Soft law and individual responsibility: a review of the Swedish policy response to COVID-19.

Sweden's coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response, initially based largely on voluntary measures, has evoked strong reactions nationally and internationally. In this study, we describe Sweden's national policy response with regard to the general public, the community and the health care system, with a focus on how the response changed from March 2020 to June 2021. A number of factors contributed to Sweden's choice of policy response, including its existing legal framework, independent expert agencies and its decentralized, multi-level health care governance system. Challenges to the health- and elder care system during the pandemic, such as the need to increase intensive care- and testing capacity, and to ensure the safety of the elderly were addressed largely at the regional and local levels, with national authorities assuming a primarily coordinative role. Although the overall response based on voluntary compliance has persisted, the national government started to take a more prominent role in public messaging, and in enacting legally binding restrictions during subsequent waves of the pandemic. This study illustrates that not only policy responses, but also the fundamental structure of the health- and elder care system and its governance should be considered when evaluating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prehospital identification of Covid-19: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has affected prehospital care systems across the world, but the prehospital presentation of affected patients and the extent to which prehospital care providers are able to identify them is not well characterized. In this study, we describe the presentation of Covid-19 patients in a Swedish prehospital care system, and asses the predictive value of Covid-19 suspicion as documented by dispatch and ambulance nurses. METHODS: Data for all patients with dispatch, ambulance, and hospital records between January 1-August 31, 2020 were extracted. A descriptive statistical analysis of patients with and without hospital-confirmed Covid-19 was performed. In a subset of records beginning from April 14, we assessed the sensitivity and specificity of documented Covid-19 suspicion in dispatch and ambulance patient care records. RESULTS: A total of 11,894 prehospital records were included, of which 481 had a primary hospital diagnosis code related to-, or positive test results for Covid-19. Covid-19-positive patients had considerably worse outcomes than patients with negative test results, with 30-day mortality rates of 24% vs 11%, but lower levels of prehospital acuity (e.g. emergent transport rates of 14% vs 22%). About half (46%) of Covid-19-positive patients presented to dispatchers with primary complaints typically associated with Covid-19. Six thousand seven hundred seventy-six records were included in the assessment of predictive value. Sensitivity was 76% (95% CI 71-80) and 82% (78-86) for dispatch and ambulance suspicion respectively, while specificities were 86% (85-87) and 78% (77-79). CONCLUSIONS: While prehospital suspicion was strongly indicative of hospital-confirmed Covid-19, based on the sensitivity identified in this study, prehospital suspicion should not be relied upon as a single factor to rule out the need for isolation precautions. The data provided may be used to develop improved guidelines for identifying Covid-19 patients in the prehospital setting.