Patients presenting to an acute general hospital with acute mental health needs: a retrospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the numbers and patterns of patients presenting to an urban acute general hospital with acute mental health presentations and to further investigate any variation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: An urban acute general hospital in London, UK, comprising of five sites and two emergency departments. The hospital provides tertiary level general acute care but is not an acute mental health services provider. There is an inpatient liaison psychiatry service. PARTICIPANTS: 358 131 patients attended the emergency departments of our acute general hospital during the study period. Of these, 14 871 patients attended with an acute mental health presentation. A further 14 947 patients attending with a physical illness were also noted to have a concurrent recorded mental health diagnosis. RESULTS: Large numbers of patients present to our acute general hospital with mental health illness even though the organisation does not provide mental health services other than inpatient liaison psychiatry. There was some variation in the numbers and patterns of presentations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient numbers reduced to a mean of 9.13 (SD 3.38) patients presenting per day during the first 'lockdown' compared with 10.75 (SD 1.96) patients per day in an earlier matched time period (t=3.80, p<0.01). Acute mental health presentations following the third lockdown increased to a mean of 13.84 a day. CONCLUSIONS: Large numbers of patients present to our acute general hospital with mental health illness. This suggests a need for appropriate resource, staffing and training to address the needs of these patients in a non-mental health provider organisation and subsequent appropriate transfer for timely treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting lockdowns have resulted in variation in the numbers and patterns of patients presenting with acute mental health illness but these presentations are not new. Considerable work is still needed to provide integrated care which addresses the physical and mental healthcare needs of patients presenting to acute and general hospitals.

Embracing virtual outpatient clinics in the era of COVID-19.

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has raised the profile and level of interest in the use, acceptability, safety, and effectiveness of virtual outpatient consultations and telemedicine. These models of care are not new but a number of challenges have so far hindered widespread take-up and endorsement of these ways of working. With the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, remote and virtual working and consultation have become the default. This paper explores our experience of and learning from virtual and remote consultation and questions how this experience can be retained and developed for the future. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):301-304.

The perception of patient safety in an alternate site of care for elective surgery during the first wave of the novel coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom: a survey of 158 patients.

BACKGROUND: We undertook a prospective qualitative survey to ascertain the perceptions and experience of National Health Service patients in the United Kingdom who underwent planned or elective procedures and surgery at alternate 'clean' hospital sites during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. These alternate 'clean' hospital sites were independent hospitals running active staff and patient testing programmes for COVID-19 and which did not admit or treat patients suffering with COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective survey was undertaken to include patients at least 30 days after a planned surgery or procedure conducted at a 'clean' alternate hospital site during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was conducted using structured interviews undertaken by trained assessors. A 20% sample group of patients were randomly selected to participate in this study. Qualitative data related to confidence, safety and perceptions of safety were collected. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients (60%) reported that they had prior worries or concerns about undergoing an elective procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 47 patients (30%) had delayed their surgery at least once because of these concerns. A total of 150 patients (95%) felt that the precautions in place to protect their safety in the setting of an alternate 'clean' hospital site were well thought out and proportionate. Patients reported high levels of confidence in the measures undertaken. Separation of patient pathways using the independent sector and patient testing were identified by patients as having the greatest impact on their perception of safety. CONCLUSIONS: Patient confidence will be key to ensuring uptake of planned and elective procedures and surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perceptions of safety will be key to this confidence and efforts to demonstrably enhance safety are well received by patients. In particular, patients felt that a dedicated programme of patient testing and separation of patient pathways provided the greatest levels of confidence in the safety of their treatment.

Waiting lists for symptomatic joint arthritis are not benign: prioritizing patients for surgery in the setting of COVID-19.

AIM: Restarting elective services presents a challenge to restore and improve many of the planned patient care pathways which have been suspended during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant backlog of planned elective work has built up representing a considerable volume of patient need. We aimed to investigate the health status, quality of life, and the impact of delay for patients whose referrals and treatment for symptomatic joint arthritis had been delayed as a result of the response to COVID-19. METHODS: We interviewed 111 patients referred to our elective outpatient service and whose first appointments had been cancelled as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Patients reported significant impacts on their health status and quality of life. Overall, 79 (71.2%) patients reported a further deterioration in their condition while waiting, with seven (6.3%) evaluating their health status as 'worse than death'. CONCLUSIONS: Waiting lists are clearly not benign and how to prioritize patients, their level of need, and access to assessment and treatment must be more sophisticated than simply relying on the length of time a patient has been waiting. This paper supports the contention that patients awaiting elective joint arthroplasty report significant impacts on their quality of life and health status. This should be given appropriate weight when patients are prioritized for surgery as part of the recovery of services following the COVID-19 pandemic. Elective surgery should not be seen as optional surgery-patients do not see it in this way.