ABSTRACT
Background. Complications following SARS-CoV-2 infection 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 clinical service to include both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. Methods. In a single-centre, observational analysis, we report outcomes for 1325 individuals assessed in the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Post-COVID service between April 2020 and April 2021. Demography, symptoms, comorbidities, investigations, treatments, functional recovery, specialist referral and rehabilitation were compared by referral route ('post hospitalisation', 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. Findings. 1325 individuals were assessed (PH 547 [41.3%], PED 212 [16%], NH 566 [42.7%]. Compared with PH and PED groups, NH were younger (median 44.6 [35.6-52.8] vs 58.3 [47.0-67.7] and 48.5 [39.4-55.7] years), more likely to be female (68.2%, 43.0% and 59.9%), less likely to be from an ethnic minority (30.9%, 52.7% and 41.0%) and seen later after symptom onset (median [IQR]:194 [118-298], 69 [51-111] and 76 [55-128] days) (all p<0.0001). NH patients had similar rates of onward specialist referral as PH and PED groups (18.7%, 16.1% and 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%, 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% of optimal health (median [IQR] 70% [55%-85%]). Overall, less than half of employed individuals felt able to return to work full-time at first assessment. Interpretation. Symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were significant in both post- and non-hospitalised patients, with significant ongoing healthcare needs and utilisation. Trials of interventions and patient-centred pathways for diagnostic and treatment approaches are urgently required.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic presents a significant infection prevention and control challenge. The admission of large numbers of patients with suspected COVID-19 disease risks overwhelming the capacity to protect other patients from exposure. The delay between clinical suspicion and confirmatory testing adds to the complexity of the problem. Methods We implemented a triage tool aimed at minimising hospital acquired COVID-19 particularly to patients at risk of severe disease. Patients were allocated to triage categories defined by likelihood of COVID-19 and risk of a poor outcome. Category A (low-likelihood; high-risk), B (high-likelihood; high-risk), C (high-likelihood; low-risk) and D (low-likelihood; low-risk). This determined the order of priority for isolation in single-occupancy rooms with Category A the highest. Patients in other groups were cohorted when isolation capacity was limited with additional interventions to reduce transmission. Results 93 patients were evaluated with 79 (85%) receiving a COVID-19 diagnosis during their admission. Of those without a COVID-19 diagnosis: 10 were initially triaged to Category A; 0 to B; 1 to C and 4 to D. All high risk patients requiring isolation were, therefore, admitted to single-occupancy rooms and protected from exposure. 28 (30%) suspected COVID-19 patients were evaluated to be low risk (groups C & D) and eligible for cohorting. No symptomatic hospital acquired infections were detected in the cohorted patients. Discussion Application of a clinical triage tool to guide isolation and cohorting decisions may reduce the risk of hospital acquired transmission of COVID-19 especially to individuals at the greatest of risk of severe disease.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
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 female and 65 male. 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, 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. Conclusions cannot be drawn about exact numbers of confirmed cases due to lack of diagnostic swabbing. There were significant numbers of respondents reporting anosmia; as well as early non-specific illness prior to onset of cough and fever. This may represent pre-symptomatic HCWs who are likely to be infectious and thus criteria for isolation and swabbing should be broadened. The study also revealed concerning lack of healthcare seeking in respondents with significant red flag symptoms (severe breathlessness, hypoxia). This should be addressed urgently to reduce risk of severe disease being detected late. Finally, this study should inform trusts that HCWs may require longer than 7 days off work to recover from illness.