Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
ANZ J Surg ; 93(3): 669-674, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2192350

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The introduction of robotic surgical systems has significantly impacted urological surgery, arguably more so than other surgical disciplines. The focus of our study was length of hospital stay - patients have traditionally been discharged day 1 post-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), however, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and consequential resource limitations, our centre has facilitated a cohort of same-day discharges with initial success. METHODS: We conducted a prospective tertiary single-centre cohort study of a series of all patients (n = 28) - undergoing RARP between January and April 2021. All patients were considered for a day zero discharge pathway which consisted of strict inclusion criteria. At follow-up, each patient's perspective on their experience was assessed using a validated post-operative satisfaction questionnaire. Data were reviewed retrospectively for all those undergoing RARP over the study period, with day zero patients compared to overnight patients. RESULTS: Overall, 28 patients 20 (71%) fulfilled the objective criteria for day zero discharge. Eleven patients (55%) agreed pre-operatively to day zero discharge and all were successfully discharged on the same day as their procedure. There was no statistically significant difference in age, BMI, ASA, Charlson score or disease volume. All patients indicated a high level of satisfaction with their procedure. Median time from completion of surgery to discharge was 426 min (7.1 h) in the day zero discharge cohort. CONCLUSION: Day zero discharge for RARP appears to deliver high satisfaction, oncological and safety outcomes. Therefore, our study demonstrates early success with unsupported same-day discharge in carefully selected and pre-counselled patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Robotics , Male , Humans , Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods , Prospective Studies , Patient Discharge , Cohort Studies , Retrospective Studies , Pandemics , Australia/epidemiology , Prostatectomy/methods , Treatment Outcome
2.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(4): e26720, 2021 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141315

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is characterized by different morbidity and mortality rates across different states, cities, rural areas, and diverse neighborhoods. The absence of a national strategy for battling the pandemic also leaves state and local governments responsible for creating their own response strategies and policies. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the content of COVID-19-related tweets posted by public health agencies in Texas and how content characteristics can predict the level of public engagement. METHODS: All COVID-19-related tweets (N=7269) posted by Texas public agencies during the first 6 months of 2020 were classified in terms of each tweet's functions (whether the tweet provides information, promotes action, or builds community), the preventative measures mentioned, and the health beliefs discussed, by using natural language processing. Hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to explore how tweet content predicted public engagement. RESULTS: The information function was the most prominent function, followed by the action or community functions. Beliefs regarding susceptibility, severity, and benefits were the most frequently covered health beliefs. Tweets that served the information or action functions were more likely to be retweeted, while tweets that served the action and community functions were more likely to be liked. Tweets that provided susceptibility information resulted in the most public engagement in terms of the number of retweets and likes. CONCLUSIONS: Public health agencies should continue to use Twitter to disseminate information, promote action, and build communities. They need to improve their strategies for designing social media messages about the benefits of disease prevention behaviors and audiences' self-efficacy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Public Health , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Natural Language Processing , Texas/epidemiology
4.
BMJ Open ; 12(5): e058628, 2022 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846524

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess accuracy of emergency medical service (EMS) telephone triage in identifying patients who need an EMS response and identify factors which affect triage accuracy. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Emergency telephone triage provided by Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) National Health Service (NHS) Trust. PARTICIPANTS: 12 653 adults who contacted EMS telephone triage services provided by YAS between 2 April 2020 and 29 June 2020 assessed by COVID-19 telephone triage pathways were included. OUTCOME: Accuracy of call handler decision to dispatch an ambulance was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support at 30 days from first contact with the telephone triage service. RESULTS: Callers contacting EMS dispatch services had an 11.1% (1405/12 653) risk of death or needing organ support. In total, 2000/12 653 (16%) of callers did not receive an emergency response and they had a 70/2000 (3.5%) risk of death or organ support. Ambulances were dispatched to 4230 callers (33.4%) who were not conveyed to hospital and did not deteriorate. Multivariable modelling found variables of older age (1 year increase, OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.05) and presence of pre-existing respiratory disease (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.60) to be predictors of false positive triage. CONCLUSION: Telephone triage can reduce ambulance responses but, with low specificity. A small but significant proportion of patients who do not receive an initial emergency response deteriorated. Research to improve accuracy of EMS telephone triage is needed and, due to limitations of routinely collected data, this is likely to require prospective data collection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Adult , Ambulances , Cohort Studies , Data Collection , Humans , State Medicine , Telephone , Triage
5.
J Psychosoc Rehabil Ment Health ; 9(3): 251-262, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1827536

ABSTRACT

Many eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapists moved their practice online during COVID-19. We conducted surveys and interviews to understand the implementation and acceptability of online EMDR therapy. From 17 June to 2nd August 2021 an online survey was open to EMDR therapists from the EMDR Association UK & Ireland and EMDR International Association email lists, and, through them, their clients. Questions related to determinants of implementation (for therapists) and acceptability (for clients) of online EMDR. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of therapist respondents to provide a deeper understanding of survey responses. Survey responses were received from therapists (n = 562) from five continents, and their clients (n = 148). 88% of clients responded as being extremely or very comfortable receiving EMDR therapy online. At the initial point of 'social distancing', 54% of therapists indicated strong or partial reluctance to deliver online EMDR therapy compared to 11% just over one year later. Four fifths of therapists intended to continue offering online therapy after restrictions were lifted. Free-text responses and interview data showed that deprivation and clinical severity could lead to exclusion from online EMDR. Internet connectivity could disrupt sessions, lead to cancellations, or affect the therapy process. Therapists benefited from training in online working. Online EMDR is generally acceptable to therapists and clients, with reservations about digital exclusion, case severity, poor internet connectivity and the need for training. Further research is needed to confirm that online EMDR is clinically non-inferior to in-person working. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40737-022-00260-0.

7.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 2022 Mar 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1769923

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess accuracy of telephone triage in identifying need for emergency care among those with suspected COVID-19 infection and identify factors which affect triage accuracy. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Community telephone triage provided in the UK by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS). PARTICIPANTS: 40 261 adults who contacted National Health Service (NHS) 111 telephone triage services provided by YAS between 18 March 2020 and 29 June 2020 with symptoms indicating COVID-19 infection were linked to Office for National Statistics death registrations and healthcare data collected by NHS Digital. OUTCOME: Accuracy of triage disposition was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support up to 30 days from first contact. RESULTS: Callers had a 3% (1200/40 261) risk of serious adverse outcomes (death or organ support). Telephone triage recommended self-care or non-urgent assessment for 60% (24 335/40 261), with a 1.3% (310/24 335) risk of adverse outcomes. Telephone triage had 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (95% CI: 61% to 62%) for the primary outcome. Multivariable analysis suggested respiratory comorbidities may be overappreciated, and diabetes underappreciated as predictors of deterioration. Repeat contact with triage service appears to be an important under-recognised predictor of deterioration with 2 contacts (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.75) and 3 or more contacts (OR 4.02, 95% CI: 1.68 to 9.65) associated with false negative triage. CONCLUSION: Patients advised to self-care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of serious clinical deterioration. Repeat contact with telephone services needs recognition as an important predictor of subsequent adverse outcomes.

8.
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ ; 39(3):250, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1703826

ABSTRACT

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundIn the first wave of the pandemic some ambulance services received three times their usual number of 999 calls. The increase was mostly due to calls from patients with respiratory symptoms. Call handlers must rapidly decide whether patients need an emergency face-to-face assessment or could access non-emergency services.We assess accuracy of emergency telephone triage in identifying patients with suspected COVID-19 infection who need an ambulance response and identify factors which affect triage accuracy.Methods/DesignAn observational cohort study of adults who contacted 999 emergency telephone services provided by Yorkshire Ambulance Service between the 18thMarch 2020 and 29th June 2020 with symptoms indicating possible COVID-19 infection was completed. Callers were linked to ONS death registrations and routine health care data collected by NHS Digital.The accuracy of triage outcome (ambulance dispatch versus telephone advice) was assessed for death or organ support 30 days from first contact. Multi-variable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with risk of false negative or false positive triage.Results/ConclusionsOf the 12, 655 callers, 11.1% experienced the primary outcomes. An ambulance was dispatched to 84.2% of callers. The decision to dispatch an ambulance achieved 95% sensitivity (95% CI: 93.7 to 96.1%) and 17.2% specificity (95% 16.5% to 17.9%) for adverse outcomes. Where an ambulance was not dispatched, patients had a 3.5% (2.8 to 4.4%) of subsequent deterioration. Of patients that received an ambulance only 57% were subsequently conveyed to hospital. Multivariable logistic regression modelling found false negative assessment was associated with younger age and female sex and false positive assessment was associated with malignancy, immunosuppression, respiratory and cardiovascular comorbidities.Emergency telephone triage of patients with suspected COVID-19 achieved a high sensitivity to serious adverse outcomes. Further research is required to identify ways specificity of triage could be improved to reduce unnecessary ambulance dispatch.

9.
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ ; 39(3):256, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1703825

ABSTRACT

798 Figure 1STROBE flow diagram of study population selection[Figure omitted. See PDF] 798 Table 1Performance of binary NHS 111 triage (ambulance or urgent assessment 4 hours or less) for composite outcome (death or organ support)Adverse outcome up to 30 days (3%, 2.8-3.2%) N=40, 261 Adverse Outcome No Adverse Outcome Ambulance/urgent assessment 890 15, 035 Sensitivity 74.2% (71.6- 76.6%) Positive Predictive Value 5.6% (5.2 - 6%) Self-care/non-urgent assessment 310 24, 025 Specificity 61.5% (61% - 62%) Negative Predictive Value 98.7% (98.6 - 98.9%) Results/Conclusions3% of the 40,261 callers experienced an adverse outcome. Self-care/non-urgent assessment was recommended for 60%, with a small but non-negligible (1.3%) risk of subsequent deterioration. Triage achieved 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (61% to 62%) for the primary outcome. Multivariable analysis suggested some co-morbidities (e.g. respiratory disease) may be over-estimated, and others (e.g. diabetes) underestimated, as predictors of deterioration. Repeat contact with services appears to be an important under recognised predictor of adverse outcomes with 2 contacts (OR 1.77 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.75) and 3+ contacts (OR 4.02 95% CI: 1.68 to 9.65) associated with clinical deterioration when not provided with an ambulance/urgent clinical assessment.

10.
Emerg Med J ; 39(4): 317-324, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1685677

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Tools proposed to triage patient acuity in COVID-19 infection have only been validated in hospital populations. We estimated the accuracy of five risk-stratification tools recommended to predict severe illness and compared accuracy to existing clinical decision making in a prehospital setting. METHODS: An observational cohort study using linked ambulance service data for patients attended by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) crews in the Yorkshire and Humber region of England between 26 March 2020 and 25 June 2020 was conducted to assess performance of the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (PRIEST) tool, National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), WHO algorithm, CRB-65 and Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score (PMEWS) in patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. The primary outcome was death or need for organ support. RESULTS: Of the 7549 patients in our cohort, 17.6% (95% CI 16.8% to 18.5%) experienced the primary outcome. The NEWS2 (National Early Warning Score, version 2), PMEWS, PRIEST tool and WHO algorithm identified patients at risk of adverse outcomes with a high sensitivity (>0.95) and specificity ranging from 0.3 (NEWS2) to 0.41 (PRIEST tool). The high sensitivity of NEWS2 and PMEWS was achieved by using lower thresholds than previously recommended. On index assessment, 65% of patients were transported to hospital and EMS decision to transfer patients achieved a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.85) and specificity of 0.39 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.40). CONCLUSION: Use of NEWS2, PMEWS, PRIEST tool and WHO algorithm could improve sensitivity of EMS triage of patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. Use of the PRIEST tool would improve sensitivity of triage without increasing the number of patients conveyed to hospital.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Humans , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Triage
11.
Respir Care ; 66(6): 960-971, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1261408

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for patients with COPD, but patient uptake and adherence to the current offering of center-based pulmonary rehabilitation is modest due to transportation, access, poverty, and frailty, and even more so in the context of the COVID pandemic. Home-based options have been proposed and were found noninferior to center-based rehabilitation; however, there is a lack of home-based programs, and more understanding is needed. We aimed to test the feasibility, uptake, and adherence to a home-based program for COPD rehabilitation with health coaching. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial with a wait-list controlled design to evaluate the effects of a home-based program with health coaching on breathlessness in subjects with moderate to severe COPD unable to attend the regular pulmonary rehabilitation program. The 8-week intervention consisted of video-guided exercises to be done 6 times a week and captured with a computer tablet. Health coaching was done weekly over the telephone to review subject activity and symptoms and to provide an opportunity for the subject to define their weekly goals. The primary outcomes were uptake, adherence, and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) Dyspnea Domain. Secondary outcomes were self-management abilities and CRQ Emotions-Mastery-Fatigue. RESULTS: 154 subjects with moderate to severe COPD were randomized. Subject adherence was 86% to the proposed 6-times a week exercise routine. There (P = .062) was no significant difference in breathlessness (CRQ dyspnea). There was a significant improvement in self-management abilities (P < .001). The results of the qualitative interviews showed high levels of acceptability of the program. CONCLUSIONS: The tested home-based rehabilitation program with health coaching was feasible, highly acceptable, showed a high degree of adherence, and improved self-management abilities. This study offers seminal information for home-based rehabilitation programs to design alternative options of rehabilitation to individuals with COPD that cannot attend to the well-established center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02557178.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mentoring , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL