Outcomes for upper gastrointestinal bleeding during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Toronto area.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Changes to endoscopy service availability during the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The aim of this study was to describe the impact of the pandemic on UGIB outcomes in the Toronto area in Canada. METHODS: We described all adults admitted to general medicine wards or intensive care units at six hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Canada, with UGIB during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) and compared them with a historical cohort (March 1 to June 30, 2018 and 2019). We compared clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmission, intensive care utilization, receipt of endoscopy, persistent bleeding, receipt of second endoscopy, and need for angiographic or surgical intervention) using multivariable regression models, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and severity of clinical presentation. RESULTS: There were 82.5 and 215.5 admissions per month for UGIB during the COVID-19 and control periods, respectively. There were no baseline differences between groups for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, or severity of bleeding. Patients in the COVID-19 group did not have significantly different unadjusted (3.9% vs 4.2%, P = 0.983) or adjusted mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25-1.48, P = 0.322). Patients in COVID-19 group were less likely to receive endoscopy for UGIB in the unadjusted (61.8% vs 71.0%, P = 0.003) and adjusted (adjusted OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.49-0.84, P < 0.01) models. There were no differences between groups for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While patients admitted for UGIB during the first wave of the pandemic were less likely to receive endoscopy, this had no impact on mortality or any secondary outcomes.

Frontline connect: Evaluating a virtual technology program to enhance patient and provider communication during COVID-19.

RATIONALE: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals have reduced in-hospital visitation. In these situations, virtual communication tools have helped maintain interaction between parties. The Frontline Connect program was designed to address communication and patient care challenges by providing data-enabled devices to clinical staff in hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify areas of improvement for the Frontline Connect program by: (a) evaluating communication needs, user experience, and program satisfaction; and (b) identifying potential barriers to device access or use. METHODS: We administered pre-implementation needs assessment, post-use, and exit surveys to healthcare staff at a pilot hospital site in Ontario. Recruitment was through email lists and site champions using convenience sampling. We descriptively analysed survey responses and compared the initial need statements to post-implementation use-cases identified by users. RESULTS: We received 139 needs assessments, 31 user experience assessments, and 47 exit survey responses. Most device use occurred in the emergency department and intensive care units and was facilitated by social workers, nurses, and physicians to connect patients, families, and care providers. Pre-implementation concerns were related to infection control, data security, and device privacy. In the exit survey, these were replaced by other concerns including Internet connectivity and time-intensiveness. Device utility and ease-of-use were rated 9.7/10 and 9.6/10 respectively in the user experience survey, though overall experience was rated 7.2/10 in the exit survey. Overall, respondents viewed the devices as useful and we agree with participants who suggested increased program promotion and training would likely improve adoption. CONCLUSIONS: We found that our virtual technology program for facilitating communication was positively perceived. Survey feedback indicates that a rapid rollout in response to urgent pandemic-related needs was feasible, though program logistics could be improved. The current work supports the need to improve, standardize, and sustain virtual communication programs in hospitals.

Completeness of reporting for COVID-19 case reports, January to April 2020: a meta-epidemiologic study.

BACKGROUND: The quality of case reports, which are often the first reported evidence for a disease, may be negatively affected by a rush to publication early in a pandemic. We aimed to determine the completeness of reporting (COR) for case reports published on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database for all single-patient case reports of confirmed COVID-19 published from Jan. 1 to Apr. 24, 2020. All included case reports were assessed for adherence to the CARE (Case Report) 31-item checklist, which was used to create a composite COR score. The primary outcome was the mean COR score assessed by 2 independent raters. Secondary outcomes included whether there was a change in overall COR score with certain publication factors (e.g., publication date) and whether there was a linear relation between COR and citation count and between COR scores and social media attention. RESULTS: Our search identified 196 studies that were published in 114 unique journals. We found that the overall mean COR score was 54.4%. No one case report included all of the 31 CARE checklist items. There was no significant correlation between COR with either citation count or social media attention. INTERPRETATION: We found that the overall COR for case reports on COVID-19 was poor. We suggest that journals adopt common case-reporting standards to improve reporting quality.