Can 1st and 6th month pulmonary function test follow-ups give an idea about the long-term respiratory effects of COVID-19 pneumonia?

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to ascertain the long-term respiratory effects of COVID-19 pneumonia through pulmonary function tests in follow-ups at 1 and 6 months. METHODS: Our study was conducted between August 1, 2020 and April 30, 2021. At 1 month after discharge, follow-up evaluations, PFTs, and lung imaging were performed on patients aged above 18 years who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia. In the 6th month, the PFTs were repeated for those with pulmonary dysfunction. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients (mean age, 49±11.9 years) were included. Pathological PFT results were noted in the 1st month for 80 patients and in the 6th month for 46 (7 had obstructive disorder, 15 had restrictive disorder, and 28 had small airway obstruction) patients. A significant difference was found between abnormal PFT results and patient-described dyspnea in the 1st month of follow-up. The 6-month PFT values (especially those for forced vital capacity) were statistically significantly lower in the patients for whom imaging did not indicate complete radiological improvement at the 1-month follow-up. No statistically significant difference was found between the severity of the first computed tomography findings or clinical condition on emergency admission and pulmonary dysfunction (Pearson's chi-square test, P=0.904; Fisher's exact test, P=0.727). CONCLUSION: It is important that patients with COVID-19 pneumonia be followed up for at least 1 month after discharge to be monitored for potential long-term lung damage. PFTs should be administered to those in whom ongoing dyspnea, which started with COVID-19, and/or full recovery were not identified in pulmonary imaging.

Analysis of Violence in a Crowded Emergency Room.

Aims: There is abundant evidence to suggest that health care staff are increasingly being exposed to violent incidents at their workplace. The purpose of our study was to identify the role of crowding in producing violence that occurs in emergency department as well as to outline the factors that affect the types of violence. Study Design: In this prospective study we collected incidents of violence against emergency staff by patients or their relatives. A survey with 20 questions about the event was completed by emergency staff just after the event. Also information about crowding at that time was recorded as well as the area of the event. Statistical analysis was done with SPSS 16.0. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Emergency Medicine, Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital, Between April 1 and June 1, 2012. Methodology: A total of 116 acts of violence were reported during the 61 days of this study. 79 of 116 cases (68.1%) were verbal, 16 (13.8%) physical, and 21 (18.1%) were both verbal and physical. The information about each event was entered into a database and pooled for analysis. Results: The most common victims of violence were physicians (38.8%) and security personnel (31.0%). The presence of security personnel in the environment increases the risk of physical violence (P=.017). The average total number of patients waiting for examination or results of examinations was 24.9 ± 1.4 (95% CI, 22.3 – 27.5). It was observed that the violence increased when the number of people was close to this number and reduced when the crowding increased above this average. Conclusions: The existence of security personnel alone is not sufficient to prevent violence; new steps should be taken to prevent the entrance of the patients’ relatives to inside of the treatment areas of emergency departments.