Single vs Dual-site service reconfiguration during Covid-19 pandemic - A tertiary care centre experience in hip fractures and a Scoping review.

Aims and objectives: The Covid-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on surgical practice and healthcare delivery globally. We compared the impact of the care pathways which segregate Covid-19 Positive and Negative patients into two geographically separate sites, on hip fracture patients in our high-volume trauma center in 3 distinct eras - the pre-pandemic period, against the first Covid-19 wave with dual-site service design, as well as the subsequent surge with single-site service delivery. In addition, we sought to invoke similar experiences of centres worldwide through a scoping literature review on the current evidence on "Dual site" reconfigurations in response to Covid-19 pandemic. Methods: We prospectively reviewed our hip fracture patients throughout the two peaks of the pandemic, with different service designs for each, and compared the outcomes with a historic service provision. Further, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using several databases for articles discussing Dual-site service redesign. Results: In our in-house study, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality of hip fracture patients between the 3 periods, as well as their discharge destinations. With dual-site reconfiguration, patients took longer to reach theatre. However, there was much more nosocomial transmission with single-site service, and patients stayed in the hospital longer. 24 articles pertaining to the topic were selected for the scoping review. Most studies favour dual-site service reorganization, and reported beneficial outcomes from the detached care pathways. Conclusion: It is safe to continue urgent as well as non-emergency surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic in a separate, geographically isolated site.

Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients from ethnic minority groups are disproportionately affected by Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the relationship between ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PROSPERO, Cochrane library and MedRxiv) were searched up to 31st August 2020, for studies reporting COVID-19 data disaggregated by ethnicity. Outcomes were: risk of infection; intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission and death. PROSPERO ID: 180654. FINDINGS: 18,728,893 patients from 50 studies were included; 26 were peer-reviewed; 42 were from the United States of America and 8 from the United Kingdom. Individuals from Black and Asian ethnicities had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals. This was consistent in both the main analysis (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 2.02, 95% CI 1.67-2.44; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.83) and sensitivity analyses examining peer-reviewed studies only (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 1.85, 95%CI: 1.46-2.35; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.88). Individuals of Asian ethnicity may also be at higher risk of ITU admission (pooled adjusted RR 1.97 95% CI 1.34-2.89) (but no studies had yet been peer-reviewed) and death (pooled adjusted RR/HR 1.22 [0.99-1.50]). INTERPRETATION: Individuals of Black and Asian ethnicity are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals; Asians may be at higher risk of ITU admission and death. These findings are of critical public health importance in informing interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality amongst ethnic minority groups.

COVID-19 pandemic personal development plan: A model for maximising higher specialty training.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to multiple service delivery changes across acute care sectors in the UK. Due to increased responsibility for care of COVID-19 patients, medical trainees across all specialties might experience difficulty in achieving certain competencies for their training curriculum due to changes in learning opportunities. While there might be a tendency to perceive these changes negatively in terms of the impact on training, we think this unprecedented situation might present a unique learning opportunity. A group of geriatric medicine trainees and trainers devised an innovative, forward-thinking specific training plan based on existing Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board geriatric medicine curricula, encouraging development of a personal development plan (PDP) tailored to the pandemic. This model could be considered for all specialty training curricula, providing a proactive approach to optimising training during the pandemic. By formulating a 'pandemic PDP' early and considering methods to maximise learning, training needs can be met even in these extraordinary times.

The need for improved discharge criteria for hospitalised patients with COVID-19-implications for patients in long-term care facilities.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, patients who are older and residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF) are at greatest risk of worse clinical outcomes. We reviewed discharge criteria for hospitalised COVID-19 patients from 10 countries with the highest incidence of COVID-19 cases as of 26 July 2020. Five countries (Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Chile and Iran) had no discharge criteria; the remaining five (USA, India, Russia, South Africa and the UK) had discharge guidelines with large inter-country variability. India and Russia recommend discharge for a clinically recovered patient with two negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests 24 h apart; the USA offers either a symptom based strategy-clinical recovery and 10 days after symptom onset, or the same test-based strategy. The UK suggests that patients can be discharged when patients have clinically recovered; South Africa recommends discharge 14 days after symptom onset if clinically stable. We recommend a unified, simpler discharge criteria, based on current studies which suggest that most SARS-CoV-2 loses its infectivity by 10 days post-symptom onset. In asymptomatic cases, this can be taken as 10 days after the first positive PCR result. Additional days of isolation beyond this should be left to the discretion of individual clinician. This represents a practical compromise between unnecessarily prolonged admissions and returning highly infectious patients back to their care facilities, and is of particular importance in older patients discharged to LTCFs, residents of which may be at greatest risk of transmission and worse clinical outcomes.

Socio-demographic heterogeneity in the prevalence of COVID-19 during lockdown is associated with ethnicity and household size: Results from an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence indicates that COVID-19 causes adverse outcomes in ethnic minority groups. However, little is known about the impact of ethnicity and household size on acquiring infection with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study, in Leicester (UK), of all individuals assessed for COVID-19 with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust between 1st March and 28th April 2020. We used logistic regression to identify sociodemographic, clinical and temporal factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity before/after lockdown. FINDINGS: 971/4051 (24.0%) patients with suspected COVID-19 were found to be PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. PCR positivity was more common amongst individuals from ethnic minortiy backgrounds than their White counterparts (White 20.0%, South Asian 37.5%, Black 36.1%, Other 32.2%; p<0.001 for all ethnic minority groups vs White). After adjustment, compared to White ethnicity, South Asian (aOR 2.44 95%CI 2.01, 2.97), Black (aOR 2.56 95%CI 1.71, 3.84) and Other (aOR 2.53 95%CI 1.74, 3.70) ethnicities were more likely to test positive, as were those with a larger estimated household size (aOR 1.06 95%CI 1.02, 1.11). We saw increasing proportions of positive tests in the three weeks post-lockdown amongst the ethnic minority , but not the White, cohort. Estimated household size was associated with PCR positivity after, but not before, lockdown (aOR 1.10 95%CI 1.03, 1.16). INTERPRETATION: In individuals presenting with suspected COVID-19, those from ethnic minority communities and larger households had an increased likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity. Pandemic control measures may have more rapid impact on slowing viral transmission amongst those of White ethnicity compared to ethnic minority groups, Research is urgently required to understand the mechanisms underlying these disparities and whether public health interventions have differential effects on individuals from ethnic minority groups. FUNDING: 10.13039/100006662 NIHR.

The impact of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between ethnicity and COVID-19 is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to assess whether ethnicity has been reported in patients with COVID-19 and its relation to clinical outcomes. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PROSPERO for English-language citations on ethnicity and COVID-19 (1st December 2019-15th May 2020). We also reviewed: COVID-19 articles in NEJM, Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, clinical trial protocols, grey literature, surveillance data and preprint articles on COVID-19 in MedRxiv to evaluate if the association between ethnicity and clinical outcomes were reported and what they showed. PROSPERO:180654. FINDINGS: Of 207 articles in the database search, five reported ethnicity; two reported no association between ethnicity and mortality. Of 690 articles identified from medical journals, 12 reported ethnicity; three reported no association between ethnicity and mortality. Of 209 preprints, 34 reported ethnicity - 13 found Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals had an increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and 12 reported worse clinical outcomes, including ITU admission and mortality, in BAME patients compared to White patients. Of 12 grey literature reports, seven with original data reported poorer clinical outcomes in BAME groups compared to White groups. INTERPRETATION: Data on ethnicity in patients with COVID-19 in the published medical literature remains limited. However, emerging data from the grey literature and preprint articles suggest BAME individuals are at an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to White individuals and also worse clinical outcomes from COVID-19. Further work on the role of ethnicity in the current pandemic is of urgent public health importance. FUNDING: NIHR.