Background Health care personnel have been identified by the ACIP as a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. We conducted a survey in November-December 2020 at two large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia to evaluate the intention of hospital employees to be vaccinated. Methods The survey was sent electronically to all employees (clinical and nonclinical staff) at a children’s hospital and an adult hospital. The survey was voluntary and confidential. Questions focused on plans to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when available, reasons why employees would/would not get vaccinated, when employees planned to be vaccinated, vaccine safety and efficacy features that would be acceptable, and past history of receipt of other vaccines by the employee and family. Responses were analyzed using univariate and multiple logistic regression methods. Results A total of 12,034 hospital employees completed the survey (a 34.5% response rate). Overall, 63.7% of employees reported that they planned to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 26.3% were unsure, and 10.0% did not plan to be vaccinated. Over 80% of those unsure or unwilling to be vaccinated expressed concerns about vaccine side effects and the vaccines’ newness. In multivariable logistic regression, persons planning to take a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to be older, male, more educated, Asian or White, up-to-date on vaccinations, without direct patient contact, and tested for COVID-19 in the past. No significant difference in intention to be vaccinated was found between those with higher versus lower levels of exposure to COVID-19 patients or the number of previous exposures to patients with COVID-19. Conclusions While the majority of hospital employees are planning to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, many are unsure or not planning to do so. Further education of hospital employees about the safety, efficacy, and value of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines is critical to vaccine acceptance in this population.

IMPORTANCE Significant differences in hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination by race/ethnicity have been observed in several settings. Racial/ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health care workers (HCWs), who face occupational and community exposure to COVID-19, have not been well described. OBJECTIVE To assess hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs across different racial/ethnic groups and assess factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This survey study was conducted among HCWs from 2 large academic hospitals (ie, a children's hospital and an adult hospital) over a 3-week period in November and December 2020. Eligible participants were HCWs with and without direct patient contact. A 3-step hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between race/ethnicity and vaccine hesitancy controlling for demographic characteristics, employment characteristics, COVID-19 exposure risk, and being up to date with routine vaccinations. Data were analyzed from February through March 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESVaccine hesitancy, defined as not planning on, being unsure about, or planning to delay vaccination, served as the outcome. RESULTS Among 34 865 HCWs eligible for this study, 12 034 individuals (34.5%) completed the survey and 10 871 individuals (32.2%) completed the survey and reported their race/ethnicity. Among 10 866 of these HCWs with data on sex, 8362 individuals (76.9%) were women, and among 10 833 HCWs with age data, 5923 individuals (54.5%) were younger than age 40 years. (Percentages for demographic and clinical characteristics are among the number of respondents for each type of question.) There were 8388 White individuals (77.2%), 882 Black individuals (8.1%), 845 Asian individuals (7.8%), and 449 individuals with other or mixed race/ethnicity (4.1%), and there were 307 Hispanic or Latino individuals (2.8%). Vaccine hesitancy was highest among Black HCWs (732 individuals [83.0%]) and Hispanic or Latino HCWs (195 individuals [63.5%]) (P < .001). Among 5440 HCWs with vaccine hesitancy, reasons given for hesitancy included concerns about side effects (4737 individuals [87.1%]), newness of the vaccine (4306 individuals [79.2%]), and lack of vaccine knowledge (4091 individuals [75.2%]). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for vaccine hesitancy was 4.98

Objective: This study analyzes effectiveness of screening, referrals, and treatment uptake of a collaborative care for depression intervention across 10 primary care clinics in Chicago.Methods: Patients were screened with the PHQ-2/9 based on an eligibility algorithm. Electronic health record data were analyzed for sample characteristics, screening rates, referrals, and treatment pathways. To identify disparities, a test of proportions was conducted between eligible and screened patients and referred and treated patients.Results: From November 2016 -December 2017, 25,369 patients were eligible for screening, and rates rose to 79%, versus 7% in the prior year. Screenings, referrals, and uptake occurred proportionately across subgroups except for patients ages 12-17. Adolescent age was associated with disproportionate PHQ-9 screenings and with treatment disengagement. Conclusion:The intervention shows promise in expanding access to care and reducing disparities. Greater access to psychotherapies and innovative treatment modalities, particularly for adolescents, may improve overall treatment uptake.

Objective To evaluate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among health care personnel (HCP) with significant clinical exposure to COVID-19 at two large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia. Design, Setting and Participants HCP were surveyed between November-December 2020 about their intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods The survey measured the intent among HCP to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, timing of vaccination, and reasons for or against vaccination. Among patient-facing HCP, multivariate regression evaluated the associations between healthcare positions (MD, NP/PA, RN) and vaccine hesitancy (intending to decline, delay, or were unsure about vaccination), adjusting for demographic characteristics, reasons why or why not to receive the vaccine, and prior receipt of routine vaccines. Results Among 5,929 HCP (2,253 MDs/DOs, 582 NPs, 158 PAs, and 2,936 nurses), a higher proportion of nurses (47.3%) were COVID-vaccine hesitant compared with 30.0% of PAs/NPs and 13.1% of MDs/DOs. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy included concerns about side effects, the newness of the vaccines, and lack of vaccine knowledge. Regardless of position, Black HCP were more hesitant than White HCP (OR∼5) and females were more hesitant than males (OR∼2). Conclusion Although a majority of clinical HCP intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, intention varied by healthcare position. Consistent with other studies, hesitancy was also significantly associated with race/ethnicity across all positions. These results underline the importance of understanding and effectively addressing reasons for hesitancy, especially among frontline HCP who are at increased risk of COVID exposure and play a critical role in recommending vaccines to patients.

Background Addiction medicine consultation services (ACS) may improve outcomes of hospitalized patients with substance use disorders (SUD). Our aim was to examine the difference in length of stay and the hazard ratio for a routine hospital discharge between SUD patients receiving and not receiving ACS. Methods Structured EHR data from 2018 of 1,900 adult patients with a SUD-related diagnostic code at an urban academic health center were examined among 35,541 total encounters. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fit using a cause-specific approach to examine differences in hospital outcome (i.e., routine discharge, leaving against medical advice, in-hospital death, or transfer to another level of care). Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, and comorbidities. Results Length of stay was shorter among encounters with a SUD that received a SUIT consultation versus those admissions that did not receive one (5.77 v. 6.54 days, p<0.01). In adjusted analyses, admissions that received a SUIT consultation had a higher hazard of a routine discharge [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.16 (1.03-1.30)] compared to those not receiving a SUIT consultation. Conclusions The SUIT consultation service was associated with a reduced length of stay and an increased hazard of a routine discharge. The SUIT model may serve as a benchmark