Remote COVID-19 patient monitoring system: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Many COVID-19 patients are discharged home from hospital with instructions to self-isolate. This reduces the burden on potentially overwhelmed hospitals. The Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) Home Monitoring Programme (HMP) is a model of care for COVID-19 patients which chiefly tracks pulse oximetry and body temperature readings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the HMP from a patient perspective. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Of 46 COVID-19 patients who used the HMP through RMH during April to August 2020, 16 were invited to participate in this qualitative evaluation study; all accepted, including 6 healthcare workers. Attempts were made to recruit a gender-balanced sample across a range of COVID-19 severities and comorbidities. Participants completed a brief semistructured phone interview discussing their experience of using the HMP. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: A thematic analysis of interview data was conducted. Feasibility was defined as the HMP's reported ease of use. Acceptability was considered holistically by reviewing themes in the interview data. RESULTS: The HMP allowed clinical deterioration to be recognised as it occurred enabling prompt intervention. All participants reported a positive opinion of the HMP, stating it was highly acceptable and easy to use. Almost all participants said they found using it reassuring. Patients frequently mentioned the importance of the monitoring clinicians as an information conduit. The most suggested improvement was to monitor a broader set of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The HMP is highly feasible and acceptable to patients. This model of care could potentially be implemented on a mass-scale to reduce the burden of COVID-19 on hospitals. A key benefit of the HMP is the ability to reassure patients they will receive suitable intervention should they deteriorate while isolating outside of hospital settings.

Outcomes for emergency department patients with suspected and confirmed COVID-19: An analysis of the Australian experience in 2020 (COVED-5).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting to Australian EDs with suspected and confirmed COVID-19 during 2020, and to determine the predictors of in-hospital death for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. METHODS: This analysis from the COVED Project presents data from 12 sites across four Australian states for the period from 1 April to 30 November 2020. All adult patients who met local criteria for suspected COVID-19 and underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED were eligible for inclusion. Study outcomes were mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 24 405 eligible ED presentations over the whole study period, 423 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. During the 'second wave' from 1 July to 30 September 2020, 26 (6%) of 406 SARS-CoV-2 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation, compared to 175 (2%) of the 9024 SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3-5.2, P < 0.001), and 41 (10%) SARS-CoV-2 positive patients died in hospital compared to 312 (3%) SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (OR 3.2; 95% CI 2.2-4.4, P = 0.001). For SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, the strongest independent predictors of hospital death were age (OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.1, P < 0.001), higher triage category (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.3-9.4, P = 0.012), obesity (OR 4.2; 95% CI 1.2-14.3, P = 0.024) and receiving immunosuppressive treatment (OR 8.2; 95% CI 1.8-36.7, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: ED patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had higher odds of mechanical ventilation and death in hospital. The strongest predictors of death were age, a higher triage category, obesity and receiving immunosuppressive treatment.

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.

High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T for the Detection of Myocardial Injury and Risk Stratification in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) for risk-stratification in COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, observational, US-based study of COVID-19 patients undergoing hs-cTnT. Outcomes included short-term mortality (in-hospital and 30-days post-discharge) and a composite of major adverse events, including respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, cardiac arrest, and shock within the index presentation and/or mortality during the index hospitalization or within 30-days post-discharge. RESULTS: Among 367 COVID-19 patients undergoing hs-cTnT, myocardial injury was identified in 46%. They had a higher risk for mortality (20% vs 12%, P < 0.0001; unadjusted HR 4.44, 95% CI 2.13-9.25, P < 0.001) and major adverse events (35% vs. 11%, P < 0.0001; unadjusted OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.50-7.40, P < 0.0001). Myocardial injury was associated with major adverse events (adjusted OR 3.84, 95% CI 2.00-7.36, P < 0.0001) but not mortality. Baseline (adjusted OR 1.003, 95% CI 1.00-1.007, P = 0.047) and maximum (adjusted OR 1.005, 95% CI 1.001-1.009, P = 0.0012) hs-cTnT were independent predictors of major adverse events. Most (95%) increases were due to myocardial injury, with 5% (n = 8) classified as type 1 or 2 myocardial infarction. A single hs-cTnT <6 ng/L identified 26% of patients without mortality, with a 94.9% (95% CI 87.5-98.6) negative predictive value and 93.1% sensitivity (95% CI 83.3-98.1) for major adverse events in those presenting to the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial injury is frequent and prognostic in COVID-19. While most hs-cTnT increases are modest and due to myocardial injury, they have important prognostic implications. A single hs-cTnT <6 ng/L at presentation may facilitate the identification of patients with a favorable prognosis.

Epidemiology and clinical features of emergency department patients with suspected COVID-19: Insights from Australia's 'second wave' (COVED-4).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to describe the epidemiology and clinical features of patients presenting to the ED with suspected and confirmed COVID-19 during Australia's 'second wave'. METHODS: The COVID-19 ED (COVED) Project is an ongoing prospective cohort study in Australian EDs. This analysis presents data from 12 sites across four Australian states for the period from 1 July to 31 August 2020. All adult patients who met the criteria for 'suspected COVID-19' and underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED were eligible for inclusion. Study outcomes included a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: There were 106 136 presentations to the participating EDs and 12 055 (11.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.2-11.6) underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 255 (2%) patients returned a positive result. Among positive cases, 13 (5%) received mechanical ventilation during their hospital admission compared to 122 (2%) of the SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (odds ratio 2.7; 95% CI 1.5-4.9, P = 0.001). Nineteen (7%) SARS-CoV-2 positive patients died in hospital compared to 212 (3%) of the SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (odds ratio 2.3; 95% CI 1.4-3.7, P = 0.001). Strong clinical predictors of the SARS-CoV-2 test result included self-reported fever, sore throat, bilateral infiltrates on chest X-ray, and absence of a leucocytosis on first ED blood tests (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective multi-site study during Australia's 'second wave', a substantial proportion of ED presentations required SARS-CoV-2 testing and isolation. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal swab was associated with an increase in the odds of death and mechanical ventilation in hospital.

Patients presenting for hospital-based screening for the coronavirus disease 2019: Risk of disease, and healthcare access preferences.

OBJECTIVE: Early during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Australian EDs experienced an unprecedented surge in patients seeking screening. Understanding what proportion of these patients require testing and who can be safely screened in community-based models of care is critical for workforce and infrastructure planning across the healthcare system, as well as public messaging campaigns. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, we screened patients presenting to a COVID-19 screening clinic in a tertiary ED. We assessed the proportion of patients who met testing criteria; self-reported symptom severity; reasons why they came to the ED for screening and views on community-based care. RESULTS: We include findings from 1846 patients. Most patients (55.3%) did not meet contemporaneous criteria for testing and most (57.6%) had mild or no (13.4%) symptoms. The main reason for coming to the ED was being referred by a telephone health service (31.3%) and 136 (7.4%) said they tried to contact their general practitioner but could not get an appointment. Only 47 (2.6%) said they thought the disease was too specialised for their general practitioner to manage. CONCLUSIONS: While capacity building in acute care facilities is an important part of pandemic planning, it is also important that patients not needing hospital level of care can be assessed and treated elsewhere. We have identified a significant proportion of people at this early stage in the pandemic who have sought healthcare at hospital but who might have been assisted in the community had services been available and public health messaging structured to guide them there.