The Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Healthcare Utilization in Switzerland Was Strongest Among Young Females-Retrospective Study in 2018-2020.

Objectives: To provide a thorough assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the utilization of inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare in Switzerland. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using nationwide hospital data (n > 8 million) and claims data from a large Swiss health insurer (n > 1 million) in 2018-2020. Incidence proportions of different types of psychiatric inpatient admissions, psychiatric consultations, and psychotropic medication claims were analyzed using interrupted time series models for the general population and for the vulnerable subgroup of young people. Results: Inpatient psychiatric admissions in the general population decreased by 16.2% (95% confidence interval: -19.2% to -13.2%) during the first and by 3.9% (-6.7% to -0.2%) during the second pandemic shutdown, whereas outpatient mental healthcare utilization was not substantially affected. We observed distinct patterns for young people, most strikingly, an increase in mental healthcare utilization among females aged <20 years. Conclusion: Mental healthcare provision for the majority of the population was largely maintained, but special attention should be paid to young people. Our findings highlight the importance of monitoring mental healthcare utilization among different populations.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Elective and Emergency Inpatient Procedure Volumes in Switzerland - A Retrospective Study Based on Insurance Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2) pandemic forced hospitals to redistribute resources for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet the impact on elective and emergency inpatient procedure volumes is unclear. METHODS: We analyzed anonymized data on 234 921 hospitalizations in 2017-2020 (55.9% elective) from a big Swiss health insurer. We used linear regression models to predict, based on pre-pandemic data, the expected weekly numbers of procedures in 2020 in the absence of a pandemic and compared these to the observed numbers in 2020. Compensation effects were investigated by discretely integrating the difference between the two numbers over time. RESULTS: During the first COVID-19 wave in spring 2020, elective procedure numbers decreased by 52.9% (95% confidence interval -64.5% to -42.5%), with cardiovascular and orthopedic elective procedure numbers specifically decreasing by 45.5% and 72.4%. Elective procedure numbers normalized during summer with some compensation of postponed procedures, leaving a deficit of -9.9% (-15.8% to -4.5%) for the whole year 2020. Emergency procedure numbers also decreased by 17.1% (-23.7% to -9.8%) during the first wave, but over the whole year 2020, net emergency procedure volumes were similar to control years. CONCLUSION: Inpatient procedure volumes in Switzerland decreased considerably in the beginning of the pandemic but recovered quickly after the first wave. Still, there was a net deficit in procedures at the end of the year. Health system leaders must work to ensure that adequate access to non-COVID-19 related care is maintained during future pandemic phases in order to prevent negative health consequences.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the continuity of care for at-risk patients in Swiss primary care settings: A mixed-methods study.

Continuity of care is important for the health of aging individuals with comorbidities. When initial coronavirus mitigation campaigns involved messaging such as "Stay at home-stay safe," and banned provision of non-urgent care, at-risk patients depending upon regular consultations with general practitioners (GPs) faced confusion about the possibility of seeking non-COVID-19 related healthcare. We employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, consisting of a quantitative component followed by a qualitative component, to understand at-risk patients' health services use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland. Quantitatively, we used electronic medical records data from 272 GPs and 266,796 patients. Based on pre-pandemic data, we predicted weekly consultation counts as well as weekly measurement counts (blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) per 100 patients that would be expected in 2020 in absence of a pandemic and compared those to actual observed values. Qualitatively, we conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with 24 GPs (∼45 min) and 37 interviews with at-risk patients (∼35 min). Quantitative results demonstrate a significant decrease in consultation and measurement counts during the first shutdown period, with consultation counts quickly returning to normal and moving within expected values for the rest of 2020. Qualitative data contextualize these findings with GPs describing constantly implementing material, administrative, and communication changes. GPs reported communication gaps with the authorities and noted a lack of clear guidelines delineating how to define "at-risk patients" and what cases were "urgent" to treat during shutdowns. Patient interviews show that patient-level factors, such as fear of contracting coronavirus, perceptions that GPs were overburdened, and a sense of solidarity, influenced patients' decisions to consult less at the beginning of the pandemic. Findings demonstrate communication gaps during pandemic periods and provide valuable lessons for future pandemic preparedness, particularly the need for contingency plans for the overall healthcare system instead of plans focusing only on the infectious agent itself.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Intensity of Health Services Use in General Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objectives: We aimed to explore the impact of the Swiss shutdown in spring 2020 on the intensity of health services use in general practice. Methods: Based on an electronic medical records database, we built one patient cohort each for January-June 2019 (control, 173,523 patients) and 2020 (179,086 patients). We used linear regression to model weekly consultation counts and blood pressure (BP) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement counts per 100 patients and predicted non-shutdown values. Analyses were repeated for selected at-risk groups and different age groups. Results: During the shutdown, weekly consultation counts were lower than predicted by -17.2% (total population), -16.5% (patients with hypertension), -17.5% (diabetes), -17.6% (cardiovascular disease), -15.7% (patients aged <60 years), -20.4% (60-80 years), and -14.5% (>80 years). Weekly BP counts were reduced by -35.3% (total population) and -35.0% (hypertension), and HbA1c counts by -33.2% (total population) and -29.8% (diabetes). p-values <0.001 for all reported estimates. Conclusion: Our results document consequential decreases in consultation counts and chronic disease monitoring during the shutdown. It is crucial that health systems remain able to meet non-COVID-19-related health care needs.

Implementation of a complex intervention to improve hospital discharge: process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients. DESIGN: Extension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering. SETTING: General internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: Two-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine. PROCESS EVALUATION COMPONENTS: Data collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Intervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies. RESULTS: Recruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18427377.