Comprehensive Health Assessment 3 Months After Recovery From Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Long-term health sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be multiple but have thus far not been systematically studied. METHODS: All patients discharged after COVID-19 from the Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, were consecutively invited to a multidisciplinary outpatient facility. Also, nonadmitted patients with mild disease but with symptoms persisting >6 weeks could be referred by general practitioners. Patients underwent a standardized assessment including measurements of lung function, chest computed tomography (CT)/X-ray, 6-minute walking test, body composition, and questionnaires on mental, cognitive, health status, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: 124 patients (59 ±â€…14 years, 60% male) were included: 27 with mild, 51 with moderate, 26 with severe, and 20 with critical disease. Lung diffusion capacity was below the lower limit of normal in 42% of discharged patients. 99% of discharged patients had reduced ground-glass opacification on repeat CT imaging, and normal chest X-rays were found in 93% of patients with mild disease. Residual pulmonary parenchymal abnormalities were present in 91% of discharged patients and correlated with reduced lung diffusion capacity. Twenty-two percent had low exercise capacity, 19% low fat-free mass index, and problems in mental and/or cognitive function were found in 36% of patients. Health status was generally poor, particularly in the domains functional impairment (64%), fatigue (69%), and QoL (72%). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive health assessment revealed severe problems in several health domains in a substantial number of ex-COVID-19 patients. Longer follow-up studies are warranted to elucidate natural trajectories and to find predictors of complicated long-term trajectories of recovery.

Holding the frontline: a cross-sectional survey of emergency department staff well-being and psychological distress in the course of the COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has been associated with stress and challenges for healthcare professionals, especially for those working in the front-line of treating COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to: 1) assess changes in well-being and perceived stress symptoms of Dutch emergency department (ED) staff in the course of the first COVID-19 wave, and 2) assess and explore stressors experienced by ED staff since the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study. An online questionnaire was administered during June-July 2020 to physicians, nurses and non-clinical staff of four EDs in the Netherlands. Well-being and stress symptoms (i.e., cognitive, emotional and physical) were scored for the periods pre, during and after the first COVID-19 wave using the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and a 10-point Likert scale. Stressors were assessed and explored by rating experiences with specific situations (i.e., frequency and intensity of distress) and in free-text narratives. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations (GEE). Narratives were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: In total, 192 questionnaires were returned (39% response). Compared to pre-COVID-19, the mean WHO-5 index score (range: 0-100) decreased significantly with 14.1 points (p < 0.001) during the peak of the first wave and 3.7 points (< 0.001) after the first wave. Mean self-perceived stress symptom levels almost doubled during the peak of the first wave (≤0.005). Half of the respondents reported experiencing more moral distress in the ED since the COVID-19 outbreak. High levels of distress were primarily found in situations where the staff was unable to provide or facilitate necessary emotional support to a patient or family. Analysis of 51 free-texts revealed witnessing suffering, high work pressure, fear of contamination, inability to provide comfort and support, rapidly changing protocols regarding COVID-19 care and personal protection, and shortage of protection equipment as important stressors. CONCLUSIONS: The first COVID-19 wave took its toll on ED staff. Actions to limit drop-out and illness among staff resulting from psychological distress are vital to secure acute care for (non-)COVID-19 patients during future infection waves.

Delayed emergency healthcare seeking behaviour by Dutch emergency department visitors during the first COVID-19 wave: a mixed methods retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits due to non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) conditions have drastically decreased since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to identify the magnitude, characteristics and underlying motivations of ED visitors with delayed healthcare seeking behaviour during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Between March 9 and July 92,020, adults visiting the ED of an academic hospital in the East of the Netherlands received an online questionnaire to collect self-reported data on delay in seeking emergency care and subsequent motivations for this delay. Telephone interviews were held with a subsample of respondents to better understand the motivations for delay as described in the questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred thirty-eight questionnaires were returned (34.0% response). One in five respondents reported a delay in seeking emergency care. Almost half of these respondents (n = 126; 45.4%) reported that the pandemic influenced the delay. Respondents reporting delay were mainly older adults (mean 61.6; ±13.1 years), referred to the ED by the general practitioner (GP; 35.1%) or a medical specialist (34.7%), visiting the ED with cardiac problems (39.7%). The estimated median time of delay in receiving ED care was 3 days (inter quartile range  8 days). Respectively 46 (16.5%) and 26 (9.4%) respondents reported that their complaints would be either less severe or preventable if they had sought for emergency care earlier. Delayed care seeking behaviour was frequently motivated by: fear of contamination, not wanting to burden professionals, perceiving own complaints less urgent relative to COVID-19 patients, limited access to services, and by stay home instructions from referring professionals. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively large proportion of ED visitors reported delay in seeking emergency care during the first wave. Delay was often driven by misperceptions of the accessibility of services and the legitimacy for seeking emergency care. Public messaging and close collaboration between the ED and referring professionals could help reduce delayed care for acute needs during future COVID-19 infection waves.