Post-COVID-19 assessment in a specialist clinical service: a 12-month, single-centre, prospective study in 1325 individuals.

INTRODUCTION: Post-COVID-19 complications require simultaneous characterisation and management to plan policy and health system responses. We describe the 12-month experience of the first UK dedicated post-COVID-19 clinical service to include hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. METHODS: In a single-centre, observational analysis, we report the demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, investigations, treatments, functional recovery, specialist referral and rehabilitation of 1325 individuals assessed at the University College London Hospitals post-COVID-19 service between April 2020 and April 2021, comparing by referral route: posthospitalised (PH), non-hospitalised (NH) and post emergency department (PED). Symptoms associated with poor recovery or inability to return to work full time were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 1325 individuals were assessed (PH: 547, 41.3%; PED: 212, 16%; NH: 566, 42.7%). Compared with the PH and PED groups, the NH group were younger (median 44.6 (35.6-52.8) years vs 58.3 (47.0-67.7) years and 48.5 (39.4-55.7) years), more likely to be female (68.2%, 43.0% and 59.9%), less likely to be of ethnic minority (30.9%, 52.7% and 41.0%) or seen later after symptom onset (median (IQR): 194 (118-298) days, 69 (51-111) days and 76 (55-128) days; all p<0.0001). All groups had similar rates of onward specialist referral (NH 18.7%, PH 16.1% and PED 18.9%, p=0.452) and were more likely to require support for breathlessness (23.7%, 5.5% and 15.1%, p<0.001) and fatigue (17.8%, 4.8% and 8.0%, p<0.001). Hospitalised patients had higher rates of pulmonary emboli, persistent lung interstitial abnormalities and other organ impairment. 716 (54.0%) individuals reported <75% optimal health (median 70%, IQR 55%-85%). Less than half of employed individuals could return to work full time at first assessment. CONCLUSION: Post-COVID-19 symptoms were significant in PH and NH patients, with significant ongoing healthcare needs and utilisation. Trials of interventions and patient-centred pathways for diagnostic and treatment approaches are urgently required.

Short durations of corticosteroids for hospitalised COVID-19 patients are associated with a high readmission rate.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe the characteristics of patients admitted, discharged and readmitted, due to COVID-19, to a central London acute-care hospital during the second peak, in particular in relation to corticosteroids use. METHODS: We reviewed patients admitted from the community to University College Hospital (UCH) with COVID-19 as their primary diagnosis between 1st-31st December 2020. Re-attendance and readmission data were collected for patients who re-presented within 10 days following discharge. Data were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: 196 patients were admitted from the community with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and discharged alive in December 2020. Corticosteroids were prescribed in hospital for a median of 5 days (IQR 3-8). 20 patients (10.2%) were readmitted within 10 days. 11/20 received corticosteroids in the first admission of which 10 had received 1-3 days of corticosteroids. Readmission rate in those receiving 1-3 days of corticosteroids was 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Most international guidelines have recommended providing up to 10 days of corticosteroids for severe COVID-19 but stopping on discharge. Our findings show shorter courses of corticosteroids during admission are associated with an increased risk of being readmitted and support continuing the course of corticosteroids after hospital discharge monitored in the virtual ward setting.

COVID-19 emergency department discharges: an outcome study.

Pressure on acute medical services in the pandemic mandated an assertive emergency department (ED) discharge policy. Given the potential for subsequent deterioration and growing appreciation of complications relating to COVID-19 infection, this follow up study was instigated to provide clinical reassurance that discharged patients had followed a safe clinical course. 199 patients discharged from the ED of our central London hospital were identified over a 20-day period at the height of the pandemic in April 2020. 44 had already reattended ED and 12 had been admitted. At 2-week telephone follow-up, 14 patients were identified who required urgent recall for assessment. At 4-week telephone follow-up, 87 patients were identified with persistent symptoms requiring face to face review. A COVID-19 follow-up clinic was therefore established to provide multi-professional review and diagnostics. 65 patients attended for this assessment. This is the first report on outcomes in COVID-19 infected patients discharged from an ED. It highlights the importance of safety-netting after discharge, the difficulty in predicting which patients might deteriorate and the need for appropriate follow up services.

Implementation and evaluation of a COVID-19 rapid follow-up service for patients discharged from the emergency department.

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated rapid adaptation of healthcare providers to new clinical and logistical challenges. Following identification of high levels of emergency department (ED) reattendance among patients with suspected COVID-19 at our centre, we piloted a rapid remote follow-up service for this patient group. We present our service framework and evaluation of our pilot cohort of 192 patients. We followed up patients by telephone within 36 hours of their ED attendance. Pulse oximetry was used for remote monitoring of a subset of patients. Patients required between one and six consecutive telephone assessments, dependent on illness severity, and 23 patients were recalled for in-person assessment. Approximately half of patients with confirmed or probable COVID-19 required onward referral for respiratory follow-up. This framework reduced unplanned ED reattendances in comparison with a retrospective comparator cohort (4.7% from 22.6%). We reproduced these findings in a validation cohort with a high prevalence of acute COVID-19, managed through the clinic in September-October 2020, where we identified an unplanned ED reattendance rate of 5.2%. We propose that rapid remote follow-up is a mechanism by which ambulatory patients can be clinically supported during the acute phase of illness, with benefits both to patient care and to health service resilience.

Delayed healthcare seeking and prolonged illness in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single-centre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe a cohort of self-isolating healthcare workers (HCWs) with presumed COVID-19. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, single-centre study. SETTING: A large, teaching hospital based in Central London with tertiary infection services. PARTICIPANTS: 236 HCWs completed a survey distributed by internal staff email bulletin. 167 were women and 65 men. MEASURES: Information on symptomatology, exposures and health-seeking behaviour were collected from participants by self-report. RESULTS: The 236 respondents reported illness compatible with COVID-19 and there was an increase in illness reporting during March 2020 Diagnostic swabs were not routinely performed. Cough (n=179, 75.8%), fever (n=138, 58.5%), breathlessness (n=84, 35.6%) were reported. Anosmia was reported in 42.2%. Fever generally settled within 1 week (n=110/138, 88%). Several respondents remained at home and did not seek formal medical attention despite reporting severe breathlessness and measuring hypoxia (n=5/9, 55.6%). 2 patients required hospital admission but recovered following oxygen therapy. 84 respondents (41.2%) required greater than the obligated 7 days off work and 9 required greater than 3 weeks off. CONCLUSION: There was a significant increase in staff reporting illness compatible with possible COVID-19 during March 2020. Subsequent serology studies at the same hospital study site have confirmed sero-positivity for COVID-19 up to 45% by the end of April 2020 in frontline HCWs. The study revealed a concerning lack of healthcare seeking in respondents with significant red flag symptoms (severe breathlessness, hypoxia). This study also highlighted anosmia as a key symptom of COVID-19 early in the pandemic, prior to this symptom being more widely recognised as a feature of COVID-19.

Experience of a novel community testing programme for COVID-19 in London: Lessons learnt.

We describe the London community testing programme developed for COVID-19, audit its effectiveness and report patient acceptability and patient adherence to isolation guidance, based upon a survey conducted with participants.Any patients meeting the Public Health England (PHE) case definition for COVID-19 who did not require hospital admission were eligible for community testing. 2,053 patients with suspected COVID-19 were tested in the community between January and March 2020. Of those tested, 75 (3.6%) were positive. 88% of patients that completed a patient survey felt safe and 82% agreed that community testing was preferable to hospital admission. 97% were able to remain within their own home during the isolation period but just 41% were able to reliably isolate from other members of their household.The London community testing programme allowed widespread testing for COVID-19 while minimising patient transport, hospital admissions and staff exposures. Community testing was acceptable to patients and preferable to admission to hospital. Patients were able to reliably isolate in their home but not from household contacts. The authors believe in the importance, feasibility and acceptability of community testing for COVID-19 as a part of a package of interventions to mitigate a second wave of infection.