Prevalence and characterization of forgoing care: comparison of two prospective multicentre cohorts between pre-COVID-19 era and a lockdown period.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patients who forego healthcare, although it is an important provider of unfavorable health-related outcomes. Forgoing healthcare characterizes situations in which people do not initiate or interrupt a care process, even though they perceive the need for it, whether or not this need is medically proven. The aims of this study were to assess the prevalence and the determinants of patients who forego healthcare. The second aim was to compare the characteristics of patients who gave up healthcare during the French lockdown due to COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted two multicenter cross-sectional studies in 2017 and 2020 carried out in French patients presenting to the emergency departments. Patients who gave their consent to participate were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire. It consisted of two parts: epidemiological characteristics and health care refusal. A third part concerning the renunciation of care during the COVID-19 period was added to the second study period. RESULTS: A total of 1878 patients had completed the questionnaire during the interview with the physicians, 900 during the first period in 2017 (47.9%) and 978 (52.1%) during the second period. A total of 401/1878 patients reported not seeking care in the last 12 months (21.4% [95%CI: 19.5-23.3%]). In 2020, patients forewent care more during the confinement period than outside with different characteristics of the foregoing care populations. CONCLUSION: Forgoing care is common in a universal health care system such as France's and increased during the pandemic. Key public health messages targeted at the reasons for not seeking care must now be disseminated in order to combat this.

Risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism in mild and moderate COVID-19: A comparison of two prospective European cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Severely ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) i.e., deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. However, the VTE risk in patients with mild and moderate COVID-19, hospitalized or managed at home, remain uncertain. The aims of this study were to assess the rate and the risk factors symptomatic VTE, in patients with mild and moderate COVID-19 and to compare them to a cohort of similar patients without COVID-19. METHODS: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of participating centers for confirmed or probable mild or moderate COVID-19 and not having acute VTE were included. This COVID-19 cohort was retrospectively compared to a prospective cohort of similar ED patients using propensity score matching. The main outcome was the rate of symptomatic VTE within the 28 days after ED presentation. RESULTS: A total of 2292 patients were included in the COVID-19 cohort. The 28-day incidence of symptomatic VTE was 1.3% (n = 29/2292, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.8), 2.3% (n = 20/866, 95%CI: 1.5 to 3.5) in moderate COVID-19 patients and 0.6% (n = 9/1426; 95%CI: 0.3 to 1.2) in mild COVID-19 patients managed as outpatients. An age over 65 years and hospitalization were independent risk factors of VTE. After adjustment, patients in the COVID-19 cohort had an absolute increase in over symptomatic VTE risk of +1.69% (95%CI, 0.88 to 2.51) versus patients in the comparison cohort (n = 1539). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate COVID-19 presenting to the ED had a high risk of subsequent VTE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Ethics committee of the CHU of Angers (N°2020/87).

Adaptation of ED design layout during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to describe the organisational changes in French EDs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to architectural constraints and compare with the recommendations of the various bodies concerning the structural adjustments to be made in this context. METHODS: As part of this cross-sectional study, all heads of emergency services or their deputies were contacted to complete an electronic survey. This was a standardised online questionnaire consisting of four parts: characteristics of the responding centre, creation of the COVID-19 zone and activation of the hospital's emergency operations plan, flow and circulation of patients and, finally, staff management. Each centre was classified according to its workload related to COVID-19 and its size (university hospital centre, high-capacity hospital centre and low-capacity hospital centre). The main endpoint was the frequency of implementation of international guidelines for ED organisation. RESULTS: Between 11 May and 20 June 2020, 57 French EDs completed the online questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Twenty-eight EDs were able to separate patient flows into two zones: high and low viral density (n=28/57, 49.1%). Of the centres included, 52.6% set up a specific triage area for patients with suspected COVID-19 (n=30/57). Whereas, in 15 of the EDs (26.3%), the architecture made it impossible to increase the surface area of the ED. CONCLUSION: All EDs have adapted, but many of the changes recommended for the organisation of ED could not be implemented. ED architecture constrains adaptive capacities in the context of COVID-19.

Definition and Validation of a Risk-Stratification Model for Probable or Proven COVID-19 Patients in Emergency Departments: The Revised HOME-CoV Score. (preprint)

The HOME-CoV rule is a list of clinical criteria defined by experts’ consensus, qualifying patients with probable or proven COVID-19 for home treatment when negative. The aims were to define and validate a revised HOME-CoV score, optimizing the original rule. Definition of the revised HOME-CoV score using logistic regression in a prospective multicenter cohort and validation in another cohort of patients who presented to the emergency department with proven or probable COVID-19. The main outcome was non-invasive or invasive ventilation or all-cause death within the 7 days following inclusion. Two threshold values were defined using a sensitivity of > 0.9 and a specificity of > 0.9 to identify low-risk patients and high-risk patients, respectively. The revised HOME-CoV score included seven clinical criteria. In the definition cohort (n=1696), the AUC was 87.6 (95% CI 84.7 to 90.6). The cutoffs to define low-risk and high-risk patients were <2 and >3, respectively. In the validation cohort (n=1304), the AUC was 85.8 (95% CI 80.6 to 91.0) and 85.5 (95% CI 76.8 to 94.1) in the subgroup of patients with positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV2. A score of < 2 qualified 73% of patients as low risk with a sensitivity of 0.84 (0.66-0.95) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.99-1.00). The revised HOME-CoV score compared favorably with the original rule and other models. The revised HOME-CoV score may allow accurate risk stratification and safely qualify for home treatment, a significant proportion of patients with probable or proven COVID-19.