Threat of COVID-19 impacting on a quaternary healthcare service: a retrospective cohort study of administrative data.

OBJECTIVES: The threat of a pandemic, over and above the disease itself, may have significant and broad effects on a healthcare system. We aimed to describe the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (during a relatively low transmission period) and associated societal restrictions on presentations, admissions and outpatient visits. DESIGN: We compared hospital activity in 2020 with the preceding 5 years, 2015-2019, using a retrospective cohort study design. SETTING: Quaternary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency department presentations, hospital admissions and outpatient visits from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2020, n=896 934 episodes of care. INTERVENTION: In Australia, the initial peak COVID-19 phase was March-April. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Separate linear regression models were fitted to estimate the impact of the pandemic on the number, type and severity of emergency presentations, hospital admissions and outpatient visits. RESULTS: During the peak COVID-19 phase (March and April 2020), there were marked reductions in emergency presentations (10 389 observed vs 14 678 expected; 29% reduction; p<0.05) and hospital admissions (5972 observed vs 8368 expected; 28% reduction; p<0.05). Stroke (114 observed vs 177 expected; 35% reduction; p<0.05) and trauma (1336 observed vs 1764 expected; 24% reduction; p<0.05) presentations decreased; acute myocardial infarctions were unchanged. There was an increase in the proportion of hospital admissions requiring intensive care (7.0% observed vs 6.0% expected; p<0.05) or resulting in death (2.2% observed vs 1.5% expected; p<0.05). Outpatient attendances remained similar (30 267 observed vs 31 980 expected; 5% reduction; not significant) but telephone/telehealth consultations increased from 2.5% to 45% (p<0.05) of total consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Although case numbers of COVID-19 were relatively low in Australia during the first 6 months of 2020, the impact on hospital activity was profound.

Remote Device Interrogation Kiosks (ReDInK) - Pharmacy Kiosk Remote Testing of Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Rural Victorians. A Novel Strategy to Tackle COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In the era of COVID-19, travel restrictions and social distancing measures have changed the landscape for device interrogations of pacemakers and defibrillators for rural Victorians. Previously, device checks were performed infrequently in large volume, face-to-face rural clinics by visiting cardiologists and technicians. Access to remote areas and social distancing restrictions have made these clinics unfeasible to operate. The Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) and Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) COVID-19 consensus statements have suggested the utilisation of remote monitoring to minimise the potential spread of COVID-19 infections between clinicians and high-risk patients. A novel solution to this challenge was the implementation of a remote device interrogation (RI) service located in two kiosks at two rural pharmacies. This service was termed Remote Device Interrogation Kiosks (ReDInK). AIM: This cross-sectional observational study aimed to describe the set-up process, safety and efficacy of RI and customer satisfaction of the ReDInK program. METHODS: Two-hundred-and-ninety-two (292) rurally located patients with implantable cardiac devices were identified via the cardiology department database. Of these, 101 (44%) were enrolled into the ReDInK program across two rurally located pharmacies between April and July 2020. RI was performed and download outcomes were reviewed. A customer satisfaction survey assessed attitudes towards the program and explored options of ongoing service application. RESULTS: Of 101 patients enrolled into ReDInK, 96 (95%) resulted in satisfactory device checks. Four (4) individuals failed-to-attend and one individual experienced technical download issues. Of the 96 satisfactory device checks, three required in-person follow-up for reasons including battery replacement, lead repositioning and in-person programming. No adverse events were reported. A satisfaction telephone survey was conducted with 81 (83%) participants enrolled in ReDInK. Seventy-one (71) individuals (88%) of those surveyed expressed satisfaction and 73 (90%) labelled the process as efficiently conducted. Sixty-nine (69) (85%) participants felt reassured that this service was established during the pandemic. However 47 (58%) participants reported they would still feel comfortable to undergo in-person reviews despite social distancing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: With the COVID-19 pandemic posing restrictions to social distancing and reducing unnecessary in-person interaction, the ReDInK program emerges as an efficacious and safe solution for patients in rural Victoria. The program's widely positive reception and successful conduction in rural Victoria invites further opportunity for a wider application of similar programs, expanding its role to metropolitan areas.