT, our results suggest that the OU might be the more impactful of the two interventions, and these data support the use of such a unit for a subset of patients with bronchiolitis. However, it is important to note that while the EMR HOT flag demonstrated high specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, the sensitivity was low (56%). As a result, it is possible that we have underestimated HOT use in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 seasons, the final two years of the study. Alternatively, the discrepancy between sustained outcomes and lagging use of HOT could be explained by improved identification of patients who would experience the greatest benefit with oxygen in terms of length of stay reductions, with fewer patients discharged on HOT but greater per-patient benefit. Finally, in an era that encourages reduced monitor use and less aggressive response to transient mild desaturations,^13,26,27 it is possible that fewer patients are identified with clinically actionable hypoxemia around the time they would be otherwise discharged.

Our OU-HOT model is not unprecedented. Increasingly, other formerly inpatient indications are being successfully managed in the observation, outpatient, and home setting, such as parenteral antibiotic treatment^28,29 and chemotherapy administration.³⁰ Considering the inpatient burden of bronchiolitis, similar strategies to expedite discharge are needed. Although outpatient intravenous antibiotic and chemotherapy administration have been widely adopted, we are aware of only one other pediatric health care system in the United States (Children’s Hospital Colorado) that routinely discharges inpatients with bronchiolitis on HOT.

This study has several limitations. First, although the interrupted time-series analysis is designed to account for trends that precede an intervention and covariates that differ before and after the intervention, it is possible that important unmeasured patient factors or changes in practice patterns differed between the pre- and post-intervention cohorts. There were no major changes to the OU-HOT protocol or discharge criteria after implementation, but individual practice management of bronchiolitis during the study period likely has evolved as new evidence emerges. Second, one could postulate that the increase in discharges within 24 hours and accompanying decreases in average length of stay and cost could be achieved by hospitalizing healthier patients over time, which the presence of an OU might incentivize. To the contrary, we found that population-based bronchiolitis admission rates have declined and disease severity appears to be increased since implementation of the OU-HOT protocol. The increase in medically complex children and PICU use in our postimplementation cohort aligns with recently published data suggesting these are national trends.^3,31 Third, HOT use was estimated from a sample of the cohort using a chart review and a newly available EMR flag. A low sensitivity and a small sample for the positive predictive value are limitations of the EMR flag.

Additionally, there are almost certainly unmeasured ambulatory burdens of HOT not captured by this study. ED-based protocols have estimated that patients discharged with HOT have a median of two follow-up ambulatory visits before oxygen is discontinued³²; however, the ambulatory burden associated with discharge on HOT after a hospitalization and the extent to which demographic factors affect that burden is unknown. Furthermore, one insurance company charged $94 for a month of HOT in 2019; paying even a portion of this charge represents a nontrivial financial burden for many families, even considering inpatient cost savings. Although the decision to discharge on oxygen or remain hospitalized until the child did not need oxygen was left to the parents, their posthospitalization perspectives were not assessed in this study. Although reports indicate that families largely feel positive about HOT after discharge from an ED setting, with 90% of caregivers preferring HOT use to inpatient admission and most reporting no difficulty with home management,²³ it is uncertain whether this would also apply after inpatient hospitalization.

The OU-HOT bronchiolitis protocol was associated with decreases in inpatient length of stay and cost while appearing safe to implement. The sustained use of the OU combined with declining use of HOT suggests that the OU might be the more impactful intervention. As previously inpatient indications such as parenteral antibiotics and chemotherapy increasingly have been administered in observation and outpatient settings, bronchiolitis appears ideal for a similar strategy that allows patients to spend less time in the hospital. Studies are needed to understand the outpatient burden of HOT and the generalizability of our findings.

Exposure to epidural analgesia during labor did not show a link to a later diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a population-based cohort study published April 19 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Though the initial analysis showed an association, adjustment for a wide range of demographic, medical, and birth factors eliminated the link. The authors note that their findings contrast with those of a cohort study in California published in the same journal last year.

“It is possible that residual confounding explains this positive association because key perinatal variables, including induction of labor, labor dystocia, and fetal distress, were not included as confounders in that study,” write Elizabeth Wall-Wieler, PhD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg and her colleagues. “To limit potential bias from unmeasured confounders, we included the aforementioned variables within a wide set of potential confounders.”

The researchers analyzed linked datasets from all singleton infants born in a hospital from 2005 to 2016 in Manitoba, Canada, to compare use of epidurals during birth with diagnoses of ASD before 18 months of age. The four data sources included the Statistics Canada, Manitoba Education, Manitoba Families, and Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living, which includes the Manitoba Health Insurance Registry, Medical Services, Hospital Abstracts, and Drug Program Information Network. The researchers excluded women with cesarean deliveries because it was not possible to differentiate between scheduled and unscheduled cesarean deliveries.

Among 123,175 children born to mothers with an average age of 28 years, 38.2% had been exposed to epidural analgesia during their labor. Autism diagnoses occurred among 2.1% of those exposed to epidurals and 1.7% of those not exposed to epidurals. After the researchers controlled for a range of potential confounders, the difference became nonsignificant (hazard ratio, 1.08).

The adjusted analysis accounted for mother’s age; high school degree; marital status; neighborhood socioeconomic status; receipt of public assistance during pregnancy; and presence of diabetes, hypertension, anxiety, or depression in the year before the birth. Other covariates included in the adjustment included the following pregnancy factors: “parity, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, self-reported and diagnosed drug use, smoking, alcohol use, premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, infection of the amniotic sac and membrane, urogenital infection, antenatal mental health hospitalization, hypothyroidism, benzodiazepine use, antidepressant use, and antiepileptic use.” The researchers also included birth year, labor induction or augmentation, labor dystocia, fetal distress or macrosomia, gestational age at birth, the infant’s sex, and hospital type.

“There were substantial differences in maternal sociodemographic, preexisting, pregnancy-related, and birth-specific covariates between births who were exposed vs. nonexposed to epidural labor analgesia,” the authors report. “For example, births exposed to epidural labor analgesia were more likely to be nulliparous, have premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, induction of labor, augmentation of labor, and fetal distress.”

To take family history of ASD into account, the researchers also compared siblings who were and were not exposed to an epidural during labor: 80,459 children in the cohort had at least one sibling in it as well. The researchers still found no association between use of an epidural and a subsequent autism diagnosis (HR, 0.97). The authors conducted several sensitivity analyses for first-born children, those with two or more diagnostic codes for ASD on different days, and women with missing data on high school completion or marital status who delivered at 37 weeks of gestation or later; these results consistently showed no association between epidurals and ASD.

The findings are important but unsurprising, said Scott M. Myers, MD, a neurodevelopmental pediatrician and associate professor at the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine’s Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute in Scranton, Pa. Dr. Myers, who was not involved in the study, said it was strengthened by the inclusion of a wide range of covariates and multiple sensitivity analyses.

“It confirms the suspicion of many experts who were skeptical of the association reported previously, that the small increase in ASD in offspring of mothers who had epidural labor analgesia was likely attributable to other factors that differed substantially between the exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Myers said in an interview. “The plausibility of exposure to epidural analgesia in labor having a large effect on ASD risk and accounting for changes in ASD prevalence over time is low.”

It’s possible to hypothesize about subgroups that are genetically susceptible to certain environmental risk factors, including epidurals, but such an association should show up in epidemiological research if the subgroup is large enough.

“For example, epidural labor analgesia can prolong labor, and if it were a significant risk factor for ASD, one might expect that longer labor would have been demonstrated to be associated with increased ASD risk, but this has been examined and is not the case,” he said. He also noted that other perinatal factors previously linked to ASD, such as cesarean delivery, may result from a shared factor that affects risk of both ASD and cesarean delivery.

“Although there haven’t been enough systematic postmortem brain studies to be certain that the findings are generalizable, the most consistent neuropathological findings associated with ASD clearly arise long before birth,”Dr. Myers said. “The information I would provide to a concerned pregnant mother is that the current weight of the evidence does not suggest an association between epidural analgesia in labor and increased likelihood of ASD in offspring, much less a causal association.”

Clay Jones, MD, a hospitalist specializing in neonatal-perinatal medicine at Newton (Mass.)–Wellesley Hospital, was not involved in the research and offered a similar assessment of the findings.

“Our understanding of autism is that it is more of a genetic condition which interferes with the organization of brain architecture, so the evidence for any environmental cause would need to be robust for it to change medical practice or our recommendations to the general public,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. Compared to the previous California study, “this new research is larger and better accounts for confounding variables that might increase the risk of a child eventually being diagnosed with autism,” he said.

While recognizing the value in conducting studies to uncover any potential environmental factors contributing to autism diagnoses, Dr. Jones also addressed science communication challenges related to this research.

“While many of these studies are valid early efforts at honing in on potential risk factors, they can be overhyped and lead to increased patient anxiety and potentially harmful changes in behavior,” Dr. Jones said. “There is already a significant amount of pressure for many women to avoid certain safe and effective pain reduction strategies during labor, such as epidural labor analgesia. This pressure is often based on misunderstandings of the risks, pseudoscientific beliefs regarding the benefits of so-called ‘natural childbirth,’ and blatant misogyny. I hope that this new study helps to reassure women that it is okay to request to be more comfortable during their labor experience with the help of epidural labor analgesia.”

The authors of the study also noted the benefits of epidural use during labor.

“It is recognized as the most effective method of providing labor analgesia,” they write. In addition, “the presence of an indwelling epidural catheter allows epidural anesthesia to be administered for an unplanned (intrapartum) cesarean delivery, thus secondarily avoiding any maternal complications or fetal exposure from general anesthesia.”

JAMA Pediatrics editor Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, wrote his second-ever Editor’s Note about this topic after the journal published two similar studies with different conclusions.

“Because there will never be experimental studies of environmental exposures, we are left with imperfect observational studies that are always at risk for residual confounding, especially when observed effect sizes are small,” Dr. Christakis writes. “Science is an imperfect and iterative process, and our responsibility as journal editors is to manage the process as best we can. Publishing two conflicting studies in such a short time frame serves as testament that we recognize the process for what it is.” His personal opinion is that any association has yet to be definitively established but that the journal will publish the study if a more definitive one is done.

In considering potentially contributing environmental risk factors to ASD, Gillian E. Hanley, PhD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and two colleagues write that “meta-analyses have been unable to identify a single perinatal and neonatal factor associated with ASD risk, although some evidence suggested that exposure to a broad class of conditions such as fetal presentation, umbilical-cord complications, fetal distress, or multiple births, reflecting compromised neonatal health, may increase risk.”

Yet, they add, these studies are inconsistent in their effect size, likely because of differences in study methodology, comparison groups, sample size, diagnostic criteria, and exposure assessment.

“Thus, we continue to ask questions about whether biologically plausible associations exist or whether associations reflect residual confounding related to yet-to-be-determined maternal genetic or environmental factors,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues write. They discuss precise differences between the California and Manitoba studies and the inevitability of selection bias since people who choose an epidural will differ in other ways from those who don’t.

“Epidural labor analgesia is an extremely effective approach to obstetric analgesia, and we have a collective responsibility to understand whether it is a safe option that sets a healthy developmental pathway well into childhood,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues conclude. “Women have the right to make a truly informed choice about their pain relief during labor.”

The research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health. One author reported receiving personal fees or grants from Aetion, Alosa Foundation, Lilly, GSK, Pacira, and Takeda. No other authors had disclosures. Dr. Jones, Dr. Myers, and the editorial authors had no disclosures.

Exposure to epidural analgesia during labor did not show a link to a later diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a population-based cohort study published April 19 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Though the initial analysis showed an association, adjustment for a wide range of demographic, medical, and birth factors eliminated the link. The authors note that their findings contrast with those of a cohort study in California published in the same journal last year.

“It is possible that residual confounding explains this positive association because key perinatal variables, including induction of labor, labor dystocia, and fetal distress, were not included as confounders in that study,” write Elizabeth Wall-Wieler, PhD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg and her colleagues. “To limit potential bias from unmeasured confounders, we included the aforementioned variables within a wide set of potential confounders.”

The researchers analyzed linked datasets from all singleton infants born in a hospital from 2005 to 2016 in Manitoba, Canada, to compare use of epidurals during birth with diagnoses of ASD before 18 months of age. The four data sources included the Statistics Canada, Manitoba Education, Manitoba Families, and Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living, which includes the Manitoba Health Insurance Registry, Medical Services, Hospital Abstracts, and Drug Program Information Network. The researchers excluded women with cesarean deliveries because it was not possible to differentiate between scheduled and unscheduled cesarean deliveries.

Among 123,175 children born to mothers with an average age of 28 years, 38.2% had been exposed to epidural analgesia during their labor. Autism diagnoses occurred among 2.1% of those exposed to epidurals and 1.7% of those not exposed to epidurals. After the researchers controlled for a range of potential confounders, the difference became nonsignificant (hazard ratio, 1.08).

The adjusted analysis accounted for mother’s age; high school degree; marital status; neighborhood socioeconomic status; receipt of public assistance during pregnancy; and presence of diabetes, hypertension, anxiety, or depression in the year before the birth. Other covariates included in the adjustment included the following pregnancy factors: “parity, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, self-reported and diagnosed drug use, smoking, alcohol use, premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, infection of the amniotic sac and membrane, urogenital infection, antenatal mental health hospitalization, hypothyroidism, benzodiazepine use, antidepressant use, and antiepileptic use.” The researchers also included birth year, labor induction or augmentation, labor dystocia, fetal distress or macrosomia, gestational age at birth, the infant’s sex, and hospital type.

“There were substantial differences in maternal sociodemographic, preexisting, pregnancy-related, and birth-specific covariates between births who were exposed vs. nonexposed to epidural labor analgesia,” the authors report. “For example, births exposed to epidural labor analgesia were more likely to be nulliparous, have premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, induction of labor, augmentation of labor, and fetal distress.”

To take family history of ASD into account, the researchers also compared siblings who were and were not exposed to an epidural during labor: 80,459 children in the cohort had at least one sibling in it as well. The researchers still found no association between use of an epidural and a subsequent autism diagnosis (HR, 0.97). The authors conducted several sensitivity analyses for first-born children, those with two or more diagnostic codes for ASD on different days, and women with missing data on high school completion or marital status who delivered at 37 weeks of gestation or later; these results consistently showed no association between epidurals and ASD.

The findings are important but unsurprising, said Scott M. Myers, MD, a neurodevelopmental pediatrician and associate professor at the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine’s Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute in Scranton, Pa. Dr. Myers, who was not involved in the study, said it was strengthened by the inclusion of a wide range of covariates and multiple sensitivity analyses.

“It confirms the suspicion of many experts who were skeptical of the association reported previously, that the small increase in ASD in offspring of mothers who had epidural labor analgesia was likely attributable to other factors that differed substantially between the exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Myers said in an interview. “The plausibility of exposure to epidural analgesia in labor having a large effect on ASD risk and accounting for changes in ASD prevalence over time is low.”

It’s possible to hypothesize about subgroups that are genetically susceptible to certain environmental risk factors, including epidurals, but such an association should show up in epidemiological research if the subgroup is large enough.

“For example, epidural labor analgesia can prolong labor, and if it were a significant risk factor for ASD, one might expect that longer labor would have been demonstrated to be associated with increased ASD risk, but this has been examined and is not the case,” he said. He also noted that other perinatal factors previously linked to ASD, such as cesarean delivery, may result from a shared factor that affects risk of both ASD and cesarean delivery.

“Although there haven’t been enough systematic postmortem brain studies to be certain that the findings are generalizable, the most consistent neuropathological findings associated with ASD clearly arise long before birth,”Dr. Myers said. “The information I would provide to a concerned pregnant mother is that the current weight of the evidence does not suggest an association between epidural analgesia in labor and increased likelihood of ASD in offspring, much less a causal association.”

Clay Jones, MD, a hospitalist specializing in neonatal-perinatal medicine at Newton (Mass.)–Wellesley Hospital, was not involved in the research and offered a similar assessment of the findings.

“Our understanding of autism is that it is more of a genetic condition which interferes with the organization of brain architecture, so the evidence for any environmental cause would need to be robust for it to change medical practice or our recommendations to the general public,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. Compared to the previous California study, “this new research is larger and better accounts for confounding variables that might increase the risk of a child eventually being diagnosed with autism,” he said.

While recognizing the value in conducting studies to uncover any potential environmental factors contributing to autism diagnoses, Dr. Jones also addressed science communication challenges related to this research.

“While many of these studies are valid early efforts at honing in on potential risk factors, they can be overhyped and lead to increased patient anxiety and potentially harmful changes in behavior,” Dr. Jones said. “There is already a significant amount of pressure for many women to avoid certain safe and effective pain reduction strategies during labor, such as epidural labor analgesia. This pressure is often based on misunderstandings of the risks, pseudoscientific beliefs regarding the benefits of so-called ‘natural childbirth,’ and blatant misogyny. I hope that this new study helps to reassure women that it is okay to request to be more comfortable during their labor experience with the help of epidural labor analgesia.”

The authors of the study also noted the benefits of epidural use during labor.

“It is recognized as the most effective method of providing labor analgesia,” they write. In addition, “the presence of an indwelling epidural catheter allows epidural anesthesia to be administered for an unplanned (intrapartum) cesarean delivery, thus secondarily avoiding any maternal complications or fetal exposure from general anesthesia.”

JAMA Pediatrics editor Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, wrote his second-ever Editor’s Note about this topic after the journal published two similar studies with different conclusions.

“Because there will never be experimental studies of environmental exposures, we are left with imperfect observational studies that are always at risk for residual confounding, especially when observed effect sizes are small,” Dr. Christakis writes. “Science is an imperfect and iterative process, and our responsibility as journal editors is to manage the process as best we can. Publishing two conflicting studies in such a short time frame serves as testament that we recognize the process for what it is.” His personal opinion is that any association has yet to be definitively established but that the journal will publish the study if a more definitive one is done.

In considering potentially contributing environmental risk factors to ASD, Gillian E. Hanley, PhD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and two colleagues write that “meta-analyses have been unable to identify a single perinatal and neonatal factor associated with ASD risk, although some evidence suggested that exposure to a broad class of conditions such as fetal presentation, umbilical-cord complications, fetal distress, or multiple births, reflecting compromised neonatal health, may increase risk.”

Yet, they add, these studies are inconsistent in their effect size, likely because of differences in study methodology, comparison groups, sample size, diagnostic criteria, and exposure assessment.

“Thus, we continue to ask questions about whether biologically plausible associations exist or whether associations reflect residual confounding related to yet-to-be-determined maternal genetic or environmental factors,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues write. They discuss precise differences between the California and Manitoba studies and the inevitability of selection bias since people who choose an epidural will differ in other ways from those who don’t.

“Epidural labor analgesia is an extremely effective approach to obstetric analgesia, and we have a collective responsibility to understand whether it is a safe option that sets a healthy developmental pathway well into childhood,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues conclude. “Women have the right to make a truly informed choice about their pain relief during labor.”

The research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health. One author reported receiving personal fees or grants from Aetion, Alosa Foundation, Lilly, GSK, Pacira, and Takeda. No other authors had disclosures. Dr. Jones, Dr. Myers, and the editorial authors had no disclosures.

Exposure to epidural analgesia during labor did not show a link to a later diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a population-based cohort study published April 19 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Though the initial analysis showed an association, adjustment for a wide range of demographic, medical, and birth factors eliminated the link. The authors note that their findings contrast with those of a cohort study in California published in the same journal last year.

“It is possible that residual confounding explains this positive association because key perinatal variables, including induction of labor, labor dystocia, and fetal distress, were not included as confounders in that study,” write Elizabeth Wall-Wieler, PhD, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg and her colleagues. “To limit potential bias from unmeasured confounders, we included the aforementioned variables within a wide set of potential confounders.”

The researchers analyzed linked datasets from all singleton infants born in a hospital from 2005 to 2016 in Manitoba, Canada, to compare use of epidurals during birth with diagnoses of ASD before 18 months of age. The four data sources included the Statistics Canada, Manitoba Education, Manitoba Families, and Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living, which includes the Manitoba Health Insurance Registry, Medical Services, Hospital Abstracts, and Drug Program Information Network. The researchers excluded women with cesarean deliveries because it was not possible to differentiate between scheduled and unscheduled cesarean deliveries.

Among 123,175 children born to mothers with an average age of 28 years, 38.2% had been exposed to epidural analgesia during their labor. Autism diagnoses occurred among 2.1% of those exposed to epidurals and 1.7% of those not exposed to epidurals. After the researchers controlled for a range of potential confounders, the difference became nonsignificant (hazard ratio, 1.08).

The adjusted analysis accounted for mother’s age; high school degree; marital status; neighborhood socioeconomic status; receipt of public assistance during pregnancy; and presence of diabetes, hypertension, anxiety, or depression in the year before the birth. Other covariates included in the adjustment included the following pregnancy factors: “parity, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, self-reported and diagnosed drug use, smoking, alcohol use, premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, infection of the amniotic sac and membrane, urogenital infection, antenatal mental health hospitalization, hypothyroidism, benzodiazepine use, antidepressant use, and antiepileptic use.” The researchers also included birth year, labor induction or augmentation, labor dystocia, fetal distress or macrosomia, gestational age at birth, the infant’s sex, and hospital type.

“There were substantial differences in maternal sociodemographic, preexisting, pregnancy-related, and birth-specific covariates between births who were exposed vs. nonexposed to epidural labor analgesia,” the authors report. “For example, births exposed to epidural labor analgesia were more likely to be nulliparous, have premature rupture of membranes, antepartum hemorrhage, induction of labor, augmentation of labor, and fetal distress.”

To take family history of ASD into account, the researchers also compared siblings who were and were not exposed to an epidural during labor: 80,459 children in the cohort had at least one sibling in it as well. The researchers still found no association between use of an epidural and a subsequent autism diagnosis (HR, 0.97). The authors conducted several sensitivity analyses for first-born children, those with two or more diagnostic codes for ASD on different days, and women with missing data on high school completion or marital status who delivered at 37 weeks of gestation or later; these results consistently showed no association between epidurals and ASD.

The findings are important but unsurprising, said Scott M. Myers, MD, a neurodevelopmental pediatrician and associate professor at the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine’s Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute in Scranton, Pa. Dr. Myers, who was not involved in the study, said it was strengthened by the inclusion of a wide range of covariates and multiple sensitivity analyses.

“It confirms the suspicion of many experts who were skeptical of the association reported previously, that the small increase in ASD in offspring of mothers who had epidural labor analgesia was likely attributable to other factors that differed substantially between the exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Myers said in an interview. “The plausibility of exposure to epidural analgesia in labor having a large effect on ASD risk and accounting for changes in ASD prevalence over time is low.”

It’s possible to hypothesize about subgroups that are genetically susceptible to certain environmental risk factors, including epidurals, but such an association should show up in epidemiological research if the subgroup is large enough.

“For example, epidural labor analgesia can prolong labor, and if it were a significant risk factor for ASD, one might expect that longer labor would have been demonstrated to be associated with increased ASD risk, but this has been examined and is not the case,” he said. He also noted that other perinatal factors previously linked to ASD, such as cesarean delivery, may result from a shared factor that affects risk of both ASD and cesarean delivery.

“Although there haven’t been enough systematic postmortem brain studies to be certain that the findings are generalizable, the most consistent neuropathological findings associated with ASD clearly arise long before birth,”Dr. Myers said. “The information I would provide to a concerned pregnant mother is that the current weight of the evidence does not suggest an association between epidural analgesia in labor and increased likelihood of ASD in offspring, much less a causal association.”

Clay Jones, MD, a hospitalist specializing in neonatal-perinatal medicine at Newton (Mass.)–Wellesley Hospital, was not involved in the research and offered a similar assessment of the findings.

“Our understanding of autism is that it is more of a genetic condition which interferes with the organization of brain architecture, so the evidence for any environmental cause would need to be robust for it to change medical practice or our recommendations to the general public,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. Compared to the previous California study, “this new research is larger and better accounts for confounding variables that might increase the risk of a child eventually being diagnosed with autism,” he said.

While recognizing the value in conducting studies to uncover any potential environmental factors contributing to autism diagnoses, Dr. Jones also addressed science communication challenges related to this research.

“While many of these studies are valid early efforts at honing in on potential risk factors, they can be overhyped and lead to increased patient anxiety and potentially harmful changes in behavior,” Dr. Jones said. “There is already a significant amount of pressure for many women to avoid certain safe and effective pain reduction strategies during labor, such as epidural labor analgesia. This pressure is often based on misunderstandings of the risks, pseudoscientific beliefs regarding the benefits of so-called ‘natural childbirth,’ and blatant misogyny. I hope that this new study helps to reassure women that it is okay to request to be more comfortable during their labor experience with the help of epidural labor analgesia.”

The authors of the study also noted the benefits of epidural use during labor.

“It is recognized as the most effective method of providing labor analgesia,” they write. In addition, “the presence of an indwelling epidural catheter allows epidural anesthesia to be administered for an unplanned (intrapartum) cesarean delivery, thus secondarily avoiding any maternal complications or fetal exposure from general anesthesia.”

JAMA Pediatrics editor Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, wrote his second-ever Editor’s Note about this topic after the journal published two similar studies with different conclusions.

“Because there will never be experimental studies of environmental exposures, we are left with imperfect observational studies that are always at risk for residual confounding, especially when observed effect sizes are small,” Dr. Christakis writes. “Science is an imperfect and iterative process, and our responsibility as journal editors is to manage the process as best we can. Publishing two conflicting studies in such a short time frame serves as testament that we recognize the process for what it is.” His personal opinion is that any association has yet to be definitively established but that the journal will publish the study if a more definitive one is done.

In considering potentially contributing environmental risk factors to ASD, Gillian E. Hanley, PhD, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and two colleagues write that “meta-analyses have been unable to identify a single perinatal and neonatal factor associated with ASD risk, although some evidence suggested that exposure to a broad class of conditions such as fetal presentation, umbilical-cord complications, fetal distress, or multiple births, reflecting compromised neonatal health, may increase risk.”

Yet, they add, these studies are inconsistent in their effect size, likely because of differences in study methodology, comparison groups, sample size, diagnostic criteria, and exposure assessment.

“Thus, we continue to ask questions about whether biologically plausible associations exist or whether associations reflect residual confounding related to yet-to-be-determined maternal genetic or environmental factors,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues write. They discuss precise differences between the California and Manitoba studies and the inevitability of selection bias since people who choose an epidural will differ in other ways from those who don’t.

“Epidural labor analgesia is an extremely effective approach to obstetric analgesia, and we have a collective responsibility to understand whether it is a safe option that sets a healthy developmental pathway well into childhood,” Dr. Hanley and her colleagues conclude. “Women have the right to make a truly informed choice about their pain relief during labor.”

The research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health. One author reported receiving personal fees or grants from Aetion, Alosa Foundation, Lilly, GSK, Pacira, and Takeda. No other authors had disclosures. Dr. Jones, Dr. Myers, and the editorial authors had no disclosures.

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician compensation plummeted in the opening weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April 2020, but earnings had rebounded for many physicians by the end of the year, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021: The Recovery Begins.

Almost 18,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties told Medscape about their income, hours worked, greatest challenges, and the unexpected impact of COVID-19 on their compensation.
 

How many physicians avoided massive losses

When the pandemic started around March 2020, “a great many physicians saw reductions in volume at first,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Medscape’s survey report shows that a staggering 44% saw a 1%-25% reduction in patient volume, and 9% saw a 26%-50% decline. “That is indeed breathtaking,” Dr. Pearl says.

Several key factors saved many practices from hemorrhaging money, says Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas. “Many physicians used the federal Paycheck Protection Program [PPP] to help keep themselves afloat,” he says. “A large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses, and many got some of their volume back by transitioning to telemedicine.”

In a 2020 survey for the Physicians Foundation, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, 48% of physicians said their practice had received PPP support, and most of those said the support was enough to allow them to stay open without reducing staff. Only 6% of practices that received PPP support did not stay open.
 

Telemedicine helped many practices

Early in the pandemic, Medicare reimbursements for telemedicine were equal with those for face-to-face visits. “Since telemedicine takes a third less time than an inpatient visit, doctors could see more patients,” Dr. Pearl says.

The switch was almost instantaneous in some practices. Within 3 days, a 200-provider multispecialty practice in Wilmington, N.C., went from not using telehealth to its being used by all physicians, the Medical Group Management Association reported. By late April, the practice was already back up to about 70% of normal overall production.

However, telemedicine could not help every specialty equally. “Generally, allergists can’t do their allergy testing virtually, and patients with mild problems probably put off visits,” Dr. Pearl says. Allergists experienced a large percentage decline in compensation, according to Medscape’s survey. For some, income fell from $301,000 the prior year to $274,000 this year.
 

Primary care struggled

Primary care physicians posted lower compensation than they did the prior year, but most rebounded to some degree. A study released in June 2020 projected that, even with telemedicine, primary care physicians would lose an average of $67,774 for the year.

However, Medscape’s survey found that internists’ average compensation declined from $251,000 in the prior year to $248,000, and average family physicians’ compensation actually rose from $234,000.

Pediatricians had a harder slog. Their average compensation sank from $232,000 to $221,000, according to the report. Even with telemedicine, parents of young children were not contacting the doctor. In May 2020, visits by children aged 3-5 years were down by 56%.
 

Many proceduralists recovered

Procedure-oriented specialties were particularly hard-hit at first, because many hospitals and some states banned all elective surgeries at the beginning of the pandemic.

“In March and April, ophthalmology practices were virtually at a standstill,” says John B. Pinto, an ophthalmology practice management consultant in San Diego. “But by the fourth quarter, operations were back to normal. Practices were fully open, and patients were coming back in.”

Medscape’s survey shows that, by year’s end, compensation was about the same as the year before for orthopedic surgeons ($511,000 in both the 2020 and 2021 reports); cardiologists actually did better ($438,000 in our 2020 report and $459,000 in 2021); and ophthalmologists’ compensation was about the same ($378,000 in our prior report and $379,000 in 2021).

Some other proceduralists, however, did not do as well. Otolaryngologists’ compensation fell to $417,000, the second-biggest percentage drop. “This may be because otolaryngologists’ chief procedures are tonsillectomies, sinus surgery, and nasal surgery, which can be put off,” Dr. Pearl says.

Anesthesiologists, who depend on surgical volume, also did not earn as much in 2020. Their compensation declined from $398,000 in our 2020 report to $378,000 in Medscape’s 2021 report.

“Not only has 70% of our revenue disappeared, but our physicians are still working every day,” an independent anesthesiology practice in Alabama told the MGMA early in the pandemic.
 

Plastic surgeons now the top earners

The biggest increase in compensation by far was made by plastic surgeons, whose income rose 9.8% over the year before, to $526,000. This put them at the top of the list

Dr. Pearl adds that plastic surgeons can perform their procedures in their offices, rather than in a hospital, where elective surgeries were often canceled.

Mr. Belkin says specialties other than plastic surgery had been offering more boutique cosmetic care even before the pandemic. In 2020, nonsurgical cosmetic procedures such as neurotoxin therapy, dermal filler procedures, chemical peels, and hair removal earned $3.1 billion in revenue, according to a survey by the Aesthetic Society.
 

Other specialties that earned more even during COVID

In Medscape’s survey, several specialties actually earned more during the pandemic than in 2019. Some specialties, such as critical care and public health, were integral in managing COVID patients and the pandemic.

However, some specialties involved in COVID care did not see an increase. Compensation for infectious disease specialists (at $245,000) and emergency medicine specialists (at $354,000) remained basically unchanged from the prior year, and for pulmonologists, it was slightly down.

Emergency departments reported decreases in volume of 40% or more early in the pandemic, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians. It was reported that patients were avoiding EDs for fear of contracting COVID, and car accidents were down because people ventured out less.

In this year’s report, psychiatrists saw a modest rise in compensation, to $275,000. “There has been an increase in mental health visits in the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. In 2020, about 4 in 10 adults in the United States reported symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder, up from 1 in 10 adults the prior year. In addition, psychiatrists were third on the list of Merritt Hawkins’ most requested recruiting engagements.

Oncologists saw a rise in compensation, from $377,000 to $403,000. “Volume likely did not fall because cancer patients would go through with their chemotherapy in spite of the pandemic,” Dr. Pearl says. “The increase in income might have to do with the usual inflation in the cost of chemotherapy drugs.” Dr. Pinto saw the same trend for retinal surgeons, whose care also cannot be delayed.

Medscape’s survey also reports increases in compensation for rheumatologists, endocrinologists, and neurologists, but it reports small declines among dermatologists, radiologists, and gastroenterologists.
 

Gender-based pay gap remains in place

The gender-based pay gap in this year’s report is similar to that seen in Medscape’s report for the prior year. Men earned 27% more than women in 2021, compared with 25% more the year before. Some physicians commented that more women physicians maintained flexible or shorter work schedules to help with children who could not go into school.

“Having to be a full-time physician, full-time mom, and full-time teacher during our surge was unbelievable,” a primary care pediatrician in group practice and mother of two reported in November. “I felt pulled in all directions and didn’t do anything well.”

In addition, “men dominate some specialties that seem to have seen a smaller drop in volume in the pandemic, such as emergency medicine, infectious disease, pulmonology, and oncology,” says Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, CEO of MGMA.
 

Employed physicians shared their employers’ pain

Employed physicians, who typically work at hospitals, shared the financial pains of their institutions, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic. In April, hospital admissions were 34.1% below prepandemic levels, according to a study published in Health Affairs. That figure had risen by June, but it was still 8.3% below prepandemic volume.

By the end of the year, many hospitals and hospital systems were in the black, thanks in large part to generous federal subsidies, but actual operations still lost money for the year. Altogether, 42% of them posted an operational loss in 2020, up from the 23% in 2019, according to a survey by Moody’s Investors Service.

Medscape’s report shows that many employed physicians lost pay in 2020, and for many, pay had not returned to pre-COVID levels. Only 28% of primary care physicians and 32% of specialists who lost pay have seen it restored, according to the report. In addition, 15% of surveyed physicians did not receive an annual raise.

Many employed doctors are paid on the basis of relative value units (RVUs), which is a measure of the value of their work. In many cases, there was not enough work to reach RVU thresholds. Would hospitals and other employers lower RVU targets to meet the problem? “I haven’t seen our clients make concessions to providers along those lines,” Mr. Belkin says.
 

Physicians had to work longer hours

The Medscape report also found that in 2020, physicians saw fewer patients because each visit took longer.

“With the threat of COVID, in-person visits take more time than before,” Mr. Belkin says. “Physicians and staff have to prepare the exam room after each visit, and doctors must spend more time answering patients’ questions about COVID.”

“The new protocols to keep everyone safe add time between patients, and physicians have to answer patients’ questions about the pandemic and vaccines,” Dr. Fischer-Wright says. “You might see a 20% increase in time spent just on these non–revenue-generating COVID activities.”
 

Physicians still like their specialty

Although 2020 was a challenging year for physicians, the percentage of those who were satisfied with their specialty choice generally did not slip from the year before. It actually rose for several specialties – most notably, rheumatology, pulmonology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nephrology.

One specialty saw a decline in satisfaction with their specialty choice, and that was public health and preventive medicine, which plummeted 16 percentage points to 67% – putting it at the bottom of the list.

Even before the pandemic, many public health departments were chronically underfunded. This problem was possibly exacerbated by the pressures to keep up with COVID reporting and testing responsibilities.
 

Conclusion

Although 2020 was a wild ride for many physicians, many came out of it with only minor reductions in overall compensation, and some saw increases. Still, some specialties and many individuals experienced terrible financial stress and had to make changes in their lives and their spending in order to stay afloat.

“The biggest inhibitor to getting back to normal had to do with doctors who did not want to return because they did not want to risk getting COVID,” Dr. Pinto reports. But he notes that by February 2021 most doctors were completely vaccinated and could feel safe again.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bipolar disorder patients with comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder were significantly more likely to suffer from tic disorders, as well as hoarding, excoriation, and body dysmorphic disorder, than were those without comorbid OCD, data from 70 patients suggest.

Between 10% and 20% of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) also meet criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and these patients are more likely to experience treatment resistance and poor prognosis than are BD patients without OCD. In addition, preliminary indications suggest a specific association between OCD and bipolar depression (BP-D) in particular, wrote Leonid Braverman, MD, of Ma’ale HaCarmel Mental Health Center, Tirat Carmel, Israel, and colleagues.

In addition, “there is compelling evidence indicating that OCD-spectrum and tic disorders share with OCD clinical characteristics, familial inheritance, neurobiological underpinnings and some aspects of pharmacotherapy,” and investigations into the clinical characteristics of OCD spectrum behaviors in BP-D patients with and without OCD are ongoing, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders (2021 Mar 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jocrd.2021.100643), the researchers reviewed data from 87 adults who met the DSM-5 criteria for BP-D. Of these, 27 also met criteria for OCD, 17 for subthreshold OCD, and 43 had neither OCD nor subthreshold OCD. The researchers compared the 27 OCD patients and the 43 non-OCD patients; the OCD patients had significantly higher rates overall of body dysmorphic disorder, hoarding disorder, excoriation disorder, and tic disorder, compared with non-OCD patients (P range from < .05-0.01 for all). No differences between the groups appeared for trichotillomania.

Also, the researchers found significant between-group differences in the number of patients with at least one OCD spectrum disorder and tic disorders (13 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 3 of 37 patients in the non-OCD group) and in the co-occurrence of two OCD-spectrum and tic disorders (3 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 1 patient in the non-OCD group).

The most common comorbid psychiatric disorders in both groups were substance use and combined anxiety disorders, followed by eating disorders, but no between-group differences were found in the frequencies of any of these conditions.

“From the clinical perspective, the finding of an aggregation of OCD-spectrum and tic disorders in BP-D/OCD patients justifies evaluation of these comorbidities in BP-D patients,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size, cross-sectional design, and exclusion of subsyndromic disorders, the researchers noted. However, the results support findings from previous studies, and the study emphasizes the clinical complexity and poor prognosis for these patients. Therefore, additional research is needed in patients with BP-D verse the manic/hypomanic phases of bipolar illness to determine similar patterns, they said. Medication trials are needed to address functional impairments in these patients, given the differences in treatment of BDD, hoarding, excoriation, and tic disorders, compared with “pure” OCD, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers reported no financial conflicts.

Bipolar disorder patients with comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder were significantly more likely to suffer from tic disorders, as well as hoarding, excoriation, and body dysmorphic disorder, than were those without comorbid OCD, data from 70 patients suggest.

Between 10% and 20% of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) also meet criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and these patients are more likely to experience treatment resistance and poor prognosis than are BD patients without OCD. In addition, preliminary indications suggest a specific association between OCD and bipolar depression (BP-D) in particular, wrote Leonid Braverman, MD, of Ma’ale HaCarmel Mental Health Center, Tirat Carmel, Israel, and colleagues.

In addition, “there is compelling evidence indicating that OCD-spectrum and tic disorders share with OCD clinical characteristics, familial inheritance, neurobiological underpinnings and some aspects of pharmacotherapy,” and investigations into the clinical characteristics of OCD spectrum behaviors in BP-D patients with and without OCD are ongoing, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders (2021 Mar 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jocrd.2021.100643), the researchers reviewed data from 87 adults who met the DSM-5 criteria for BP-D. Of these, 27 also met criteria for OCD, 17 for subthreshold OCD, and 43 had neither OCD nor subthreshold OCD. The researchers compared the 27 OCD patients and the 43 non-OCD patients; the OCD patients had significantly higher rates overall of body dysmorphic disorder, hoarding disorder, excoriation disorder, and tic disorder, compared with non-OCD patients (P range from < .05-0.01 for all). No differences between the groups appeared for trichotillomania.

Also, the researchers found significant between-group differences in the number of patients with at least one OCD spectrum disorder and tic disorders (13 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 3 of 37 patients in the non-OCD group) and in the co-occurrence of two OCD-spectrum and tic disorders (3 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 1 patient in the non-OCD group).

The most common comorbid psychiatric disorders in both groups were substance use and combined anxiety disorders, followed by eating disorders, but no between-group differences were found in the frequencies of any of these conditions.

“From the clinical perspective, the finding of an aggregation of OCD-spectrum and tic disorders in BP-D/OCD patients justifies evaluation of these comorbidities in BP-D patients,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size, cross-sectional design, and exclusion of subsyndromic disorders, the researchers noted. However, the results support findings from previous studies, and the study emphasizes the clinical complexity and poor prognosis for these patients. Therefore, additional research is needed in patients with BP-D verse the manic/hypomanic phases of bipolar illness to determine similar patterns, they said. Medication trials are needed to address functional impairments in these patients, given the differences in treatment of BDD, hoarding, excoriation, and tic disorders, compared with “pure” OCD, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers reported no financial conflicts.

Bipolar disorder patients with comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder were significantly more likely to suffer from tic disorders, as well as hoarding, excoriation, and body dysmorphic disorder, than were those without comorbid OCD, data from 70 patients suggest.

Between 10% and 20% of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) also meet criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and these patients are more likely to experience treatment resistance and poor prognosis than are BD patients without OCD. In addition, preliminary indications suggest a specific association between OCD and bipolar depression (BP-D) in particular, wrote Leonid Braverman, MD, of Ma’ale HaCarmel Mental Health Center, Tirat Carmel, Israel, and colleagues.

In addition, “there is compelling evidence indicating that OCD-spectrum and tic disorders share with OCD clinical characteristics, familial inheritance, neurobiological underpinnings and some aspects of pharmacotherapy,” and investigations into the clinical characteristics of OCD spectrum behaviors in BP-D patients with and without OCD are ongoing, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders (2021 Mar 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jocrd.2021.100643), the researchers reviewed data from 87 adults who met the DSM-5 criteria for BP-D. Of these, 27 also met criteria for OCD, 17 for subthreshold OCD, and 43 had neither OCD nor subthreshold OCD. The researchers compared the 27 OCD patients and the 43 non-OCD patients; the OCD patients had significantly higher rates overall of body dysmorphic disorder, hoarding disorder, excoriation disorder, and tic disorder, compared with non-OCD patients (P range from < .05-0.01 for all). No differences between the groups appeared for trichotillomania.

Also, the researchers found significant between-group differences in the number of patients with at least one OCD spectrum disorder and tic disorders (13 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 3 of 37 patients in the non-OCD group) and in the co-occurrence of two OCD-spectrum and tic disorders (3 of 19 patients in the OCD group vs. 1 patient in the non-OCD group).

The most common comorbid psychiatric disorders in both groups were substance use and combined anxiety disorders, followed by eating disorders, but no between-group differences were found in the frequencies of any of these conditions.

“From the clinical perspective, the finding of an aggregation of OCD-spectrum and tic disorders in BP-D/OCD patients justifies evaluation of these comorbidities in BP-D patients,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size, cross-sectional design, and exclusion of subsyndromic disorders, the researchers noted. However, the results support findings from previous studies, and the study emphasizes the clinical complexity and poor prognosis for these patients. Therefore, additional research is needed in patients with BP-D verse the manic/hypomanic phases of bipolar illness to determine similar patterns, they said. Medication trials are needed to address functional impairments in these patients, given the differences in treatment of BDD, hoarding, excoriation, and tic disorders, compared with “pure” OCD, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers reported no financial conflicts.

In April, federal rules implementing the bipartisan federal 21st Century Cures Act went into effect that allow patients to see their clinical notes. While some clinicians consider it an unwelcome intrusion, advocates say it will improve communication and compliance.

Patient access to notes is not new. In many states, patients already have the ability to request copies of their charts, or to access truncated information via clinic websites. The difference is that most patients will now be able to click on a patient portal – such as MyChart, or other similar apps – and gain instantaneous, unfettered access to everything in their records.

Clinicians have traditionally thought of medical notes as private journal entries; but in the last few decades they have become an important component of the documentation necessary for billing, as well as evidence in the event of litigation. Now, with the implementation of the Cures Act, medical notes have evolved into a tool to communicate with the patient, rather than just among health care providers, lawyers, and billing departments.

Supporters contend that this change will make a big difference, because patients will be able to see exactly what their doctors have written, rather than just a list of confusing test results and diagnosis lists in “medicalese.”

OpenNotes, a think tank that has promoted the sharing of clinical notes with patients for years, calls the Cures Act legislation a “new world” where shared notes are valuable tools to improve communication between patients and physicians while strengthening their relationship. They cite evidence indicating that “when health professionals offer patients and families ready access to clinical notes, the quality and safety of care improves.”

Not all doctors are as enthusiastic. Many are concerned that patients might misinterpret what they see in their doctors’ notes, including complex descriptions of clinical assessments and decisions.

Others worry about patients having immediate access to their records, perhaps even before their physicians. The American Academy of Dermatology is working with the American Medical Association and other groups to gather real-world instances where the release of lab results, reports, or notes directly to patients before their physician could review the information with them caused emotional harm or other adverse consequences.

Undoubtedly, there are scenarios where unrestricted display of clinical notes could be problematic. One example is the issue of adolescents and reproductive health. Since parents now have access to their children’s records, some teenagers might hesitate to confide in their physicians and deny themselves important medical care.

The new rules permit blocking access to records if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or third parties. Psychotherapy counseling notes, for example, are completely exempt from the new requirements.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new federal law and block access to notes. For example, California law forbids providers from posting cancer test results without discussing them with the patient first.

Research indicates that shared notes have benefits that should outweigh the concerns of most physicians. One study showed that about 70% of patients said reviewing their notes helped them understand why medications were prescribed, which improved their compliance. This was particularly true for patients whose primary language is not English. A British study found that patients felt empowered by shared notes, and thought they improved their relationship with their physicians.

Other advantages of sharing notes include the ability of family members to review what happened at visits, which can be particularly important when dementia or other disabilities are involved. Patients will also be able to share their medical records with physicians outside of their health network, thus avoiding unnecessary or repetitious workups.

OpenNotes contends that when patients review their doctors’ notes, they gain “a newfound, deeper respect for what physicians have to understand to do their jobs.” Other predicted advantages include improved medical record accuracy and less miscommunication. In a study published in 2019 that evaluated experiences of patients who read ambulatory visit notes, only 5% were more worried after reading the notes and 3% were confused.

Alleviating worry among clinicians may be a bigger problem; but as a general principle, you should avoid judgmental language, and never write anything in a chart that you wouldn’t want your patients or their family members – or lawyers – to see.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In April, federal rules implementing the bipartisan federal 21st Century Cures Act went into effect that allow patients to see their clinical notes. While some clinicians consider it an unwelcome intrusion, advocates say it will improve communication and compliance.

Patient access to notes is not new. In many states, patients already have the ability to request copies of their charts, or to access truncated information via clinic websites. The difference is that most patients will now be able to click on a patient portal – such as MyChart, or other similar apps – and gain instantaneous, unfettered access to everything in their records.

Clinicians have traditionally thought of medical notes as private journal entries; but in the last few decades they have become an important component of the documentation necessary for billing, as well as evidence in the event of litigation. Now, with the implementation of the Cures Act, medical notes have evolved into a tool to communicate with the patient, rather than just among health care providers, lawyers, and billing departments.

Supporters contend that this change will make a big difference, because patients will be able to see exactly what their doctors have written, rather than just a list of confusing test results and diagnosis lists in “medicalese.”

OpenNotes, a think tank that has promoted the sharing of clinical notes with patients for years, calls the Cures Act legislation a “new world” where shared notes are valuable tools to improve communication between patients and physicians while strengthening their relationship. They cite evidence indicating that “when health professionals offer patients and families ready access to clinical notes, the quality and safety of care improves.”

Not all doctors are as enthusiastic. Many are concerned that patients might misinterpret what they see in their doctors’ notes, including complex descriptions of clinical assessments and decisions.

Others worry about patients having immediate access to their records, perhaps even before their physicians. The American Academy of Dermatology is working with the American Medical Association and other groups to gather real-world instances where the release of lab results, reports, or notes directly to patients before their physician could review the information with them caused emotional harm or other adverse consequences.

Undoubtedly, there are scenarios where unrestricted display of clinical notes could be problematic. One example is the issue of adolescents and reproductive health. Since parents now have access to their children’s records, some teenagers might hesitate to confide in their physicians and deny themselves important medical care.

The new rules permit blocking access to records if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or third parties. Psychotherapy counseling notes, for example, are completely exempt from the new requirements.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new federal law and block access to notes. For example, California law forbids providers from posting cancer test results without discussing them with the patient first.

Research indicates that shared notes have benefits that should outweigh the concerns of most physicians. One study showed that about 70% of patients said reviewing their notes helped them understand why medications were prescribed, which improved their compliance. This was particularly true for patients whose primary language is not English. A British study found that patients felt empowered by shared notes, and thought they improved their relationship with their physicians.

Other advantages of sharing notes include the ability of family members to review what happened at visits, which can be particularly important when dementia or other disabilities are involved. Patients will also be able to share their medical records with physicians outside of their health network, thus avoiding unnecessary or repetitious workups.

OpenNotes contends that when patients review their doctors’ notes, they gain “a newfound, deeper respect for what physicians have to understand to do their jobs.” Other predicted advantages include improved medical record accuracy and less miscommunication. In a study published in 2019 that evaluated experiences of patients who read ambulatory visit notes, only 5% were more worried after reading the notes and 3% were confused.

Alleviating worry among clinicians may be a bigger problem; but as a general principle, you should avoid judgmental language, and never write anything in a chart that you wouldn’t want your patients or their family members – or lawyers – to see.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In April, federal rules implementing the bipartisan federal 21st Century Cures Act went into effect that allow patients to see their clinical notes. While some clinicians consider it an unwelcome intrusion, advocates say it will improve communication and compliance.

Patient access to notes is not new. In many states, patients already have the ability to request copies of their charts, or to access truncated information via clinic websites. The difference is that most patients will now be able to click on a patient portal – such as MyChart, or other similar apps – and gain instantaneous, unfettered access to everything in their records.

Clinicians have traditionally thought of medical notes as private journal entries; but in the last few decades they have become an important component of the documentation necessary for billing, as well as evidence in the event of litigation. Now, with the implementation of the Cures Act, medical notes have evolved into a tool to communicate with the patient, rather than just among health care providers, lawyers, and billing departments.

Supporters contend that this change will make a big difference, because patients will be able to see exactly what their doctors have written, rather than just a list of confusing test results and diagnosis lists in “medicalese.”

OpenNotes, a think tank that has promoted the sharing of clinical notes with patients for years, calls the Cures Act legislation a “new world” where shared notes are valuable tools to improve communication between patients and physicians while strengthening their relationship. They cite evidence indicating that “when health professionals offer patients and families ready access to clinical notes, the quality and safety of care improves.”

Not all doctors are as enthusiastic. Many are concerned that patients might misinterpret what they see in their doctors’ notes, including complex descriptions of clinical assessments and decisions.

Others worry about patients having immediate access to their records, perhaps even before their physicians. The American Academy of Dermatology is working with the American Medical Association and other groups to gather real-world instances where the release of lab results, reports, or notes directly to patients before their physician could review the information with them caused emotional harm or other adverse consequences.

Undoubtedly, there are scenarios where unrestricted display of clinical notes could be problematic. One example is the issue of adolescents and reproductive health. Since parents now have access to their children’s records, some teenagers might hesitate to confide in their physicians and deny themselves important medical care.

The new rules permit blocking access to records if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or third parties. Psychotherapy counseling notes, for example, are completely exempt from the new requirements.

There are also state-level laws that can supersede the new federal law and block access to notes. For example, California law forbids providers from posting cancer test results without discussing them with the patient first.

Research indicates that shared notes have benefits that should outweigh the concerns of most physicians. One study showed that about 70% of patients said reviewing their notes helped them understand why medications were prescribed, which improved their compliance. This was particularly true for patients whose primary language is not English. A British study found that patients felt empowered by shared notes, and thought they improved their relationship with their physicians.

Other advantages of sharing notes include the ability of family members to review what happened at visits, which can be particularly important when dementia or other disabilities are involved. Patients will also be able to share their medical records with physicians outside of their health network, thus avoiding unnecessary or repetitious workups.

OpenNotes contends that when patients review their doctors’ notes, they gain “a newfound, deeper respect for what physicians have to understand to do their jobs.” Other predicted advantages include improved medical record accuracy and less miscommunication. In a study published in 2019 that evaluated experiences of patients who read ambulatory visit notes, only 5% were more worried after reading the notes and 3% were confused.

Alleviating worry among clinicians may be a bigger problem; but as a general principle, you should avoid judgmental language, and never write anything in a chart that you wouldn’t want your patients or their family members – or lawyers – to see.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The majority of patients with migraine do not get the recommended amount of weekly exercise, but those who do gain benefits that extend to fewer migraine days and reduced rates of triggers including stress, depression, and sleep problems, new research shows.

“This study adds to an ever-growing body of research that points to exercise as an effective way to promote general well-being and reduce monthly migraine days,” said study investigator Mason Dyess, DO, from the University of Washington, Seattle. “This study also highlights that exercise is an underutilized resource in migraine sufferers.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology..
 

An accessible prophylactic

Dr. Dyess said that the COVID-19 pandemic prompted him and his colleagues to investigate how many patients with migraine in their headache clinic were utilizing “one of the most accessible prevention tools for migraine – exercise.”

“The pandemic has restricted physical and financial access to care for patients in our community and across the country, so understanding how exercise is being used by our patients and its effect on monthly migraine days has never been more important,” Dr. Dyess said.

The study involved 4,647 people diagnosed with migraine. About three-fourths had chronic migraine (at least 15 migraine days a month) and about one-quarter had episodic migraine (up to 14 monthly migraine days).

The patients provided information via a questionnaire about their migraine characteristics, sleep, depression, stress, anxiety, and the amount of moderate to vigorous exercise they got each week.

Only 27% of patients reported getting at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week, the minimum amount recommended by the World Health Organization.

Patients with migraine who did not achieve the minimum 2.5 hours of moderate to vigorous exercise recommended per week had increased rates of depression, anxiety, and sleep problems.
 

A word of caution

Depression was reported by 47% of patients who reported no exercise, compared with 25% of people who reported the recommended amount of weekly exercise.

Anxiety was reported by 39% of people who did not exercise, compared with 28% of those who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise. Sleep problems were reported by 77% of the nonexercisers versus 61% of those who achieved the recommended exercise amount.

Exercise also appeared to reduce the risk for migraine attacks.

Among patients who did not exercise, 48% had high headache frequency (25-plus headache days per month), while only 5% had low headache frequency (0-4 headache days per month).

In contrast, of people who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise per week, 28% had high headache frequency and 10% had low headache frequency.

“Exercise should be part of the discussion while counseling patients with migraines. This is a resource available across the socioeconomic spectrum that is easily integrated into the plan of care for many patients,” said Dr. Dyess. 

However, he cautioned that there is a subgroup of migraine patients for whom moderate to vigorous exercise is simply not tolerable. “In these patients, research points to the promotion of a healthy diet and lifestyle with gentle movement exercises like yoga rather than aggressively pursuing moderate or vigorous exercise regimens,” Dr. Dyess said.
 

A ‘puzzling’ relationship

Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the interaction of exercise and migraine is “puzzling.”

“First, it is well known that strenuous physical exercise may aggravate or even trigger migraine attacks. These are found even in the migraine diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Lakhan. “Interestingly, there is a body of evidence that demonstrates a basic level of exercise as prophylactic treatment for migraine.”

Dr. Lakhan said that exercise is “definitely underutilized in clinical practice for migraine for these reasons: Migraineurs have fear avoidance behavior given the strenuous physical exercise as a potential trigger.”

Also weighing in on the study, Noah Rosen, MD, director of Northwell Health’s Headache Center in Great Neck, N.Y., said it’s a “useful reminder of the benefits that can be achieved without medication, but we need more information to give better guidance. I wish this study had given us more information as to what type of exercise was best for people with migraine, whether active group sports, running, swimming, or others.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients with migraine do not get the recommended amount of weekly exercise, but those who do gain benefits that extend to fewer migraine days and reduced rates of triggers including stress, depression, and sleep problems, new research shows.

“This study adds to an ever-growing body of research that points to exercise as an effective way to promote general well-being and reduce monthly migraine days,” said study investigator Mason Dyess, DO, from the University of Washington, Seattle. “This study also highlights that exercise is an underutilized resource in migraine sufferers.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology..
 

An accessible prophylactic

Dr. Dyess said that the COVID-19 pandemic prompted him and his colleagues to investigate how many patients with migraine in their headache clinic were utilizing “one of the most accessible prevention tools for migraine – exercise.”

“The pandemic has restricted physical and financial access to care for patients in our community and across the country, so understanding how exercise is being used by our patients and its effect on monthly migraine days has never been more important,” Dr. Dyess said.

The study involved 4,647 people diagnosed with migraine. About three-fourths had chronic migraine (at least 15 migraine days a month) and about one-quarter had episodic migraine (up to 14 monthly migraine days).

The patients provided information via a questionnaire about their migraine characteristics, sleep, depression, stress, anxiety, and the amount of moderate to vigorous exercise they got each week.

Only 27% of patients reported getting at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week, the minimum amount recommended by the World Health Organization.

Patients with migraine who did not achieve the minimum 2.5 hours of moderate to vigorous exercise recommended per week had increased rates of depression, anxiety, and sleep problems.
 

A word of caution

Depression was reported by 47% of patients who reported no exercise, compared with 25% of people who reported the recommended amount of weekly exercise.

Anxiety was reported by 39% of people who did not exercise, compared with 28% of those who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise. Sleep problems were reported by 77% of the nonexercisers versus 61% of those who achieved the recommended exercise amount.

Exercise also appeared to reduce the risk for migraine attacks.

Among patients who did not exercise, 48% had high headache frequency (25-plus headache days per month), while only 5% had low headache frequency (0-4 headache days per month).

In contrast, of people who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise per week, 28% had high headache frequency and 10% had low headache frequency.

“Exercise should be part of the discussion while counseling patients with migraines. This is a resource available across the socioeconomic spectrum that is easily integrated into the plan of care for many patients,” said Dr. Dyess. 

However, he cautioned that there is a subgroup of migraine patients for whom moderate to vigorous exercise is simply not tolerable. “In these patients, research points to the promotion of a healthy diet and lifestyle with gentle movement exercises like yoga rather than aggressively pursuing moderate or vigorous exercise regimens,” Dr. Dyess said.
 

A ‘puzzling’ relationship

Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the interaction of exercise and migraine is “puzzling.”

“First, it is well known that strenuous physical exercise may aggravate or even trigger migraine attacks. These are found even in the migraine diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Lakhan. “Interestingly, there is a body of evidence that demonstrates a basic level of exercise as prophylactic treatment for migraine.”

Dr. Lakhan said that exercise is “definitely underutilized in clinical practice for migraine for these reasons: Migraineurs have fear avoidance behavior given the strenuous physical exercise as a potential trigger.”

Also weighing in on the study, Noah Rosen, MD, director of Northwell Health’s Headache Center in Great Neck, N.Y., said it’s a “useful reminder of the benefits that can be achieved without medication, but we need more information to give better guidance. I wish this study had given us more information as to what type of exercise was best for people with migraine, whether active group sports, running, swimming, or others.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients with migraine do not get the recommended amount of weekly exercise, but those who do gain benefits that extend to fewer migraine days and reduced rates of triggers including stress, depression, and sleep problems, new research shows.

“This study adds to an ever-growing body of research that points to exercise as an effective way to promote general well-being and reduce monthly migraine days,” said study investigator Mason Dyess, DO, from the University of Washington, Seattle. “This study also highlights that exercise is an underutilized resource in migraine sufferers.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology..
 

An accessible prophylactic

Dr. Dyess said that the COVID-19 pandemic prompted him and his colleagues to investigate how many patients with migraine in their headache clinic were utilizing “one of the most accessible prevention tools for migraine – exercise.”

“The pandemic has restricted physical and financial access to care for patients in our community and across the country, so understanding how exercise is being used by our patients and its effect on monthly migraine days has never been more important,” Dr. Dyess said.

The study involved 4,647 people diagnosed with migraine. About three-fourths had chronic migraine (at least 15 migraine days a month) and about one-quarter had episodic migraine (up to 14 monthly migraine days).

The patients provided information via a questionnaire about their migraine characteristics, sleep, depression, stress, anxiety, and the amount of moderate to vigorous exercise they got each week.

Only 27% of patients reported getting at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week, the minimum amount recommended by the World Health Organization.

Patients with migraine who did not achieve the minimum 2.5 hours of moderate to vigorous exercise recommended per week had increased rates of depression, anxiety, and sleep problems.
 

A word of caution

Depression was reported by 47% of patients who reported no exercise, compared with 25% of people who reported the recommended amount of weekly exercise.

Anxiety was reported by 39% of people who did not exercise, compared with 28% of those who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise. Sleep problems were reported by 77% of the nonexercisers versus 61% of those who achieved the recommended exercise amount.

Exercise also appeared to reduce the risk for migraine attacks.

Among patients who did not exercise, 48% had high headache frequency (25-plus headache days per month), while only 5% had low headache frequency (0-4 headache days per month).

In contrast, of people who got the recommended 150-plus minutes of exercise per week, 28% had high headache frequency and 10% had low headache frequency.

“Exercise should be part of the discussion while counseling patients with migraines. This is a resource available across the socioeconomic spectrum that is easily integrated into the plan of care for many patients,” said Dr. Dyess. 

However, he cautioned that there is a subgroup of migraine patients for whom moderate to vigorous exercise is simply not tolerable. “In these patients, research points to the promotion of a healthy diet and lifestyle with gentle movement exercises like yoga rather than aggressively pursuing moderate or vigorous exercise regimens,” Dr. Dyess said.
 

A ‘puzzling’ relationship

Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the interaction of exercise and migraine is “puzzling.”

“First, it is well known that strenuous physical exercise may aggravate or even trigger migraine attacks. These are found even in the migraine diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Lakhan. “Interestingly, there is a body of evidence that demonstrates a basic level of exercise as prophylactic treatment for migraine.”

Dr. Lakhan said that exercise is “definitely underutilized in clinical practice for migraine for these reasons: Migraineurs have fear avoidance behavior given the strenuous physical exercise as a potential trigger.”

Also weighing in on the study, Noah Rosen, MD, director of Northwell Health’s Headache Center in Great Neck, N.Y., said it’s a “useful reminder of the benefits that can be achieved without medication, but we need more information to give better guidance. I wish this study had given us more information as to what type of exercise was best for people with migraine, whether active group sports, running, swimming, or others.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately three-quarters of Mohs surgeons recommended nicotinamide for prevention of keratinocyte carcinoma, in a survey of members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons.

Although nicotinamide, a vitamin B3 derivative, has been shown to reduce keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in high-risk patients, it is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chemoprevention, and no safe upper limit has been established in clinical trials to date, wrote Sheena Desai of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The investigators emailed an anonymous 12-question survey to 1,500 members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons. Of the 170 who responded, 10 were excluded for discordant responses, leaving 160 participants whose replies were included in a multiple logistic regression analysis. The respondents were mainly U.S. board-certified dermatologists and Mohs surgeons (99.4% for both); 86.9% were in clinical practice, including 78.8% in private practice, according to the report of the results, published in Dermatologic Surgery.

Overall, 76.9% of the respondents said they recommended nicotinamide for preventing KC, and 20% said they had recommended nicotinamide to more than 100 patients in the past year. In addition, 45% of respondents reported patients who had been taking nicotinamide for 2 years or more. Overall, 63.8% of the respondents expressed no concerns about long-term safety of nicotinamide, compared with 28.1% who said they were uncertain about long-term safety. Those who expressed concern or uncertainty about long-term safety were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for KC prevention in the past year (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.71). Clinicians with more than 10 years in practice were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for chemoprevention (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.05-0.82).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the low number of responses and the potential lack of generalizability to clinicians other than Mohs surgeons, the researchers noted. “Additional studies on nicotinamide safety and use patterns, including cost-effectiveness analyses, are needed given the widespread use identified in this study,” they concluded.

Limited safety data highlight research gaps

The study is particularly important at this time because nicotinamide has been increasingly used for KC chemoprevention since a randomized, controlled trial published in 2015 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed benefits, corresponding author Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. That study of high-risk patients found that nicotinamide, 500 mg twice a day, was safe and effective in lowering the rates of new nonmelanoma skin cancers and AKs after 12 months .

“However, because this is not a prescription medication, but rather an OTC vitamin supplement, data on its use are not available,” she said.

Dr. Hartman said she was not surprised that nicotinamide is being used frequently by a majority of the survey respondents. “Most are using this if someone has two KCs over 2 years, which is a quite common occurrence,” she noted. However, “I was a bit surprised that nearly two-thirds had no safety concerns with long-term use, even though this has not been well-studied,” she added.

“Like anything we recommend, we must consider the risks and benefits,” Dr. Hartman said of nicotinamide. “Unfortunately, we don’t know the risks well, since this hasn’t been well-characterized with regular long-term use in these doses,” and more research is needed, she said. “The risks are likely low, as this is a vitamin that has been used for years in various OTC supplements,” she added. “However, there are some data showing slightly increased all-cause mortality with similar doses of a related medicine, niacin, in cardiovascular patients. For this reason, I recommend the medication when a patient’s KCs are really becoming burdensome – several KCs in a year or two – or when they are high-risk due to immunosuppression,” she explained.

“We also must consider the individual patient. For a healthy younger patient who has a public-facing job and as a result is very averse to developing any KCs on his or her face and very motivated to try prevention, it may make sense to try nicotinamide,” Dr. Hartman said. But for an older patient with cardiovascular comorbidities who is not bothered by a KC on his or her back or extremities, “this medication may not have a favorable risk-benefit profile.”

To address safety concerns, “researchers need to examine whether there are any harms in long-term regular nicotinamide use for KC prevention,” Dr. Hartman said. “This is something we hope to do in our patients; however, it is challenging to study in a retrospective way since the harm is likely small and there are so many other features that influence mortality as an outcome,” she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately three-quarters of Mohs surgeons recommended nicotinamide for prevention of keratinocyte carcinoma, in a survey of members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons.

Although nicotinamide, a vitamin B3 derivative, has been shown to reduce keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in high-risk patients, it is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chemoprevention, and no safe upper limit has been established in clinical trials to date, wrote Sheena Desai of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The investigators emailed an anonymous 12-question survey to 1,500 members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons. Of the 170 who responded, 10 were excluded for discordant responses, leaving 160 participants whose replies were included in a multiple logistic regression analysis. The respondents were mainly U.S. board-certified dermatologists and Mohs surgeons (99.4% for both); 86.9% were in clinical practice, including 78.8% in private practice, according to the report of the results, published in Dermatologic Surgery.

Overall, 76.9% of the respondents said they recommended nicotinamide for preventing KC, and 20% said they had recommended nicotinamide to more than 100 patients in the past year. In addition, 45% of respondents reported patients who had been taking nicotinamide for 2 years or more. Overall, 63.8% of the respondents expressed no concerns about long-term safety of nicotinamide, compared with 28.1% who said they were uncertain about long-term safety. Those who expressed concern or uncertainty about long-term safety were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for KC prevention in the past year (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.71). Clinicians with more than 10 years in practice were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for chemoprevention (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.05-0.82).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the low number of responses and the potential lack of generalizability to clinicians other than Mohs surgeons, the researchers noted. “Additional studies on nicotinamide safety and use patterns, including cost-effectiveness analyses, are needed given the widespread use identified in this study,” they concluded.

Limited safety data highlight research gaps

The study is particularly important at this time because nicotinamide has been increasingly used for KC chemoprevention since a randomized, controlled trial published in 2015 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed benefits, corresponding author Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. That study of high-risk patients found that nicotinamide, 500 mg twice a day, was safe and effective in lowering the rates of new nonmelanoma skin cancers and AKs after 12 months .

“However, because this is not a prescription medication, but rather an OTC vitamin supplement, data on its use are not available,” she said.

Dr. Hartman said she was not surprised that nicotinamide is being used frequently by a majority of the survey respondents. “Most are using this if someone has two KCs over 2 years, which is a quite common occurrence,” she noted. However, “I was a bit surprised that nearly two-thirds had no safety concerns with long-term use, even though this has not been well-studied,” she added.

“Like anything we recommend, we must consider the risks and benefits,” Dr. Hartman said of nicotinamide. “Unfortunately, we don’t know the risks well, since this hasn’t been well-characterized with regular long-term use in these doses,” and more research is needed, she said. “The risks are likely low, as this is a vitamin that has been used for years in various OTC supplements,” she added. “However, there are some data showing slightly increased all-cause mortality with similar doses of a related medicine, niacin, in cardiovascular patients. For this reason, I recommend the medication when a patient’s KCs are really becoming burdensome – several KCs in a year or two – or when they are high-risk due to immunosuppression,” she explained.

“We also must consider the individual patient. For a healthy younger patient who has a public-facing job and as a result is very averse to developing any KCs on his or her face and very motivated to try prevention, it may make sense to try nicotinamide,” Dr. Hartman said. But for an older patient with cardiovascular comorbidities who is not bothered by a KC on his or her back or extremities, “this medication may not have a favorable risk-benefit profile.”

To address safety concerns, “researchers need to examine whether there are any harms in long-term regular nicotinamide use for KC prevention,” Dr. Hartman said. “This is something we hope to do in our patients; however, it is challenging to study in a retrospective way since the harm is likely small and there are so many other features that influence mortality as an outcome,” she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately three-quarters of Mohs surgeons recommended nicotinamide for prevention of keratinocyte carcinoma, in a survey of members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons.

Although nicotinamide, a vitamin B3 derivative, has been shown to reduce keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in high-risk patients, it is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chemoprevention, and no safe upper limit has been established in clinical trials to date, wrote Sheena Desai of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The investigators emailed an anonymous 12-question survey to 1,500 members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons. Of the 170 who responded, 10 were excluded for discordant responses, leaving 160 participants whose replies were included in a multiple logistic regression analysis. The respondents were mainly U.S. board-certified dermatologists and Mohs surgeons (99.4% for both); 86.9% were in clinical practice, including 78.8% in private practice, according to the report of the results, published in Dermatologic Surgery.

Overall, 76.9% of the respondents said they recommended nicotinamide for preventing KC, and 20% said they had recommended nicotinamide to more than 100 patients in the past year. In addition, 45% of respondents reported patients who had been taking nicotinamide for 2 years or more. Overall, 63.8% of the respondents expressed no concerns about long-term safety of nicotinamide, compared with 28.1% who said they were uncertain about long-term safety. Those who expressed concern or uncertainty about long-term safety were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for KC prevention in the past year (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.71). Clinicians with more than 10 years in practice were significantly less likely to recommend nicotinamide for chemoprevention (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.05-0.82).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the low number of responses and the potential lack of generalizability to clinicians other than Mohs surgeons, the researchers noted. “Additional studies on nicotinamide safety and use patterns, including cost-effectiveness analyses, are needed given the widespread use identified in this study,” they concluded.

Limited safety data highlight research gaps

The study is particularly important at this time because nicotinamide has been increasingly used for KC chemoprevention since a randomized, controlled trial published in 2015 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed benefits, corresponding author Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, said in an interview. That study of high-risk patients found that nicotinamide, 500 mg twice a day, was safe and effective in lowering the rates of new nonmelanoma skin cancers and AKs after 12 months .

“However, because this is not a prescription medication, but rather an OTC vitamin supplement, data on its use are not available,” she said.

Dr. Hartman said she was not surprised that nicotinamide is being used frequently by a majority of the survey respondents. “Most are using this if someone has two KCs over 2 years, which is a quite common occurrence,” she noted. However, “I was a bit surprised that nearly two-thirds had no safety concerns with long-term use, even though this has not been well-studied,” she added.

“Like anything we recommend, we must consider the risks and benefits,” Dr. Hartman said of nicotinamide. “Unfortunately, we don’t know the risks well, since this hasn’t been well-characterized with regular long-term use in these doses,” and more research is needed, she said. “The risks are likely low, as this is a vitamin that has been used for years in various OTC supplements,” she added. “However, there are some data showing slightly increased all-cause mortality with similar doses of a related medicine, niacin, in cardiovascular patients. For this reason, I recommend the medication when a patient’s KCs are really becoming burdensome – several KCs in a year or two – or when they are high-risk due to immunosuppression,” she explained.

“We also must consider the individual patient. For a healthy younger patient who has a public-facing job and as a result is very averse to developing any KCs on his or her face and very motivated to try prevention, it may make sense to try nicotinamide,” Dr. Hartman said. But for an older patient with cardiovascular comorbidities who is not bothered by a KC on his or her back or extremities, “this medication may not have a favorable risk-benefit profile.”

To address safety concerns, “researchers need to examine whether there are any harms in long-term regular nicotinamide use for KC prevention,” Dr. Hartman said. “This is something we hope to do in our patients; however, it is challenging to study in a retrospective way since the harm is likely small and there are so many other features that influence mortality as an outcome,” she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.