ABSTRACT
To reduce the overburden in the hospital, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some "COVID Committed Home Medical Teams" (CCHTs) were created in Italy. These units consist of a small pool of general practitioners who aim to evaluate all patients with COVID-19 who require a medical examination directly at home. After the first visit (which can end with patient hospitalisation or home management), CCHTs periodically monitor the patients' clinical conditions and vital signs (usually a revaluation every 24-48 hours, except for a sudden worsening). However, this strategy - which reduces the pressure on hospitals - has never been evaluated for patient safety. Our study aims to determine whether a home-based monitoring and treatment strategy for non-severe COVID-19 patients was safe as direct hospital admission by the emergency department. We conducted a retrospective observational study about 1,182 patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 between September 2020 and April 2021, confronting in-hospital and 30-day mortality in both CCHT-referred (n=275) and directly admitted by emergency department (n=907). Patients assessed by the CCHT had lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality (18% vs 28%, p=0.001; and 20% vs 30%, p=0.002); but, in the propensity score matching comparison, there was no characteristic between the two groups turned out significantly different. CCHT did not correlate with in-hospital or 30-day mortality. CCHT is a safe strategy to reduce hospital overburden for COVID-19 during pandemic surges.
ABSTRACT
A continuous demand for assistance and an overcrowded emergency department (ED) require early and safe discharge of low-risk severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients. We developed (n = 128) and validated (n = 330) the acute PNeumonia early assessment (aPNea) score in a tertiary hospital and preliminarily tested the score on an external secondary hospital (n = 97). The score's performance was compared to that of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). The composite outcome of either death or oral intubation within 30 days from admission occurred in 101 and 28 patients in the two hospitals, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of the aPNea model was 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-0.93) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.89) for the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The aPNea score discriminated low-risk patients better than NEWS2 at a 10% outcome probability, corresponding to five cut-off points and one cut-off point, respectively. aPNea's cut-off reduced the number of unnecessary hospitalizations without missing outcomes by 27% (95% CI, 9-41) in the validation cohort. NEWS2 was not significant. In the external cohort, aPNea's cut-off had 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 83-102) and a 94% negative predictive value (95% CI, 87-102). In conclusion, the aPNea score appears to be appropriate for discharging low-risk SARS-CoV-2-infected patients from the ED.