The COVID Positive Pathway: a collaboration between public health agencies, primary care, and metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the capacity of the COVID Positive Pathway, a collaborative model of care involving the Victorian public health unit, hospital services, primary care, community organisations, and the North Western Melbourne Primary Health Network, to support people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) isolating at home. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of adults in northwest Melbourne with COVID-19, 3 August - 31 December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic and clinical characteristics, and social and welfare needs of people cared for in the Pathway, by care tier level. RESULTS: Of 1392 people referred to the Pathway by the public health unit, 858 were eligible for enrolment, and 711 consented to participation; 647 (91%) remained in the Pathway until they had recovered and isolation was no longer required. A total of 575 participants (81%) received care in primary care, mostly from their usual general practitioners; 155 people (22%) received care from hospital outreach services, and 64 (9%) needed high tier care (hospitalisation). Assistance with food and other basic supplies was required by 239 people in the Pathway (34%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID Positive Pathway is a feasible multidisciplinary, tiered model of care for people with COVID-19. About 80% of participants could be adequately supported by primary care and community organisations, allowing hospital services to be reserved for people with more severe illness or with risk factors for disease progression. The principles of this model could be applied to other health conditions if regulatory and funding barriers to information-sharing and care delivery by health care providers can be overcome.

COVID-19 pandemic 2020: a tertiary Melbourne hospital's experience.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected different parts of Australia in distinct ways across 2020 and 2021. In 2020, Melbourne was the epicentre of COVID-19. As one of the key tertiary centres caring for the patients affected by the outbreaks, the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) managed the majority of the Victorian inpatient caseload. AIMS: To review the demographics, management and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 cared for by the RMH services in 2020. METHODS: A single health service retrospective cohort analysis of demographics, interventions and outcomes was conducted to characterise the RMH experience in 2020. RESULTS: From January to December 2020, 433 patients required admission more than 24 h. The demographics of affected patients and outcomes changed over the course of the study. Overall, 47% (203/433) required oxygen, most frequently (36%; 154/433) with low-flow devices (nasal prongs or hudson mask), and 11% (47/433) of patients required admission to intensive care. We recorded a 30-day mortality of 24% (104/433) mortality overall, rising to over 50% in patients aged over 80 years. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of this health service in 2020 demonstrated changing demographics over time, with associated differences in outcomes; notably marked mortality in older populations, frequent complications and limited inter-site transfer possible with mobilised resources.

The development of a home-based therapeutic platform for multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple Myeloma (MM) accounts for 1-2% of all malignancies but is the second most common hematological malignancy. It is characterized by a proliferation of malignant plasma cells. The treatment paradigm of MM in Australia is traditionally hospital-based, complex, and costly. While MM comprises 1-2% of cancer diagnoses, it appears in the top 10 cancer diagnoses requiring hospital admission. The cumulative time spent receiving treatment is a significant burden for patients. The ability to receive treatment at home and maximize time away from hospital-based settings is a key preference for patients receiving anticancer therapies over a prolonged period of time. METHODS: The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital's combined Clinical Hematology Unit has collaborated with their Hospital in the Home departments to develop several innovative programs to address this. RESULTS: We describe our current active programs and potential developments in home-based MM therapy. CONCLUSION: We have enabled large numbers of patients to receive complex therapies in their own home and the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the pace of the roll out without any compromise in safety. We anticipate that the next raft of immunotherapies will be able to transition into the @Home treatment setting in the coming years.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Treatment Patterns for Colorectal Cancer in a Tertiary Medical Facility in Korea.

Because of their reluctance to visit the hospital due to concerns about contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), patients with colorectal cancer have been affected by delays in care during the pandemic. This study assessed the effects of the pandemic on the clinical characteristics and surgical treatment patterns of colorectal cancer patients at a tertiary medical facility in Korea. Patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery at our institution between March and September 2020 were analyzed. Clinicopathological and treatment characteristics were compared with those of patients who underwent surgery in 2018 and 2019. The patients who did not undergo tumor resection (4.1% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001) and who received neoadjuvant treatment (16.7% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.039) were significantly higher during the COVID period. The minimally invasive approach was performed less during the COVID period (81.2% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). More patients in the COVID period required combined resection of organs adjacent to the tumor (4.8% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.017). Surgical aggressiveness, as shown by the proportion of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery and adjacent organ resection, was significantly influenced by the pandemic. In addition, resectability decreased during the COVID period. These characteristics will likely influence long-term oncological outcomes, indicating the need for long-term monitoring of this cohort.

Pandemic printing: a novel 3D-printed swab for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: To design and evaluate 3D-printed nasal swabs for collection of samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing. DESIGN: An iterative design process was employed. Laboratory evaluation included in vitro assessment of mock nasopharyngeal samples spiked with two different concentrations of gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2. A prospective clinical study compared SARS-CoV-2 and human cellular material recovery by 3D-printed swabs and standard nasopharyngeal swabs. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Royal Melbourne Hospital, May 2020. Participants in the clinical evaluation were 50 hospital staff members attending a COVID-19 screening clinic and two inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. INTERVENTION: In the clinical evaluation, a flocked nasopharyngeal swab sample was collected with the Copan ESwab and a mid-nasal sample from the other nostril was collected with the 3D-printed swab. RESULTS: In the laboratory evaluation, qualitative agreement with regard to SARS-CoV-2 detection in mock samples collected with 3D-printed swabs and two standard swabs was complete. In the clinical evaluation, qualitative agreement with regard to RNase P detection (a surrogate measure of adequate collection of human cellular material) in samples collected from 50 hospital staff members with standard and 3D-printed swabs was complete. Qualitative agreement with regard to SARS-CoV-2 detection in three pairs of 3D-printed mid-nasal and standard swab samples from two inpatients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was also complete. CONCLUSIONS: Using 3D-printed swabs to collect nasal samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing is feasible, acceptable to patients and health carers, and convenient.

Evaluation of Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Implications for Serology Testing in a Low-Prevalence Setting.

BACKGROUND: Robust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little premarket validation. METHODS: Performance characteristics for 5 PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). RESULTS: Sensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.1%-60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI, 89.2%-98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 96.1%-100.0%). ELISA sensitivity for IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI, 85.0%-98.3%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset. sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI, 53.2%-68.4%), rising to 91.2% (95% CI, 81.8%-96.7%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset, with specificity 94.4% (95% CI, 89.2%-97.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.