16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Changes in Health Services Use Among Commercially Insured US Populations During the COVID-19 Pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          How did health services use among commercially insured populations change during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States?

          Findings

          This cross-sectional study with a claims-based analysis of 6.8 million commercially insured individuals found that during the initial phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in March and April of 2020, patients significantly reduced use of preventive and elective care and increased use of telemedicine but not enough to offset reductions in in-person care. Racial/ethnic and income disparities were seen in changes in use of in-person care and telemedicine.

          Meaning

          In this study, the initial 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with large reductions in use of health services; future policy initiatives should ensure that these reductions do not adversely affect patient health.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study analyzes health insurance claims among commercially-insured individuals to asess changes in the use of health services in the Unted States during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Abstract

          Importance

          The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on patients and health care professionals and institutions, but the association of the pandemic with use of preventive, elective, and nonelective care, as well as potential disparities in use of health care, remain unknown.

          Objective

          To examine changes in health care use during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April of 2020 relative to March and April of 2019 and 2018, and to examine whether changes in use differ by patient’s zip code–level race/ethnicity or income.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional study analyzed health insurance claims for patients from all 50 US states who receive health insurance through their employers. Changes in use of preventive services, nonelective care, elective procedures, prescription drugs, in-person office visits, and telemedicine visits were examined during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 relative to existing trends in 2019 and 2018. Disparities in the association of the pandemic with health care use based on patient’s zip code–level race and income were also examined.

          Results

          Data from 5.6, 6.4, and 6.8 million US individuals with employer-sponsored insurance in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, were analyzed. Patient demographics were similar in all 3 years (mean [SD] age, 34.3 [18.6] years in 2018, 34.3 [18.5] years in 2019, and 34.5 [18.5] years in 2020); 50.0% women in 2018, 49.5% women in 2019, and 49.5% women in 2020). In March and April 2020, regression-adjusted use rate per 10 000 persons changed by −28.2 (95% CI, −30.5 to −25.9) and −64.5 (95% CI, −66.8 to −62.2) for colonoscopies; −149.1 (95% CI, −162.0 to −16.2) and −342.1 (95% CI, −355.0 to −329.2) for mammograms; −60.0 (95% CI, −63.3 to −54.7) and −118.1 (95% CI, −112.4 to −113.9) for hemoglobin A 1c tests; −300.5 (95% CI, −346.5 to −254.5) and −369.0 (95% CI, −414.7 to −323.4) for child vaccines; −4.6 (95% CI, −5.3 to −3.9) and −10.9 (95% CI, −11.6 to −10.2) for musculoskeletal surgery; −1.1 (95% CI, −1.4 to −0.7) and −3.4 (95% CI, −3.8 to −3.0) for cataract surgery; −13.4 (95% CI, −14.6 to −12.2) and −31.4 (95% CI, −32.6 to −30.2) for magnetic resonance imaging; and −581.1 (95% CI, −612.9 to −549.3) and −1465 (95% CI, −1496 to −1433) for in-person office visits. Use of telemedicine services increased by 227.9 (95% CI, 221.7 to 234.1) per 10 000 persons and 641.6 (95% CI, 635.5 to 647.8) per 10 000 persons. Patients living in zip codes with lower-income or majority racial/ethnic minority populations experienced smaller reductions in in-person visits (≥80% racial/ethnic minority zip code: 200.0 per 10 000 [95% CI, 128.9-270.1]; 79%-21% racial/ethnic minority zip code: 54.2 per 10 000 [95% CI, 33.6-74.9]) but also had lower rates of adoption of telemedicine (≥80% racial/ethnic minority zip code: −71.6 per 10 000 [95% CI, −87.6 to −55.5]; 79%-21% racial/ethnic minority zip code: −15.1 per 10 000 [95% CI, −19.8 to −10.4]).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cross-sectional study of a large US population with employer-sponsored insurance, the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with dramatic reductions in the use of preventive and elective care. Use of telemedicine increased rapidly but not enough to account for reductions in in-person primary care visits. Race and income disparities at the zip code level exist in use of telemedicine.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Department Visits — United States, January 1, 2019–May 30, 2020

          On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency to combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As the number of persons hospitalized with COVID-19 increased, early reports from Austria ( 1 ), Hong Kong ( 2 ), Italy ( 3 ), and California ( 4 ) suggested sharp drops in the numbers of persons seeking emergency medical care for other reasons. To quantify the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. emergency department (ED) visits, CDC compared the volume of ED visits during four weeks early in the pandemic March 29–April 25, 2020 (weeks 14 to 17; the early pandemic period) to that during March 31–April 27, 2019 (the comparison period). During the early pandemic period, the total number of U.S. ED visits was 42% lower than during the same period a year earlier, with the largest declines in visits in persons aged ≤14 years, females, and the Northeast region. Health messages that reinforce the importance of immediately seeking care for symptoms of serious conditions, such as myocardial infarction, are needed. To minimize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, transmission risk and address public concerns about visiting the ED during the pandemic, CDC recommends continued use of virtual visits and triage help lines and adherence to CDC infection control guidance. To assess trends in ED visits during the pandemic, CDC analyzed data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP), a collaborative network developed and maintained by CDC, state and local health departments, and academic and private sector health partners to collect electronic health data in real time. The national data in NSSP includes ED visits from a subset of hospitals in 47 states (all but Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming), capturing approximately 73% of ED visits in the United States able to be analyzed at the national level. During the most recent week, 3,552 EDs reported data. Total ED visit volume, as well as patient age, sex, region, and reason for visit were analyzed. Weekly number of ED visits were examined during January 1, 2019–May 30, 2020. In addition, ED visits during two 4-week periods were compared using mean differences and ratios. The change in mean visits per week during the early pandemic period and the comparison period was calculated as the mean difference in total visits in a diagnostic category between the two periods, divided by 4 weeks ([visits in diagnostic category {early pandemic period} – visits in diagnostic category {comparison period}]/4). The visit prevalence ratio (PR) was calculated for each diagnostic category as the proportion of ED visits during the early pandemic period divided by the proportion of visits during the comparison period ([visits in category {early pandemic period}/all visits {early pandemic period}]/[visits in category {comparison period}/all visits {comparison period}]). All analyses were conducted using R software (version 3.6.0; R Foundation). Reason for visit was analyzed using a subset of records that had at least one specific, billable International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) code. In addition to Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming, four states (Florida, Louisiana, New York outside New York City, and Oklahoma), two California counties reporting to the NSSP (Santa Cruz and Solano), and the District of Columbia were also excluded from the diagnostic code analysis because they did not report diagnostic codes during both periods or had differences in completeness of codes between 2019 and 2020. Among eligible visits for the diagnostic code analysis, 20.3% without a valid ICD-10-CM code were excluded. ED visits were categorized using the Clinical Classifications Software Refined tool (version 2020.2; Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project), which combines ICD-10-CM codes into clinically meaningful groups ( 5 ). A visit with multiple ICD-10-CM codes could be included in multiple categories; for example, a visit by a patient with diabetes and hypertension would be included in the category for diabetes and the category for hypertension. Because COVID-19 is not yet classified in this tool, a custom category, defined as any visit with the ICD-10-CM code for confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis (U07.1), was created ( 6 ). The analysis was limited to the top 200 diagnostic categories during each period. The lowest number of visits reported to NSSP occurred during April 12–18, 2020 (week 16). Although visits have increased since the nadir, the most recent complete week (May 24–30, week 22) remained 26% below the corresponding week in 2019 (Figure 1). The number of ED visits decreased 42%, from a mean of 2,099,734 per week during March 31–April 27, 2019, to a mean of 1,220,211 per week during the early pandemic period of March 29–April 25, 2020. Visits declined for every age group (Figure 2), with the largest proportional declines in visits by children aged ≤10 years (72%) and 11–14 years (71%). Declines in ED visits varied by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services region,* with the largest declines in the Northeast (Region 1, 49%) and in the region that includes New Jersey and New York (Region 2, 48%) (Figure 2). Visits declined 37% among males and 45% among females across all NSSP EDs between the comparison and early pandemic periods. FIGURE 1 Weekly number of emergency department (ED) visits — National Syndromic Surveillance Program, United States,* January 1, 2019– May 30, 2020† * Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming are not included. † Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of the 4-week coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early pandemic period (March 29–April 25, 2020) and the comparison period (March 31–April 27, 2019). The figure is a line graph showing the weekly number of emergency department visits, using data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program, in the United States, during January 1, 2019–May 30, 2020. FIGURE 2 Emergency department (ED) visits, by age group (A) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) region* (B) — National Syndromic Surveillance Program, United States,† March 31–April 27, 2019 (comparison period) and March 29–April 25, 2020 (early pandemic period) * Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Region 2: New Jersey and New York; Region 3: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin; Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska; Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and Utah; Region 9: Arizona, California, and Nevada; Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. † Hawaii, South Dakota, and Wyoming are not included. The figure is a bar chart showing the emergency department visits, by age group and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services region, using data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program, in the United States, during March 31–April 27, 2019 (comparison period) and March 29–April 25, 2020 (pandemic period). Among all ages, an increase of >100 mean visits per week from the comparison period to the early pandemic period occurred in eight of the top 200 diagnostic categories (Table). These included 1) exposure, encounters, screening, or contact with infectious disease (mean increase 18,834 visits per week); 2) COVID-19 (17,774); 3) other general signs and symptoms (4,532); 4) pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (3,911); 5) other specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease (1,506); 6) respiratory failure, insufficiency, or arrest (776); 7) cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (472); and 8) socioeconomic or psychosocial factors (354). The largest declines were in visits for abdominal pain and other digestive or abdomen signs and symptoms (–66,456), musculoskeletal pain excluding low back pain (–52,150), essential hypertension (–45,184), nausea and vomiting (–38,536), other specified upper respiratory infections (–36,189), sprains and strains (–33,709), and superficial injuries (–30,918). Visits for nonspecific chest pain were also among the top 20 diagnostic categories for which visits decreased (–24,258). Although not in the top 20 declining diagnoses, visits for acute myocardial infarction also declined (–1,156). TABLE Differences in mean weekly numbers of emergency department (ED) visits* for diagnostic categories with the largest increases or decreases† and prevalence ratios§ comparing the proportion of ED visits in each diagnostic category, for categories with the highest and lowest ratios — National Syndromic Surveillance Program, United States,¶ March 31–April 27, 2019 (comparison period) and March 29–April 25, 2020 (early pandemic period) Diagnostic category Change in mean no. of weekly ED visits* Prevalence ratio (95% CI)§ All categories with higher visit counts during the early pandemic period Exposure, encounters, screening, or contact with infectious disease** 18,834 3.79 (3.76–3.83) COVID-19 17,774 — Other general signs and symptoms** 4,532 1.87 (1.86–1.89) Pneumonia (except that caused by tuberculosis)** 3,911 1.91 (1.90–1.93) Other specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease** 1,506 1.99 (1.96–2.02) Respiratory failure, insufficiency, arrest** 776 1.76 (1.74–1.78) Cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation** 472 1.98 (1.93–2.03) Socioeconomic or psychosocial factors** 354 1.78 (1.75–1.81) Other top 10 highest prevalence ratios Mental and substance use disorders, in remission** 6 1.69 (1.64–1.75) Other specified encounters and counseling** 22 1.69 (1.67–1.72) Stimulant-related disorders** −189 1.65 (1.62–1.67) Top 20 categories with lower visit counts during the early pandemic period Abdominal pain and other digestive or abdomen signs and symptoms −66,456 0.93 (0.93–0.93) Musculoskeletal pain, not low back pain −52,150 0.81 (0.81–0.82) Essential hypertension −45,184 1.11 (1.10–1.11) Nausea and vomiting −38,536 0.85 (0.84–0.85) Other specified upper respiratory infections −36,189 0.82 (0.81–0.82) Sprains and strains, initial encounter †† −33,709 0.61 (0.61–0.62) Superficial injury; contusion, initial encounter −30,918 0.85 (0.84–0.85) Personal or family history of disease −28,734 1.21 (1.20–1.22) Headache, including migraine −27,458 0.85 (0.84–0.85) Other unspecified injury −25,974 0.84 (0.83–0.84) Nonspecific chest pain −24,258 1.20 (1.20–1.21) Tobacco-related disorders −23,657 1.19 (1.18–1.19) Urinary tract infections −23,346 1.02 (1.02–1.03) Asthma −20,660 0.91 (0.90–0.91) Disorders of lipid metabolism −20,145 1.12 (1.11–1.13) Spondylopathies/Spondyloarthropathy (including infective) −19,441 0.78 (0.77–0.79) Otitis media †† −17,852 0.35 (0.34–0.36) Diabetes mellitus without complication −15,893 1.10 (1.10–1.11) Skin and subcutaneous tissue infections −15,598 1.01 (1.00–1.02) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis −15,520 1.05 (1.04–1.06) Other top 10 lowest prevalence ratios Influenza †† −12,094 0.16 (0.15–0.16) No immunization or underimmunization †† −1,895 0.28 (0.27–0.30) Neoplasm-related encounters †† −1,926 0.40 (0.39–0.42) Intestinal infection †† −5,310 0.52 (0.51–0.54) Cornea and external disease †† −9,096 0.54 (0.53–0.55) Sinusitis †† −7,283 0.55 (0.54–0.56) Acute bronchitis †† −15,470 0.59 (0.58–0.60) Noninfectious gastroenteritis †† −11,572 0.63 (0.62–0.64) Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * The change in visits per week during the early pandemic and comparison periods was calculated as the difference in total visits between the two periods, divided by 4 weeks ([visits in diagnostic category, {early pandemic period} – visits in diagnostic category, {comparison period}] / 4). † Analysis is limited to the 200 most common diagnostic categories. All eight diagnostic categories with an increase of >100 in the mean number of visits nationwide in the early pandemic period are shown. The top 20 categories with decreasing visit counts are shown. § Ratio calculated as the proportion of all ED visits in each diagnostic category during the early pandemic period, divided by the proportion of all ED visits in that category during the comparison period ([visits in category {early pandemic period}/all visits {early pandemic period})/(visits in category {comparison period}/all visits {comparison period}]). Ratios >1 indicate a higher proportion of visits in that category during the early pandemic period than the comparison period; ratios <1 indicate a lower proportion during the early pandemic than during the comparison period. Analysis is limited to the 200 most common diagnostic categories. The 10 categories with the highest and lowest ratios are shown. ¶ Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, New York outside of New York City, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming, Santa Cruz and Solano counties in California, and the District of Columbia are not included. ** Top 10 highest prevalence ratios; higher proportion of visits in the early pandemic period than the comparison period. †† Top 10 lowest prevalence ratios; lower proportion of visits in the early pandemic period than the comparison period. During the early pandemic period, the proportion of ED visits for exposure, encounters, screening, or contact with infectious disease compared with total visits was nearly four times as large as during the comparison period (Table) (prevalence ratio [PR] = 3.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.76–3.83). The other diagnostic categories with the highest proportions of visits during the early pandemic compared with the comparison period were other specified and unspecified lower respiratory disease, which did not include influenza, pneumonia, asthma, or bronchitis (PR = 1.99; 95% CI = 1.96–2.02), cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (PR = 1.98; 95% CI = 1.93–2.03), and pneumonia not caused by tuberculosis (PR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.90–1.93). Diagnostic categories that were recorded less commonly during the early pandemic period included influenza (PR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.15–0.16), no immunization or underimmunization (PR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.27–0.30), otitis media (PR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.34–0.36), and neoplasm-related encounters (PR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.39–0.42). In the 2019 comparison period, 12% of all ED visits were in children aged ≤10 years old, compared with 6% during the early pandemic period. Among children aged ≤10 years, the largest declines were in visits for influenza (97% decrease), otitis media (85%), other specified upper respiratory conditions (84%), nausea and vomiting (84%), asthma (84%), viral infection (79%), respiratory signs and symptoms (78%), abdominal pain and other digestive or abdomen symptoms (78%), and fever (72%). Mean weekly visits with confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and screening for infectious disease during the early pandemic period were lower among children than among adults. Among all ages, the diagnostic categories with the largest changes (abdominal pain and other digestive or abdomen signs and symptoms, musculoskeletal pain, and essential hypertension) were the same in males and females, but declines in those categories were larger in females than males. Females also had large declines in visits for urinary tract infections (–19,833 mean weekly visits). Discussion During an early 4-week interval in the COVID-19 pandemic, ED visits were substantially lower than during the same 4-week period during the previous year; these decreases were especially pronounced for children and females and in the Northeast. In addition to diagnoses associated with lower respiratory disease, pneumonia, and difficulty breathing, the number and ratio of visits (early pandemic period versus comparison period) for cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation increased. The number of visits for conditions including nonspecific chest pain and acute myocardial infarction decreased, suggesting that some persons could be delaying care for conditions that might result in additional mortality if left untreated. Some declines were in categories including otitis media, superficial injuries, and sprains and strains that can often be managed through primary or urgent care. Future analyses will help clarify the proportion of the decline in ED visits that were not preventable or avoidable such as those for life-threatening conditions, those that were manageable through primary care, and those that represented actual reductions in injuries or illness attributable to changing activity patterns during the pandemic (such as lower risks for occupational and motor vehicle injuries or other infectious diseases). The striking decline in ED visits nationwide, with the highest declines in regions where the pandemic was most severe in April 2020, suggests that the pandemic has altered the use of the ED by the public. Persons who use the ED as a safety net because they lack access to primary care and telemedicine might be disproportionately affected if they avoid seeking care because of concerns about the infection risk in the ED. Syndromic surveillance has important strengths, including automated electronic reporting and the ability to track outbreaks in real time ( 7 ). Among all visits, 74% are reported within 24 hours, with 75% of discharge diagnoses typically added to the record within 1 week. The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, hospitals reporting to NSSP change over time as facilities are added, and more rarely, as they close ( 8 ). An average of 3,173 hospitals reported to NSSP nationally in April 2019, representing an estimated 66% of U.S. ED visits, and an average of 3,467 reported in April 2020, representing 73% of ED visits. Second, diagnostic categories rely on the use of specific codes, which were missing in 20% of visits and might be used inconsistently across hospitals and providers, which could result in misclassification. The COVID-19 diagnosis code was introduced recently (April 1, 2020) and timing of uptake might have differed across hospitals ( 6 ). Third, NSSP coverage is not uniform across or within all states; in some states nearly all hospitals report, whereas in others, a lower proportion statewide or only those in certain counties report. Finally, because this analysis is limited to ED visit data, the proportion of persons who did not visit EDs but received treatment elsewhere is not captured. Health care systems should continue to address public concern about exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the ED through adherence to CDC infection control recommendations, such as immediately screening every person for fever and symptoms of COVID-19, and maintaining separate, well-ventilated triage areas for patients with and without signs and symptoms of COVID-19 ( 9 ). Wider access is needed to health messages that reinforce the importance of immediately seeking care for serious conditions for which ED visits cannot be avoided, such as symptoms of myocardial infarction. Expanded access to triage telephone lines that help persons rapidly decide whether they need to go to an ED for symptoms of possible COVID-19 infection and other urgent conditions is also needed. For conditions that do not require immediate care or in-person treatment, health care systems should continue to expand the use of virtual visits during the pandemic ( 10 ). Summary What is already known about this topic? The National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) collects electronic health data in real time. What is added by this report? NSSP found that emergency department (ED) visits declined 42% during the early COVID-19 pandemic, from a mean of 2.1 million per week (March 31–April 27, 2019) to 1.2 million (March 29–April 25, 2020), with the steepest decreases in persons aged ≤14 years, females, and the Northeast. The proportion of infectious disease–related visits was four times higher during the early pandemic period. What are the implications for public health practice? To minimize SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk and address public concerns about visiting the ED during the pandemic, CDC recommends continued use of virtual visits and triage help lines and adherence to CDC infection control guidance.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Strong Social Distancing Measures In The United States Reduced The COVID-19 Growth Rate: Study evaluates the impact of social distancing measures on the growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases across the United States.

            State and local governments imposed social distancing measures in March and April 2020 to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). These measures included bans on large social gatherings; school closures; closures of entertainment venues, gyms, bars, and restaurant dining areas; and shelter-in-place orders. We evaluated the impact of these measures on the growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases across US counties between March 1, 2020, and April 27, 2020. An event study design allowed each policy's impact on COVID-19 case growth to evolve over time. Adoption of government-imposed social distancing measures reduced the daily growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 5.4 percentage points after one to five days, 6.8 percentage points after six to ten days, 8.2 percentage points after eleven to fifteen days, and 9.1 percentage points after sixteen to twenty days. Holding the amount of voluntary social distancing constant, these results imply that there would have been ten times greater spread of COVID-19 by April 27 without shelter-in-place orders (ten million cases) and more than thirty-five times greater spread without any of the four measures (thirty-five million cases). Our article illustrates the potential danger of exponential spread in the absence of interventions, providing information relevant to strategies for restarting economic activity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Managing COVID-19 in Surgical Systems

              As COVID-19 spreads quickly from Europe and Asia to the rest of the world, hospitals are rapidly becoming hot zones for treatment and transmission of this disease in settings with rising community transmission. Health care workers are increasingly contracting this illness, decreasing the human resources available to care for a population in crisis. Surgical care is a foundation of any health system with both elective and emergency procedures contributing to the health of our populations. However, operating theaters are high-risk areas for transmission of respiratory infections given the urgency in management, the involvement of multiple staff, and the need for high transmission-risk activities such as airway management. Our systems are generally well designed to deal with the occasional high-risk cases. The additional strain presented by a high prevalence of disease, limited resources, and staff under pressure, greatly increases the risks of transmission and the burden on our systems of care during this pandemic. It is necessary for us to act immediately so our systems can support essential surgical care while protecting patients and staff and conserving valuable resources. We can benefit from some of the lessons provided from our colleagues around the world to help us stay on top of these issues as we plan our approach to surgery during the pandemic. 1. Prepare for a rapidly evolving situation. Any pathways and plans need to be developed with a recognition that the severity of the situation and the availability of resources may change on a daily basis. 2. Postpone elective operations immediately. Elective surgeries should ideally be postponed before it seems necessary. Postponing surgeries will reduce unnecessary patient traffic in the hospital and decrease the introduction and spread of disease between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and health care staff. In addition, reducing surgeries saves resources including hospital beds, personal protective equipment, as well as preserving the health of surgical staff. 3. Develop a clear plan for providing essential operations during the pandemic. This should include a plan to facilitate emergent life and limb saving surgeries as well as urgent surgeries such as cancer surgeries where long-term outcomes are dependent on timely interventions. The process should allow for the application of reasonable clinical judgement. For example, the biopsy of a suspicious breast lump is elective but cannot be postponed. 4. Educate all surgical staff on personal protective equipment and COVID-19 management. The appropriate use of personal protective equipment protects patients and staff from COVID-19 transmission, and yet these items are often not used appropriately. N95 masks that have been clearly shown to reduce transmission in a laboratory setting rarely work as well in practice. This is in large part because of a lack of awareness of appropriate donning and doffing procedures. All the members of the surgical team should be trained in appropriate use of personal protective equipment. The risk of transmission and resource consumption in educational simulation sessions means that other forms of education must be undertaken. Our current situation should serve as a reminder of the importance of training for disasters and pandemics before the need arises. 5. Decrease exposure of health care staff. For confirmed COVID-19 cases or cases where there is an active influenza-like illness, limiting operating theater staff to the essential members is key. Trainees, in particular, should not be involved with cases unnecessarily. As COVID-19 becomes further established in our communities, asymptomatic patients who are carriers will increasingly enter the health care system for unrelated ailments and pose a risk for transmission. For this reason, reasonable measures should be taken even in asymptomatic patients such as strict adherence to universal precautions, frequent handwashing, and elimination of unnecessary staff. Keeping surgical staff out of hospital and self-isolating at home when they are not needed is a key measure to preserving our human resources. 6. Develop a dedicated COVID-19 operating space. The development of a dedicated COVID-19 operating theater may help to contain the spread of disease. The experience from centers such as Singapore as well as centers that have seen high volumes of cases in other parts of the world including within the United States and Canada provide some guidance on how these systems can be optimally designed. These include a number of key points: 1. Designate a specific operating theater for all COVID-19 cases. This room should be out of high-traffic areas and be completely emptied of all nonessential materials. When an anteroom is available, this should be used as an area for donning and doffing of personal protective equipment and exchange of equipment, medications, and materials for the case. Instructional posters on appropriate procedures should be prominently displayed. If an anteroom is not available, a taped off area should be clearly marked for these activities just outside of the OR door. 2. No unnecessary items should be brought into the operating theater, this includes personal items such as pagers or cell phones and pens. Disposable caps and shoe covers should be worn and discarded after each case. Disposable pens should be provided in the room. Only the materials necessary for the case should be within the room and all disposables should be discarded at the end of the case. 3. All traffic in and out of the operating theater should be minimized. A runner or support staff should be dedicated to the Operating theater to provide all materials needed throughout the case with exchanges performed using a material exchange cart placed immediately outside of the room or in the anteroom. 4. When possible, the patient should be recovered in the operating theater with dedicated staff until they can be transferred to an isolation room on the ward or in the intensive care unit. 5. The path of the patient to and from the operating theater should be kept clear. This can be done using either security or a surgical team member traveling in advance of the patient to clear the way. 6. Consideration should be given to surgical approaches that could decrease operating staff exposure and shorten case duration. 7. Care pathways and protocols for COVID-19 cases should be very clearly developed and be specific to the needs of each site. This should include the identification of dedicated team members to manage COVID-19 cases each day. 7. The changing landscape of the pandemic may require patient transfers and repurposing operating theaters to support critical care patients. The intensive care needs of the COVID-19 patient population will be substantial, and may quickly overwhelm the systems that provide critical care. Operating theaters are optimally designed to provide support for ventilated patients and may become precious resources for the ongoing care of patients typically managed in the intensive care unit. This need may further strain the surgical capacity of health systems. Hospitals need to be prepared to transfer patients between centers and share resources to optimize the care of regional populations. The provision of surgery will continue to be an essential aspect of our healthcare system throughout the pandemic. All surgical systems will need to adapt to a rapidly changing environment. Having a clear surgical strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic will keep our systems resilient and effective and allow us to provide the very best care to the populations we serve. Forums for communication such as that established by the American College of Surgeons (https://acscommunities.facs.org) can be used to share recommendations and best practices.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                5 November 2020
                November 2020
                5 November 2020
                : 3
                : 11
                : e2024984
                Affiliations
                [1 ]RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California
                [2 ]Castlight Health, San Francisco, California
                [3 ]Sol Price School of Public Policy and Schaeffer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
                [4 ]National Bureau for Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                [5 ]Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford, California
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: September 7, 2020.
                Published: November 5, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.24984
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Whaley CM et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Christopher M. Whaley, PhD, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90401 ( cwhaley@ 123456rand.org ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Whaley had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Whaley, Sood, Bravata.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Whaley, Chang, Bravata.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Whaley, Pera, Cantor, Velasco, Hagg, Sood, Bravata.
                Statistical analysis: Whaley, Cantor, Sood.
                Obtained funding: Whaley.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Whaley, Pera, Velasco, Hagg, Bravata.
                Supervision: Whaley, Hagg, Bravata.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Whaley reported receiving grants from the National Institutes on Aging and the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Pera reported receiving personal fees from Castlight Health during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Castlight Health outside the submitted work. Dr Hagg reported receiving personal fees from Castlight Health during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Castlight Health outside the submitted work. Dr Sood reported receiving funding from the Jedel Foundation, University of Southern California (USC) Schwarzenegger Institute, USC Lusk Center, USC President’s Office, and individual donors in support of coronavirus disease 2019–related research (not tied to a particular project); serving as a scientific advisor to Payssurance and Virta Health; serving as an expert witness for the American Medical Association and Goldman, Ismail, Tomaselli, Brennan, and Baum; serving as an international expert for the China Development Research Foundation and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; and receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, Health Care Services Corporation, Abbott Scientific, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr Bravata reported receiving personal fees from Castlight Health outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: Support was provided by the National Institutes on Aging (1K01AG061274, Dr Whaley) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI R21 CA219229, Dr Whaley).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi200814
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.24984
                7645698
                33151319
                2646f3a6-29a4-4dba-8078-ee5fc4f23024
                Copyright 2020 Whaley CM et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 6 July 2020
                : 7 September 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article