ABSTRACT
Background: Combined Lung Ultrasound (LUS) and Focused UltraSound for Intensive Care heart (FUSIC Heart - formerly Focused Intensive Care Echocardiography, FICE) can aid diagnosis, risk stratification and management in COVID-19. However, data on its application and results are limited to small studies in varying countries and hospitals. This United Kingdom (UK) national service evaluation study assessed how combined LUS and FUSIC Heart were used in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Method: Twelve trusts across the UK registered for this prospective study. LUS and FUSIC Heart data were obtained, using a standardised data set including scoring of abnormalities, between 1st February 2020 to 30th July 2020. The scans were performed by intensivists with FUSIC Lung and Heart competency as a minimum standard. Data was anonymised locally prior to transfer to a central database. Results: 372 studies were performed on 265 patients. There was a small but significant relationship between LUS score >8 and 30-day mortality (OR 1.8). Progression of score was associated with an increase in 30-day mortality (OR 1.2). 30-day mortality was increased in patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (49.4% vs 29.2%). Severity of LUS score correlated with RV dysfunction (p < 0.05). Change in management occurred in 65% of patients following a combined scan. Conclusions: In COVID-19 patients, there is an association between lung ultrasound score severity, RV dysfunction and mortality identifiable by combined LUS and FUSIC Heart. The use of 12-point LUS scanning resulted in similar risk score to 6-point imaging in the majority of cases. Our findings suggest that serial combined LUS and FUSIC Heart on COVID-19 ICU patients may aid in clinical decision making and prognostication.
ABSTRACT
Recent trends across Europe show a year-on-year increase in the number of patients with acute medical illnesses presenting to hospitals, yet there are no plans for a substantial expansion in acute hospital infrastructure or staffing to address demand. Strategies to meet increasing demand need to consider the fact that there is limited capacity in acute hospitals and focus on new care models in both hospital and community settings. Increasing the efficiency of acute hospital provision by reducing the length of stay entails supporting acute ambulatory care, where patients receive daily acute care interventions but do not stay overnight in the hospitals. This approach may entail daily transfer between home and an acute setting for ongoing treatment, which is unsuitable for some patients living with frailty. Acute hospital at home (HaH) is a care model which, thanks to advances in point of care diagnostic capability, can provide a credible model of acute medical assessment and treatment without the need for hospital transfer. Investment and training to support scaling up of HaH are key strategic aims for integrated healthcare systems.
Subject(s)
Frailty , Hospitals , Europe/epidemiology , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Primary care has played a central role in the community response to the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. The use of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) has been advocated as a tool to guide escalation decisions in the community. The performance of this tool applied in this context is unclear. AIM: To evaluate the process of escalation of care to the hospital within a primary care assessment centre (PCAC) designed to assess patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective service evaluation of all adult patients assessed between 30 March and 22 April 2020 within a COVID-19 primary care assessment centre within Sandwell West Birmingham CCG. METHOD: A database of patient demographics, healthcare interactions and physiological observations was constructed. NEWS2 and CRB65 scores were calculated retrospectively. The proportion of patients escalated was within risk groups defined by NHSE guidelines in place during the evaluation period was determined. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were identified. Following assessment 13.3% (n = 20) patients were deemed to require escalation. The proportion of patients escalated with a NEWS2 greater than or equal to 3 was 46.9% (95% CI 30.8-63.6%). The proportion of patients escalated to secondary care using NHSE defined risk thresholds was 0% in the green group, 22% (n = 4) in the amber group, and 81.3% (n = 13) in the red group. CONCLUSION: Clinical decisions to escalate care to the hospital did not follow initial guidance written for the COVID-19 outbreak but were demonstrated to be safe.
In most cases, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is a mild illness that resolves on its own. Some patients develop severe disease requiring hospital treatment. Identifying which patients are likely to need hospital treatment is a challenge. Many GP practices have developed specific services designed to assess patients with suspected COVID-19 and establish whether hospital treatment is necessary. We evaluated a service providing this function in Birmingham. We examined the care pathway of 150 patients assessed within the service to established factors associated with the need for hospital assessment. We found a national decision tool designed to aid the process was a poor descriptor of what happened in practice.