Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Lessons Learned From a Coordinated Health System Response

Objective

To outline a consensus-designed process for triaging and managing patients with post-coronavirus disease (COVID-19) syndrome at Mayo Clinic.

Patients and Methods

We convened a central multidisciplinary team including members from the departments of general internal medicine, occupational medicine, physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychology, allergy and immunology, infectious disease, pulmonology, neurology, cardiology, and pediatrics and otorhinolaryngology with membership from all Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Results

Consensus recommendations were made for the best practice guidelines on triaging and managing patients. Several innovations were agreed upon, including a postacute sequelae of COVID-19-specific appointment request form for data collection, a bioregistry, a biorepository, and a postacute sequelae of COVID-19-specific treatment program.

Conclusion

Given that each clinical site had individual clinical practices, these recommendations were implemented using different models, which may provide broad applicability to other clinical settings.

Managing Patients in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Virtual Multidisciplinary Approach

Objective

To study the impact of a 60-day pilot of an innovative virtual-care model using general internal medicine physicians and nurses to respond rapidly to more than 1200 coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-positive nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction tests.

Patients and Methods

The current study was approved by the Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Research Committee and the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. The data for all SARS-CoV-2–positive patients treated by our team were entered into a prospectively maintained internal research electronic data capture database. We searched this database retrospectively for the first 60 days of our program (March 23, 2020 to May 22, 2020). The data included basic deidentified demographics; symptoms at intake into the program; date of symptom onset; risk factors; location; and outcomes including hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit, and death.

Results

Patients were contacted, on average, 6.3 hours after their results became available. There was a total of 138 ED visits. Of these, 40% were admitted to the hospital, with 36% of those admitted requiring intensive care unit level of care. Of the 849 patients in this sample, there were only 2 deaths (0.23%) at 60 days.

Conclusion

Our innovative multidisciplinary COVID team provided excellent clinical care for patients with COVID, with a very low mortality rate compared with the national average. Although data are not available on a national scale for time to contact patient, our team was able to contact patients within the established recommendation for contact within 48 hours of testing, which is optimal.

A Multifaceted Organizational Physician Assessment Program: Validity Evidence and Implications for the Use of Performance Data

Objective

To provide validity evidence for a multifaceted organizational program for assessing physician performance and evaluate the practical and psychometric consequences of 2 approaches to scoring (mean vs top box scores).

Participants and Methods

Participants included physicians with a predominantly outpatient practice in general internal medicine (n=95), neurology (n=99), and psychiatry (n=39) at Mayo Clinic from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2014. Study measures included hire year, patient complaint and compliment rates, note-signing timeliness, cost per episode of care, and Likert-scaled surveys from patients, learners, and colleagues (scored using mean ratings and top box percentages).

Results

Physicians had a mean ± SD of 0.32±1.78 complaints and 0.12±0.76 compliments per 100 outpatient visits. Most notes were signed on time (mean ± SD, 96%±6.6%). Mean ± SD cost was 0.56±0.59 SDs above the institutional average. Mean ± SD scores were 3.77±0.25 on 4-point and 4.06±0.31 to 4.94±0.08 on 5-point Likert-scaled surveys. Mean ± SD top box scores ranged from 18.6%±16.8% to 90.7%±10.5%. Learner survey scores were positively associated with patient survey scores (r=0.26; P=.003) and negatively associated with years in practice (r=−0.20; P=.02).

Conclusion

This study provides validity evidence for 7 assessments commonly used by medical centers to measure physician performance and reports that top box scores amplify differences among high-performing physicians. These findings inform the most appropriate uses of physician performance data and provide practical guidance to organizations seeking to implement similar assessment programs or use existing performance data in more meaningful ways.