Evaluating the impact of a virtual outpatient care programme in preventing hospitalizations, emergency department visits and mortality for patients with COVID-19: a matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of virtual care in preventing unnecessary healthcare visits for patients with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study, evaluating the COVID-19 Expansion to Outpatients (COVIDEO) programme involving virtual assessments for all positive patients in the Sunnybrook assessment centre from January 2020 to June 2021, followed by risk-stratified routine follow-up, couriering of oxygen saturation devices, and 24 hour/day direct-to-physician pager for urgent questions. We linked COVIDEO data to province-wide datasets, matching each eligible COVIDEO patient to ≤10 other Ontario SARS-CoV-2 patients on age, sex, neighbourhood, and date. The primary outcome was emergency department (ED) visit, hospitalization or death within 30 days. Multivariable regression accounted for comorbidities, vaccination, and pre-pandemic healthcare utilization. RESULTS: Among 6508 eligible COVIDEO patients, 4763 (73.1%) were matched to ≥1 non-COVIDEO patient. COVIDEO care was protective against the primary composite outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.91, 95% CI, 0.82-1.02), with a reduction in ED visits (7.8% vs. 9.6%; aOR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.70-0.89), but increase in hospitalizations (3.8% vs. 2.7%, aOR 1.37, 95% CI, 1.14-1.63) reflecting more direct-to-ward admissions (1.3% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.0001). Results were similar when matched comparators were limited to patients who had not received virtual care elsewhere with a decrease in ED visits (7.8 vs. 8.6%, aOR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.75-0.99) and an increase in hospitalizations (3.7 vs. 2.4%, aOR 1.45, 95% CI, 1.17-1.80). DISCUSSION: An intensive remote care programme can prevent unnecessary ED visits and facilitate direct-to-ward hospitalizations and thereby mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the healthcare system.

Ontario COVID-19 assessment centre practices in patient counselling, education, and follow-up care: A provincial survey.

Background: In March 2020, COVID-19 assessment centres were launched across the province of Ontario to facilitate COVID-19 testing outside of emergency departments. We aimed to study the degree to which assessment centres provide education and follow-up care for patients with suspected COVID-19. Methods: We conducted an online survey of Ontario COVID-19 assessment centre directors between September 15 and October 15, 2020. The primary outcomes studied were the types of educational modalities employed and information conveyed, methods and frequency of test result communication, and any follow-up care that was offered. Survey respondents were also asked to provide descriptions of barriers to patient education and test communication. Results: A total of 56 directors (representing 73 assessment centres) completed the survey. The most frequent educational modalities employed were educational handouts (92%), direct in-person counselling (89%), and referral to website (72%). Seventy-one percent of respondents indicated patients with positive test results would be notified, and 61% of respondents indicated that follow-up care would be offered. The most frequently reported barriers to patient education were insufficient time and high volume of tests, while the most frequently reported barriers to communication of test results were difficulty accessing online health portals and high volume of tests. Conclusion: The ability of many assessment centres to provide patient education is limited by both individual patient and system-level factors. Assessment centres may benefit from standardization of educational materials, improved accessibility to test results for patients in marginalized groups, and virtual pathways to facilitate additional counselling and care for individuals who test positive.

Historique : En mars 2020, des centres d'évaluation de la COVID-19 ont été lancés dans la province de l'Ontario afin de favoriser le dépistage de la COVID-19 hors des services d'urgence. Les chercheurs visaient à étudier dans quelle mesure ces centres transmettent de l'information et des soins de suivi aux patients chez qui on présume une COVID-19. Méthodologie : Les chercheurs ont réalisé un sondage en ligne auprès des directeurs des centres d'évaluation de la COVID-19 de l'Ontario entre le 15 septembre et le 15 octobre 2020. Le type de modalités pédagogiques utilisé et d'information transmise, les modes et la fréquence de communication des résultats des tests et les soins de suivi offerts étaient les résultats cliniques primaires à l'étude. Les répondants au sondage ont également été invités à décrire les obstacles à la transmission d'information aux patients et à la communication des résultats. Résultats : Au total, 56 directeurs (représentant 73 centres d'évaluation) ont rempli le sondage. Les principales modalités pédagogiques étaient la remise de document d'information (92 %), des conseils individuels directs (89 %) et l'orientation vers un site Web (72 %). Ainsi, 71 % des répondants ont indiqué que les patients obtenant un résultat positif en étaient avisés, et 61 %, que des soins de suivi seraient offerts. Les principaux obstacles à la transmission d'information aux patients étaient le manque de temps et le volume élevé de tests, tandis que les principaux obstacles à la transmission des résultats étaient la difficulté d'accès aux portails santé en ligne et le volume élevé de tests. Conclusion : La capacité de nombreux centres d'évaluation à transmettre de l'information aux patients est limitée à la fois par des facteurs liés aux patients eux-mêmes et par des facteurs systémiques. Les centres d'évaluation pourraient tirer profit de la standardisation des documents pédagogiques, d'un meilleur accès aux résultats des tests pour les patients de groupes marginalisés et de trajectoires virtuelles pour favoriser la transmission de conseils et de soins supplémentaires aux personnes dont les résultats sont positifs.

Using Virtual Care to Facilitate Direct Hospital Admissions in Outpatients with Worsening COVID-19 Infection.

Recognizing emergency department overcrowding during the COVID-19 pandemic, a pathway to facilitate direct admissions for outpatients with worsening COVID-19 infection was created using the COVID-19 expansion to outpatients (COVIDEO) virtual care program. Outpatients appropriate for direct admission had oxygen saturations consistently <92% without severe respiratory distress. Pulse oximeters were proactively delivered to high-risk patients, and patients contacted the program in the event of worsening symptoms or desaturation persistently <92%. Over a 15-month period, 9,116 outpatients were managed by the program, 164 of whom were hospitalized, and 83 of those hospitalized (50.6%) were directly admitted through this pathway. Of those directly admitted, 10 (12.0%) patients required ICU admission, occurring a median of 4 days from hospital admission. The mortality rate among directly admitted patients was 3.6% (3/83). Implementation of a virtual care program to facilitate direct admissions in outpatients with COVID-19 created a safe, efficient, and patient-centered pathway of care.

Association between initial symptoms and subsequent hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19: A cohort study

Background Most individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience mild symptoms and are managed in the outpatient setting. The aim of this study was to determine whether self-reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis can identify patients at risk of clinical deterioration. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of 671 outpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosed in Toronto between March 1 and October 16, 2020. We examined the association between patients’ baseline characteristics and self-reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis and the risk of subsequent hospitalization. Results Of 671 participants, 26 (3.9%) required hospitalization. Individuals aged 65 years or older were more likely to require hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 5.29, 95% CI 2.19 to 12.77), whereas those without medical comorbidities were unlikely to be hospitalized (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.17). After adjusting for age and presence of comorbidities, sputum production (adjusted OR [aOR] 5.01, 95% CI 1.97 to 12.75), arthralgias (aOR 4.82, 95% CI 1.85 to 12.53), diarrhea (aOR 4.56, 95% CI 1.82 to 11.42), fever (aOR 3.64, 95% CI 1.50 to 8.82), chills (aOR 3.62, 95% CI 1.54 to 8.50), and fatigue (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 1.04 to 6.47) were associated with subsequent hospitalization. Conclusions Early assessment of symptoms among outpatients with COVID-19 can help identify individuals at risk of clinical deterioration. Additional studies are needed to determine whether more intense follow-up and early intervention among high-risk individuals can alter the clinical trajectory of and outcomes among outpatients with COVID-19.

Prevalence and predictors of persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic has affected hundreds of millions of people; early reports suggesting high rates of prolonged symptoms may be prone to selection bias. METHODS: In a program caring for all SARS-CoV-2 positive inpatients and outpatients between March to October 2020, and offering universal 90-day follow-up, we compared those who died prior to 90 days, not responding to follow-up, declining, or accepting follow-up. Among those seen or declining follow-up, we determined the prevalence and predictors of persistent symptoms. RESULTS: Among 993 patients, 21 (2.1%) died prior to 90 days, 506 (50.9%) did not respond, 260 (26.1%) declined follow-up because they were well, and 206 (20.7%) were fully assessed. Of 466 who responded to follow-up inquiry, 133 (28.5%) reported ≥1 persistent symptom, including constitutional (15.5%), psychiatric (14.2%), rheumatologic (13.1%), neurologic (13.1%), cardiorespiratory (12.0%), and gastrointestinal (1.7%). Predictors differed for each symptom type. Any persistent symptom was more common in older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18/5 years), those diagnosed in hospital (aOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.33) and those with initial constitutional and rheumatologic symptoms. Patients not responding to follow-up were younger and healthier at baseline. CONCLUSION: Persistent symptoms are common and diverse 3 months post-COVID-19 but are likely over-estimated by most reports.

HISTORIQUE: La pandémie touche des centaines de millions de gens. Les rapports précoces laissant croire à des symptômes prolongés pourraient être assujettis à un biais de sélection. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Dans un programme de soins auprès de tous les patients ambulatoires et hospitalisés ayant reçu un résultat positif au SRAS-CoV-2 entre mars et octobre 2020, assorti d'un suivi universel de 90 jours, les chercheurs ont comparé les personnes qui ont succombé avant 90 jours, n'ont pas répondu au suivi ou ont décliné ou accepté le suivi. Chez celles qui ont été vues ou ont décliné le suivi, ils ont déterminé la prévalence et les prédicteurs de symptômes persistants. RÉSULTATS: Chez les 993 patients, 21 (2,1 %) sont décédés avant les 90 jours, 506 (50,9 %) n'ont pas répondu, 260 (26,1 %) ont décliné le suivi parce qu'ils se sentaient bien et 206 (20,7 %) se sont soumis à une évaluation complète. Des 466 qui ont répondu à l'offre de suivi, 133 (28,5 %) ont signalé ressentir au moins un symptôme persistant, y compris d'ordre constitutionnel (15,5 %), psychiatrique (14,2 %), rhumatologique (13,1 %), neurologique (13,1 %), cardiorespiratoire (12,0 %) et gastro-intestinal (1,7 %). Les prédicteurs différaient en fonction de chaque type de symptômes. Les symptômes persistants étaient courants chez les personnes âgées (rapport de cotes corrigé [RCc] 1,11, IC à 95 %, 1,04 à 1,18/cinq ans), les personnes diagnostiquées à l'hôpital (RCc 2,03, IC à 95 %, 1,24 à 3,33) et celles dont les manifestations initiales comportaient des symptômes constitutionnels et rhumatologiques. Les patients qui ne répondaient pas au suivi étaient plus jeunes et en meilleure santé au départ. CONCLUSION: Les symptômes persistants sont courants et diversifiés trois mois après la COVID-19, mais sont probablement surestimés dans la plupart des rapports.

Association between initial symptoms and subsequent hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19: A cohort study.

Background: Most individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience mild symptoms and are managed in the outpatient setting. The aim of this study was to determine whether self-reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis can identify patients at risk of clinical deterioration. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 671 outpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosed in Toronto between March 1 and October 16, 2020. We examined the association between patients' baseline characteristics and self-reported symptoms at the time of diagnosis and the risk of subsequent hospitalization. Results: Of 671 participants, 26 (3.9%) required hospitalization. Individuals aged 65 years or older were more likely to require hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 5.29, 95% CI 2.19 to 12.77), whereas those without medical comorbidities were unlikely to be hospitalized (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.17). After adjusting for age and presence of comorbidities, sputum production (adjusted OR [aOR] 5.01, 95% CI 1.97 to 12.75), arthralgias (aOR 4.82, 95% CI 1.85 to 12.53), diarrhea (aOR 4.56, 95% CI 1.82 to 11.42), fever (aOR 3.64, 95% CI 1.50 to 8.82), chills (aOR 3.62, 95% CI 1.54 to 8.50), and fatigue (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 1.04 to 6.47) were associated with subsequent hospitalization. Conclusions: Early assessment of symptoms among outpatients with COVID-19 can help identify individuals at risk of clinical deterioration. Additional studies are needed to determine whether more intense follow-up and early intervention among high-risk individuals can alter the clinical trajectory of and outcomes among outpatients with COVID-19.

Historique: La plupart des personnes atteintes de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) éprouvent des symptômes légers et sont prises en charge en milieu ambulatoire. La présente étude visait à déterminer si les symptômes autodéclarés au moment du diagnostic permettent de dépister les patients à risque de détérioration clinique. Méthodologie: Les chercheurs ont réalisé la présente étude de cohorte rétrospective auprès de 671 patients ambulatoires atteints d'une COVID-19 diagnostiquée à Toronto et confirmée en laboratoire entre le 1er mars et le 16 octobre 2020. Ils ont examiné l'association entre les caractéristiques de référence et les symptômes autodéclarés des patients au moment du diagnostic, d'une part, et le risque d'hospitalisation, d'admission en soins intensifs ou de décès par la suite, d'autre part. Résultats: Des 671 participants, 26 (3,9 %) ont dû être hospitalisés, sept (1,0 %) ont été admis en soins intensifs et trois (0,4 %) sont décédés dans les 30 jours suivant le diagnostic. Les personnes de 65 ans ou plus étaient plus susceptibles de devoir être hospitalisées (RC 5,29, IC à 95 % 2,19 à 12,77) et celles qui n'avaient pas d'autres problèmes de santé l'étaient moins (RC 0,02, IC à 95 % 0,00 à 0,17). Après redressement pour tenir compte de l'âge et de la présence d'autres problèmes de santé, la production de mucus (RC ajusté [RCa] 5,01, IC à 95 % 2,11 à 13,66), les arthralgies (RCa 4,82, IC à 95 % 1,85 à 12,53), la diarrhée (RCa 4,56, IC à 95 % 1,82 à 11,42), la fièvre (RCa 3,64, IC à 95 % 1,50 à 8,82), les frissons (RCa 3,62, IC à 95 % 1,54 à 8,50) et la fatigue (RCa 2,59, IC à 95 % 1,04 à 6,47) étaient associés à des hospitalisations. Conclusions: L'évaluation précoce des symptômes des patients ambulatoires atteints de la COVID-19 peut contribuer à dépister les personnes vulnérables à une détérioration clinique. Lorsque ce facteur s'ajoute à l'âge et à l'histoire de problèmes de santé, la symptomatologie fournit plus d'information pronostique aux cliniciens qui prennent en charge les patients atteints de COVID-19 en milieu ambulatoire. D'autres études s'imposent pour déterminer si un suivi plus intense et une intervention précoce auprès des personnes très vulnérables peuvent modifier la trajectoire clinique et le pronostic des patients ambulatoires atteints de la COVID-19.

Diagnostic accuracy of subjective dyspnoea in detecting hypoxaemia among outpatients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The majority of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 can be managed using virtual care. Dyspnoea is challenging to assess remotely, and the accuracy of subjective dyspnoea measures in capturing hypoxaemia have not been formally evaluated for COVID-19. We explored the accuracy of subjective dyspnoea in diagnosing hypoxaemia in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive outpatients with COVID-19 who met criteria for home oxygen saturation monitoring at a university-affiliated acute care hospital in Toronto, Canada from 3 April 2020 to 13 September 2020. Dyspnoea measures were treated as diagnostic tests, and we determined their sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), negative/positive predictive value (NPV/PPV) and positive/negative likelihood ratios (+LR/-LR) for detecting hypoxaemia. In the primary analysis, hypoxaemia was defined by oxygen saturation <95%; the diagnostic accuracy of subjective dyspnoea was also assessed across a range of oxygen saturation cutoffs from 92% to 97%. RESULTS: During the study period, 89/501 (17.8%) of patients met criteria for home oxygen saturation monitoring, and of these 17/89 (19.1%) were diagnosed with hypoxaemia. The presence/absence of dyspnoea had limited accuracy for diagnosing hypoxaemia, with SN 47% (95% CI 24% to 72%), SP 80% (95% CI 68% to 88%), NPV 86% (95% CI 75% to 93%), PPV 36% (95% CI 18% to 59%), +LR 2.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.7) and -LR 0.7 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1). The SN of dyspnoea was 50% (95% CI 19% to 81%) when a cut-off of <92% was used to define hypoxaemia. A modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score >1 (SP 98%, 95% CI 88% to 100%), Roth maximal count <12 (SP 100%, 95% CI 75% to 100%) and Roth counting time <8 s (SP 93%, 95% CI 66% to 100%) had high SP that could be used to rule in hypoxaemia, but displayed low SN (≤50%). CONCLUSIONS: Subjective dyspnoea measures have inadequate accuracy for ruling out hypoxaemia in high-risk patients with COVID-19. Safe home management of patients with COVID-19 should incorporate home oxygenation saturation monitoring.

A virtual care program for outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In patients who are discharged home to self-isolate while coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test results are pending, there is no formal method for physician assessments or counselling to occur if the result returns positive. Our aim was to develop and test the feasibility of a virtual care program for self-isolating outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19. METHODS: In preparation for this gap in health care, the COVID-19 Expansion to Outpatients (COVIDEO) program was developed at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, to provide ongoing care for outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19. As part of a feasibility study, we describe our experiences with the first 50 patients managed using this program from its inception (Mar. 1, 2020) until Mar. 27, 2020. RESULTS: All 50 people who tested positive for COVID-19 at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and were discharged home to self-isolation during the study period were assessed through the COVIDEO program. Thirty-two patients (64%) were assessed via the Ontario Telemedicine Network virtual care platform, and the remainder by telephone. The median time from viral swab collection to first COVIDEO program assessment was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-2) days. Among the 26 patients for whom further follow-up care through the COVIDEO program was discontinued by the end of March 2020, the median duration of virtual care was 12.5 (IQR 8.75-16) days. During the study period, 6 patients required transfer to hospital for assessment, of whom 4 required admission. INTERPRETATION: We have shown that a virtual care program can be used in the management of outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19. Further studies evaluating its sustainability and impact on health outcomes are underway.