Cognition has been identified as an area of priority in examining health impacts of COVID-19 infection, and evidence suggests the virus invades the brain, with potential for long-term cognitive impact. Studies utilizing screening measures have reported cognitive sequelae (e.g., attention disorder, executive dysfunction) of the post-COVID-19 condition (i.e., long-haulers). More extensive examination of cognitive difficulties via comprehensive neuropsychological assessment is critical to informing treatment for those experiencing cognitive or functional difficulties post-infection. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate cognitive resiliencies and vulnerabilities of acutely recovered COVID-19 patients, across key domains (i.e., attention, processing speed, language, visuospatial abilities, memory, executive functioning), compared to healthy controls.

Adults (N=103; aged 19-85; 69.2% female) who had COVID-19 at least three months prior (n=50) and those with no history of infection (n=53) completed demographic and health questionnaires via Qualtrics, along with measures of depressive (CES-D) and anxiety (GAD-7) symptoms, the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale, and a measure of subjective cognitive difficulties (SCD-Q). Participants (n=84) completed a teleneuropsychology assessment including a short interview and battery of neuropsychological tests assessing attention (BTA, Digit Span Forward), processing speed (DKEFS Colour Naming & Word Reading, SDMT), language (FAS, Animals, NAB Naming), visuospatial abilities (JLO, RCFT Copy), verbal and visual memory (HVLT-R, NAB Shape Learning, RCFT), and executive function (DKEFS Color-Word Interference & Switching, Digit Span Backward & Sequencing, BRIEF), and including multiple measures of cognitive effort/assessment validity (RFIT, RDS), and a self-report measure of symptom validity (SIMS). T-tests were used to examine demographic and health variables between COVID-19 and control groups. MANCOVA were used to examine group differences across each cognitive domain assessed, and across cognitive effort and symptom validity tasks, while controlling for English language status.

Group comparisons indicated that the COVID-19 group was slightly older (mean age = 40 vs. 34 yrs.; f=-2.101, p=0.04). Those who had COVID-19 reported more difficulties completing IADLs (f=2.204; p=0.03), more depressive symptoms (f=-2.299; p=0.02), and more subjective cognitive difficulties (f=-3.886; p<0.01). Examination of cognitive performance indicated a main effect of prior infection on executive function, controlling for language status (Wilks’ /\=0.817, F(6,73)=2.733, p=0.02). Specifically, having COVID-19 was associated with worse DKEFS Colour-Word Switching performance (p=0.01) and slightly higher selfreported difficulties on the BRIEF MI (p=0.04). No other significant group differences were seen across cognitive domains. There was also a main effect of COVID-19 infection on effort and symptom validity task performance (Wilks’ /\=0.705, F(10,70)=2.923, p<0.01). Specifically, prior infection was associated with higher SIMS Neurologic Impairment (p<0.01) and Amnestic Disorders (p<0.01) subscale scores, and paradoxically, slightly higher RFIT combined scores (p=0.02).

Interestingly, results indicate a significant role for subjective cognitive complaints and potential exaggeration of cognitive symptoms post-COVID-19 infection, in the absence of differences in objective performance in most cognitive domains. While subtle differences are seen on some executive function measures, mean group differences are small, and in the context of higher SIMS subscale scores, may not be readily interpretable. Studies employing similarly comprehensive neuropsychological assessments including validity measures in larger samples are needed to further disambiguate potential objective cognitive performance decrements from subjectively experienced difficulties.

Cognitive difficulties are amongst the most frequently reported sequelae following COVID-19 infection, even in those experiencing mild to moderate illness (Matos et al., 2021). Recent research has identified patterns of diminished cognitive performance on tests of memory and executive functioning in COVID-19 cases; however, the etiology of neurocognitive difficulties remains unclear (Delgado-Alonso et al., 2022). Emerging evidence has identified moderate associations between decreased performance on neuropsychological tests of memory and elevated anxiety and depression symptom reporting in COVID-19 patients. Similar associations are well-established in the literature in persons with anxiety and depression disorders, warranting further investigation as to whether mental health variables such as internalizing symptom severity may moderate the association between COVID-19 illness and cognitive difficulties. This study examined how internalizing symptoms as indexed by depression and anxiety symptom scales may differentially influence performance on neuropsychological tests of memory between persons who have and have not had COVID-19.

In this cross-sectional study, 104 adults aged 19-80, were recruited in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada; 84 adults met inclusion criteria and participated in neuropsychological testing. There were 40 participants who tested positive for COVID-19 infection (N=44 with no suspected exposures or confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19). Participants had no history of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or other known neurological disorder. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) via self-report on Qualtrics. Memory encoding and delayed recognition performance were assessed using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Revised (HVLT-R) and the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Shape Learning subtest (NAB-SL). To test for potential moderating effects of anxiety and depression symptoms on the association between COVID-19 infection status and memory performance, a series of multiple linear regressions were conducted. Age and sex were included as covariates in all analyses.

Moderation analyses revealed that the interaction between COVID-19 infection and anxiety symptoms accounted for a significant portion of variance in both HVLT-R recognition (B= -0.78, SE= 0.34, p<0.05) and NAB-SL delayed recognition scores (B= -0.83, SE= 0.35, p<0.05). Simple slopes analyses revealed that among participants who tested positive for COVID-19 infection, higher GAD-7 scores were associated with lower verbal and visual recognition scores. A similar interaction was observed between COVID-19 and depressive symptoms in accounting for variance in NAB-SL delayed recognition scores, however, for that model the threshold of p=0.05 was not met in our small sample (p=0.07).

Findings demonstrate that anxiety symptom severity had a moderating effect on the impact of COVID-19 on delayed retrieval of verbal and visual information from memory. Future work in a larger sample is needed to further elucidate the potential moderating role of depression on memory in COVID-19 positive persons, as the current work suggests that depression symptoms could have a similar impact as anxiety. Further identifying the relationships between key modifiable psychological factors such as anxiety and memory following COVID-19 infection will provide insight into potential interventions to minimize the negative effects of internalizing symptoms on long-term cognitive outcomes.

Growing evidence indicates that COVID-19 infection adversely impacts cognitive functioning, with COVID-19 patients demonstrating high rates of objective and subjective cognitive impairments (Daroische et al., 2020; Miskowiak et al., 2021). Given the prevalence and potentially debilitating nature of post-COVID-19 cognitive symptoms, understanding factors that mitigate the impact of COVID-19 infection on cognitive functioning is paramount to developing interventions that facilitate recovery. Resilience, the ability to cope with and grow from challenges, has been associated with improved cognitive performance in healthy adults and linked to decreased perceived cognitive difficulties in post-COVID-19 patients (Connor & Davidson, 2003; Deng et al., 2018; Jung et al., 2021). However, resilience has not yet been examined as a potential attenuator of the relationship between COVID-19 and either perceived or objective cognitive function. This study aims to investigate the role of resilience as a protective factor against experience of cognitive function difficulties in COVID-19 patients by probing the role of resilience as a moderator of the relationship between COVID-19 diagnosis and cognitive functioning (both perceived and objective).

Participants (mean age=36.93, 30.10% male) were recruited from British Columbia and Ontario. The sample included 53 adults who had never been diagnosed with COVID-19 and 50 adults diagnosed with symptomatic COVID-19 at least three months prior and not ventilated. Participants completed online questionnaires (n=103) to assess depression (the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale), anxiety (7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale), subjective cognitive functioning (The Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire), and resilience (2-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale). Participants then completed neuropsychological tests (n=82) measuring attention, processing speed, memory, language, visuospatial skills, and executive function via teleconference, with scores averaged to create a global objective cognition score. Moderated multiple regression was employed to assess the impact of resilience on the relationship between COVID-19 diagnosis and both objective and perceived cognition, controlling for gender, ethnicity, income, age, anxiety, and depression.

Average scores in the COVID-19 group exceeded diagnostic cut-offs for clinical depression (M=16.67, SD=10.77) and mild anxiety (M=5.27, SD=4.99), while the control group scored below diagnostic thresholds for depression (M=11.96, SD=9.76) and mild anxiety (M=4.48, SD=5.07). Controlling for sociodemographic and mental health characteristics, COVID-19 diagnosis was not associated with objective global cognitive functioning (b=-.07, se=1.71, p=.624) or subjective cognitive functioning (b=.16, se=1.32, p=.12), nor was resilience associated with objective global cognitive functioning (b=.19, se=1.50, p=.44) or subjective cognitive functioning (b=-.02, se=1.09, p=.89).

Findings indicate that COVID-19 patients may be at risk for depression and anxiety. Results of this study fail to support a relationship between COVID-19 and cognitive functioning beyond the impact of sociodemographic and mental health variables. Thus, the role of resilience as a protective factor against COVID-19 related cognitive difficulties could not be fully explored. However, findings should be considered in the context of study limitations, including a small sample size. Future research should employ larger samples to further examine the relationship between COVID-19 infection and cognition, focusing on mental health characteristics and resilience as potential risk and protective factors.

Many individuals with COVID-19 develop mild to moderate physical symptoms that can last days to months. In addition to physical symptoms, individuals with COVID-19 have reported depressive symptoms and cognitive decline, posing a long-term threat to mental health and functional outcomes. Few studies have examined the presence of co-occurring depression and subjective cognitive decline in individuals who tested positive for COVID-19. The current study examined whether having COVID-19 is subsequently associated with greater depressive symptoms and subjective cognitive decline when compared to healthy individuals. Our study also examined differential associations between symptoms of depression and subjective cognitive decline between individuals who have and have never had COVID-19.

Adults (N = 104; mean age = 37 years, 69% female) were recruited online from Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Participants were categorized into two groups: (1) persons who tested positive for COVID-19 at least three months prior, had been symptomatic, and had not been ventilated (N = 50); and (2) persons who have never been suspected of having COVID-19 (N = 54). The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (SCD-Q) were administered to both groups as part of a larger clinical neuropsychological evaluation. Two separate linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the association of COVID-19 with depressive symptoms and subjective cognitive decline. A moderation analysis was performed to examine whether depressive symptoms were associated with subjective cognitive decline and the extent to which this differed by group (COVID-19 and controls). Participants’ age, self-reported sex, and history of depression were included as covariates.

The first regression model explained 17.2% of the variance in CES-D scores. It was found that the COVID-19 group had significantly higher CES-D scores (ß = .20, p = .03). The second regression model explained 35.9% of the variance in SCD-Q scores. Similar to the previous model, it was found that the COVID-19 group had significantly higher SCD-Q scores compared to healthy controls (ß = .22 p = .01). Lastly, the moderation model indicated that higher CES-D scores were associated with higher SCD-Q scores (ß = .43, p < .01), but there was no statistically significant group X CES-D score interaction.

These findings suggest that individuals who previously experienced a mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 infection report greater depressive symptom severity as well as greater subjective cognitive decline. Additionally, while more severe depressive symptoms predicted greater subjective cognitive decline in our sample, the magnitude of this association did not vary between those with and without a previous COVID-19 infection. While the underlying neurobiological and social mechanisms of cognitive difficulties and depressive symptoms in persons who have had COVID-19 have yet to be fully elucidated, our findings highlight treatment for depression and cognitive rehabilitation as potentially useful intervention targets for the post COVID-19 condition.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns were predicted to have a major impact on suicidal behaviour, including self-harm. However, current studies have produced contradictory findings with limited trend data.

Nine years of linked individual-level administrative data were utilised to examine changes in hospital-presenting self-harm and ideation (thoughts of self-harm or suicide) before and during the pandemic.

National self-harm registry data were linked to demographic and socioeconomic indicators from healthcare registration records (n = 1 899 437). Monthly presentations of self-harm or ideation were split (pre-COVID-19 restrictions: April 2012 to February 2020; and during restrictions: March to September 2020). Auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were trained in R taking into consideration trends and seasonal effects. Forecast (‘expected’) monthly values were compared with ‘actual’ values, stratified by demographic factors and method of harm.

The number of individuals presenting with self-harm or ideation dropped significantly at the beginning of the pandemic (March–May 2020), before returning mostly to expected trends from June 2020. Stratified analysis showed similar presentation trends across most demographic subgroups except for those aged over 65 years, living alone or in affluent areas, where presentations remained unaffected, and those aged under 16 years, where numbers presenting with self-harm or ideation increased above expected levels.

Although population trends show an overall drop in presentations before a return to ‘normal’ from June 2020, the demographic profile of those presenting with self-harm or ideation varied significantly, with increases in children under the age of 16 years. This highlights important potential target groups who may have been most negatively affected by the pandemic.

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) shotgun metagenomics (metagenomics) attempts to sequence the entire genetic content straight from the sample. Diagnostic advantages lie in the ability to detect unsuspected, uncultivatable, or very slow-growing organisms.

To evaluate the clinical and economic effects of using WGS and metagenomics for outbreak management in a large metropolitan hospital.

Cost-effectiveness study.

Intensive care unit and burn unit of large metropolitan hospital.

Simulated intensive care unit and burn unit patients.

We built a complex simulation model to estimate pathogen transmission, associated hospital costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) during a 32-month outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB). Model parameters were determined using microbiology surveillance data, genome sequencing results, hospital admission databases, and local clinical knowledge. The model was calibrated to the actual pathogen spread within the intensive care unit and burn unit (scenario 1) and compared with early use of WGS (scenario 2) and early use of WGS and metagenomics (scenario 3) to determine their respective cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed to address model uncertainty.

On average compared with scenario 1, scenario 2 resulted in 14 fewer patients with CRAB, 59 additional QALYs, and $75,099 cost savings. Scenario 3, compared with scenario 1, resulted in 18 fewer patients with CRAB, 74 additional QALYs, and $93,822 in hospital cost savings. The likelihoods that scenario 2 and scenario 3 were cost-effective were 57% and 60%, respectively.

The use of WGS and metagenomics in infection control processes were predicted to produce favorable economic and clinical outcomes.

To examine the effectiveness of antimicrobial and antithrombogenic materials incorporated into peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) to prevent bloodstream infection, thrombosis, and catheter occlusion.

Prospective cohort study involving 52 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium. Sample included adult hospitalized medical patients who received a PICC between January 2013 and October 2019. Coated and impregnated catheters were identified by name, brand, and device marketing or regulatory materials. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with robust sandwich standard error estimates accounting for the clustered nature of data were used to identify factors associated with PICC complications in coated versus noncoated devices across general care, intensive care unit (ICU), and oncology patients. Results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Of 42,562 patients with a PICC, 39,806 (93.5%) were plain polyurethane, 2,263 (5.3%) incorporated antimicrobial materials, and 921 (2.2%) incorporated antithrombogenic materials. Most were inserted in general ward settings (n = 28,111, 66.0%), with 12, 078 (28.4%) and 1,407 (3.3%) placed in ICU and oncological settings, respectively. Within the entire cohort, 540 (1.3%) developed thrombosis, 745 (1.8%) developed bloodstream infection, and 4,090 (9.6%) developed catheter occlusion. Adjusting for known risk factors, antimicrobial PICCs were not associated with infection reduction (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82–1.64), and antithrombogenic PICCs were not associated with reduction in thrombosis and occlusion (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.92–1.44). Results were consistent across populations and care settings.

Antimicrobial and antithrombogenic PICCs were not associated with a reduction in major catheter complications. Guidance aimed at informing use of these devices, balancing benefits against cost, appear necessary.

The national implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) has prompted an increased interest in identifying and tracking clinical and educational outcomes for emergency medicine training programs. For the 2019 Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Symposium, we developed recommendations for measuring outcomes in emergency medicine training in the context of CBME to assist educational leaders and systems designers in program evaluation.

We conducted a three-phase study to generate educational and clinical outcomes for emergency medicine (EM) education in Canada. First, we elicited expert and community perspectives on the best educational and clinical outcomes through a structured consultation process using a targeted online survey. We then qualitatively analyzed these responses to generate a list of suggested outcomes. Last, we presented these outcomes to a diverse assembly of educators, trainees, and clinicians at the CAEP Academic Symposium for feedback and endorsement through a voting process.

Academic Symposium attendees endorsed the measurement and linkage of CBME educational and clinical outcomes. Twenty-five outcomes (15 educational, 10 clinical) were derived from the qualitative analysis of the survey results and the most important short- and long-term outcomes (both educational and clinical) were identified. These outcomes can be used to help measure the impact of CBME on the practice of Emergency Medicine in Canada to ensure that it meets both trainee and patient needs.

All Fire and Emergency Services (FES) personnel must balance FES work with their other responsibilities. Given that women tend to take on a greater responsibility for management of household/domestic activities than men, the on-call component of their FES work may be associated with very different challenges. Despite this, women have rarely been the focus of on-call research.

To explore women’s on-call experiences in the FES by examining coping styles and strategies, with the goal of helping to innovate the way women are supported in FES roles.

Relevant findings from two studies are included. The first study involved FES personnel from two agencies in Australia (n=24) who participated in a semi-structured interview. The second study was an anonymous online survey to determine work characteristics, sleep, stress, and coping in on-call workers more broadly, with workers from all industries across Australia (n=228) invited to participate.

Interview data identified two major themes in terms of coping with on-call work. Support (from family, social, and work), planning, and preparation were identified as important in helping women cope in the context of on-call unpredictability. Results from the survey (43% women) showed that on-call workers were an engaged group in terms of their coping, with 67% classified as having a positive coping style and 58% of women indicating that they agreed/strongly agreed with the statement, “I cope well with on-call work.”

Taken together, these data highlight engagement with positive coping by women who do on-call work, including in the FES. Importantly, positive coping strategies, such as talking about emotions, problem-solving, and seeking support have been linked to increased shift work tolerance in other populations. Coping style and strategies represent modifiable variables which could be specifically applied to assist women to manage the unique challenges associated with on-call work in the FES.