Staff and patient experience of the implementation and delivery of a virtual health care home monitoring service for COVID-19 in Melbourne, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Provision of virtual health care (VHC) home monitoring for patients who are experiencing mild to moderate COVID-19 illness is emerging as a central strategy for reducing pressure on acute health systems. Understanding the enablers and challenges in implementation and delivery of these programs is important for future implementation and re-design. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of staff involved with the implementation and delivery, and the experience of patients managed by, a VHC monitoring service in Melbourne, Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach informed by naturalist inquiry was used. Staff interviews were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Patient experience was captured using a survey and descriptive statistics were used to describe categorical responses while content analysis was used to analyse free text responses as they related to the CFIR. Finally, data from the interviews and patient experience were triangulated to see if patient experience validated data from staff interviews. RESULTS: All 15 staff were interviewed, and 271 patients were surveyed (42%). A total of four final overarching themes emerged: service implementation enablers, service delivery benefits for patients, fragmentation of care, and workforce strengths. 19 subthemes aligned with 18 CFIR constructs from staff and patient data. CONCLUSION: Rapid implementation was enabled through shared resources, dividing implementation tasks between senior personnel, engaging furloughed healthcare staff in design and delivery, and having a flexible approach that allowed for ongoing improvements. Benefits for patients included early identification of COVID-19 deterioration, as well as provision of accurate and trustworthy information to isolate safely at home. The main challenges were the multiple agencies involved in patient monitoring, which may be addressed in the future by attributing responsibility for monitoring to a single agency.

Reflections on New Evidence on Crisis Standards of Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Crisis standards of care have been widely developed by healthcare systems and states in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in some rare cases have actually been used to allocate medical resources. All publicly available U.S. crisis standards of care with a mechanism for allocating scarce resources make use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in hopes of assigning scarce resources to those patients who are more likely to survive. We reflect on the growing body of evidence suggesting that the SOFA score has limited accuracy in predicting mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and that the SOFA score systematically disfavors Black patients. Use of the SOFA score for allocating scarce resources may therefore result in Black patients with equal likelihood of survival being deprived of life-saving medical resources. There is also a risk of injustice for patients with non-COVID-19 diagnoses, for whom the SOFA score may be a more accurate prognostic score, but who might nevertheless be unfairly (de)prioritized when assessed alongside COVID-19 patients using the same scoring system. For these reasons we recommend that the SOFA score not be used for triage purposes during the COVID pandemic, and that a national effort be made to develop and empirically test crisis standards of care in advance of the next public health emergency.

Descriptive Analysis of a Telephone Based Community Monitoring Service for COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has required health services to rapidly respond to the needs of people diagnosed with the virus. Over 80% of people diagnosed with COVID-19 experience a mild illness and there is a need for community management to support these people in their home. In this paper we present, a telephone based COVID-19 community monitoring service developed in an Australian public health network, and we describe the rapid implementation of the service and the demographic and clinical characteristics of those enrolled. A retrospective mixed methods evaluation of the COVID-19 community monitoring service using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework. Eight hundred and fifty COVID-19 positive patients were enrolled, 54% female, 45% male, mean age 34 years SD 17. Four hundred and nine (48%) patients were born outside Australia. Among the 850 patients, 305 (36%) were classified as having a high risk of serious illness from COVID-19. The most prevalent risk factors were cardiovascular disease (37%), lung disease (30%) and age over 60 years (26%). The most common reported ongoing symptoms were fatigue (55%), breathing issues (26%) and mental health issues such as low mood (19%). There were no deaths in patients that participated in the service. The process of risk stratification undertaken with telephone triage was effective in determining risk of prolonged illness from COVID-19. Telephone monitoring by trained health professionals has a strong potential in the effective management of patients with a mild COVID-19 illness.

Scarce-Resource Allocation and Patient Triage During the COVID-19 Pandemic: JACC Review Topic of the Week

The COVID-19 pandemic and its sequelae have created scenarios of scarce medical resources, leading to the prospect that health care systems have faced or will face difficult decisions about triage, allocation, and reallocation. These decisions should be guided by ethical principles and values, should not be made before crisis standards have been declared by authorities, and, in most cases, will not be made by bedside clinicians. Do not attempt resuscitation and withholding and withdrawing decisions should be made according to standard determination of medical appropriateness and futility, but there are unique considerations during a pandemic. Transparent and clear communication is crucial, coupled with dedication to provide the best possible care to patients, including palliative care. As medical knowledge about COVID-19 grows, more will be known about prognostic factors that can guide these difficult decisions. Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation