ABSTRACT
Objectives: Face-to-face healthcare, including psychiatric provision, must continue despite reduced interpersonal contact during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus) pandemic. Community-based services might use domiciliary visits, consultations in healthcare settings, or remote consultations. Services might also alter direct contact between clinicians. We examined the effects of appointment types and clinician-clinician encounters upon infection rates. Design: Computer simulation. Methods: We modelled a COVID-19-like disease in a hypothetical community healthcare team, their patients, and patients' household contacts (family). In one condition, clinicians met patients and briefly met family (e.g., home visit or collateral history). In another, patients attended alone (e.g., clinic visit), segregated from each other. In another, face-to-face contact was eliminated (e.g., videoconferencing). We also varied clinician-clinician contact; baseline and ongoing "external" infection rates; whether overt symptoms reduced transmission risk behaviourally (e.g., via personal protective equipment, PPE); and household clustering. Results: Service organisation had minimal effects on whole-population infection under our assumptions but materially affected clinician infection. Appointment type and inter-clinician contact had greater effects at low external infection rates and without a behavioural symptom response. Clustering magnified the effect of appointment type. We discuss infection control and other factors affecting appointment choice and team organisation. Conclusions: Distancing between clinicians can have significant effects on team infection. Loss of clinicians to infection likely has an adverse impact on care, not modelled here. Appointments must account for clinical necessity as well as infection control. Interventions to reduce transmission risk can synergize, arguing for maximal distancing and behavioural measures (e.g., PPE) consistent with safe care.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has affected social interaction and healthcare worldwide. METHODS: We examined changes in presentations and referrals to the primary provider of mental health and community health services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, UK (population ~0·86 million), plus service activity and deaths. We conducted interrupted time series analyses with respect to the time of UK "lockdown", which was shortly before the peak of COVID-19 infections in this area. We examined changes in standardized mortality ratio for those with and without severe mental illness (SMI). RESULTS: Referrals and presentations to nearly all mental and physical health services dropped at lockdown, with evidence for changes in both supply (service provision) and demand (help-seeking). This was followed by an increase in demand for some services. This pattern was seen for all major forms of presentation to liaison psychiatry services, except for eating disorders, for which there was no evidence of change. Inpatient numbers fell, but new detentions under the Mental Health Act were unchanged. Many services shifted from face-to-face to remote contacts. Excess mortality was primarily in the over-70s. There was a much greater increase in mortality for patients with SMI, which was not explained by ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has been associated with a system-wide drop in the use of mental health services, with some subsequent return in activity. "Supply" changes may have reduced access to mental health services for some. "Demand" changes may reflect a genuine reduction of need or a lack of help-seeking with pent-up demand. There has been a disproportionate increase in death among those with SMI during the pandemic.