Prognostic value of National Early Warning Scores (NEWS2) and component physiology in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: National Early Warning Scores (NEWS2) are used to detect all-cause deterioration. While studies have looked at NEWS2, the use of virtual consultation and remote monitoring of patients with COVID-19 mean there is a need to know which physiological observations are important. AIM: To investigate the relationship between outcome and NEWS2, change in NEWS2 and component physiology in COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective study of electronically recorded, routinely collected physiological measurements between March and June 2020. First and maximum NEWS2, component scores and outcomes were recorded. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for 2-day, 7-day and 30-day mortality were calculated. RESULTS: Of 1263 patients, 26% died, 7% were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) before discharge and 67% were discharged without ICU. Of 1071 patients with initial NEWS2, most values were low: 50% NEWS2=0-2, 27% NEWS2=3-4, 14% NEWS2=5-6 and 9% NEWS2=7+. Maximum scores were: 14% NEWS2=0-2, 22% NEWS2=3-4, 17% NEWS2=5-6 and 47% NEWS2=7+. Higher first and maximum scores were predictive of mortality, ICU admission and longer length of stay. AUCs based on 2-day, 7-day, 30-day and any hospital mortality were 0.77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.84), 0.70 (0.65 to 0.74), 0.65 (0.61 to 0.68) and 0.65 (0.61 to 0.68), respectively. The AUCs for 2-day mortality were 0.71 (0.65 to 0.77) for supplemental oxygen, 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) oxygen saturation and 0.64 (0.56 to 0.73) respiratory rate. CONCLUSION: While respiratory parameters were most predictive, no individual parameter was as good as a full NEWS2, which is an acceptable predictor of short-term mortality in patients with COVID-19. This supports recommendation to use NEWS2 alongside clinical judgement to assess patients with COVID-19.

Changes in presentations with features potentially indicating cancer in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the number of people aged 50+ years presenting to primary care with features that could potentially indicate cancer, and to explore how reporting differed by patient characteristics and in face-to-face vs remote consultations. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of general practitioner (GP), nurse and paramedic primary care consultations in 21 practices in South-West England covering 123 947 patients. The models compared potential cancer indicators reported in April-July 2019 with April-July 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Potential indicators of cancer were identified using code lists for symptoms, signs, test results and diagnoses listed in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suspected cancer referral guidance (NG12). RESULTS: During April-July 2019, 17% of registered patients aged 50+ years reported a potential cancer indicator in a consultation with a GP or nurse. During April-July 2020, this reduced to 11% (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.67, p<0.001). Reductions in potential cancer indicators were stable across age group, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation quintile and shielding status, but less marked in patients with mental health conditions than without (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.79, interaction p<0.001). Proportions of GP consultations with potential indicators of cancer reduced between 2019 and 2020 for face-to-face consultations (IRR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92, p<0.001) and increased for remote consultations (IRR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29, p=0.001), although it remained lower in remote consulting than face-to-face in April-July 2020. This difference was greater for nurse/paramedic consultations (face-to-face: IRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83, p=0.002; remote: IRR 1.60, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.333, p=0.014). CONCLUSION: The number of patients consulting with presentations that could potentially indicate cancer reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients should be encouraged to continue contacting primary care for persistent signs and symptoms, and GPs and nurses should be encouraged to probe patients for further information during remote consulting, in the absence of non-verbal cues.

Implementation of remote consulting in UK primary care following the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: To reduce contagion of COVID-19, in March 2020 UK general practices implemented predominantly remote consulting via telephone, video, or online consultation platforms. AIM: To investigate the rapid implementation of remote consulting and explore impact over the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods study in 21 general practices in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. METHOD: Longitudinal observational quantitative analysis compared volume and type of consultation in April to July 2020 with April to July 2019. Negative binomial models were used to identify if changes differed among different groups of patients. Qualitative data from 87 longitudinal interviews with practice staff in four rounds investigated practices' experience of the move to remote consulting, challenges faced, and solutions. A thematic analysis utilised Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: There was universal consensus that remote consulting was necessary. This drove a rapid change to 90% remote GP consulting (46% for nurses) by April 2020. Consultation rates reduced in April to July 2020 compared to 2019; GPs and nurses maintained a focus on older patients, shielding patients, and patients with poor mental health. Telephone consulting was sufficient for many patient problems, video consulting was used more rarely, and was less essential as lockdown eased. SMS-messaging increased more than three-fold. GPs were concerned about increased clinical risk and some had difficulties setting thresholds for seeing patients face-to-face as lockdown eased. CONCLUSION: The shift to remote consulting was successful and a focus maintained on vulnerable patients. It was driven by the imperative to reduce contagion and may have risks; post-pandemic, the model will need adjustment.