Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 24
Filter
1.
Emerg Med J ; 2022 Apr 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1788973

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To identify the population-level impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for COVID-19 (COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h)) in England on mortality and health service use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre-implementation and post-implementation design, including all 106 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme. All symptomatic people with a positive COVID-19 PCR test result from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021, and who were aged ≥65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable were included. Care home residents were excluded. A pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared with a post-intervention period after implementation. Five outcome measures within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test: (i) death from any cause; (ii) any ED attendance; (iii) any emergency hospital admission; (iv) critical care admission and (v) total length of hospital stay. RESULTS: 217 650 people were eligible and included in the analysis. Total enrolment onto the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5527 (2.5%) of the eligible population. The period of implementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. The period of implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of ED attendance (95% CI: 6% to 18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5% to 20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5% to 47%). In a secondary analysis of CO@h sites with at least 10% or 20% of eligible people enrolled, there was no significant association with any outcome measure. CONCLUSION: At a population level, there was no association with mortality before and after the implementation period of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. However, lower than expected enrolment is likely to have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level.

2.
The Lancet. Digital health ; 4(4):e279-e289, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1755474

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has led health systems to increase the use of tools for monitoring and triaging patients remotely. In this systematic review, we aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pulse oximetry in remote patient monitoring (RPM) of patients at home with COVID-19. We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, medRxiv, and bioRxiv) from database inception to April 15, 2021, and included feasibility studies, clinical trials, and observational studies, including preprints. We found 561 studies, of which 13 were included in our narrative synthesis. These 13 studies were all observational cohorts and involved a total of 2908 participants. A meta-analysis was not feasible owing to the heterogeneity of the outcomes reported in the included studies. Our systematic review substantiates the safety and potential of pulse oximetry for monitoring patients at home with COVID-19, identifying the risk of deterioration and the need for advanced care. The use of pulse oximetry can potentially save hospital resources for patients who might benefit the most from care escalation;however, we could not identify explicit evidence for the effect of RPM with pulse oximetry on health outcomes compared with other monitoring models such as virtual wards, regular monitoring consultations, and online or paper diaries to monitor changes in symptoms and vital signs. Based on our findings, we make 11 recommendations across the three Donabedian model domains and highlight three specific measurements for setting up an RPM system with pulse oximetry.

3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-309416

ABSTRACT

Background: A quality social connection (QSC) can influence outcomes in mental health support. Digital interventions may modify this influence, although conceptualisation and evidence on psychiatric outcomes is limited. We aimed to conceptualise and appraise evidence on digital QSC (D-QSC) for young people. Methods: Systematic scoping review and meta-analysis, with embedded stakeholder involvement, searching healthcare databases, websites and the grey literature. We included studies that explored QSC within a digital intervention as part of the prevention or treatment of depression and/or anxiety in 14-24-year olds. Findings: 5714 publications were identified and 42 were included. Of these, there were 23,319 participants. D-QSC translated into a five-component conceptual framework: Rapport, Identity and commonality, Valued interpersonal dynamic, Engagement and Responded to and accepted (RIVER). There was a significant decrease in depression (-25.6%, 95% CI [-0.352, -0.160], p<0.0005) and anxiety (-15.1%, 95% CI [-0.251, -0.051], p<0.0005). Heterogeneity was high. Literature and stakeholder evidence showcased D-QSC’s importance in the prevention and treatment of depression, though evidence was weaker for anxiety. Stakeholder insights highlighted that demographic, dynamic and environmental factors, including blended care, may influence D-QSC experiences and outcomes. Interpretation: D-QSC is an important and under-considered component for depression and anxiety outcomes. Whilst more research is required, the RIVER conceptual framework can inform standardised measures for D-QSC. These measures can be used in the development and evaluation of digital interventions for mental health, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, where necessary support will be increasingly provided in online spaces. Funding: This work was funded by a Wellcome Trust Mental Health Priority Area 'Active Ingredients' commission awarded to Dr Lindsay Dewa at Imperial College London.Declaration of Interests: No competing interest to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: The authors noted that ethical approval was not required.

4.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-309415

ABSTRACT

Background: Young people’s mental health during COVID-19 pandemic has been identified as a priority. However, studies to date are largely simple surveys and lacking any meaningful involvement from patients and the public in their design, planning and delivery. The study aim was to examine the mental health status and coping strategies of young people (aged 16-24) during and after COVID-19 lockdown using co-production methodology. Methods: We utilised a sequential co-produced mixed methods design. Participants were aged 16-24 and lived in the UK. The primary outcome was mental health status, measured using Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), anxiety coronavirus impact sub-scale (CIS) and reported self-harm. Predictors included sociodemographic variables, coping strategies (Brief COPE), sleep (Sleep Condition Indicator), personality traits (Ten-Item Personality Inventory) and optimism (Life-Orientation Test - Revised). Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with a purposive sample of survey participants. The study was registered with COVID MINDS. Results: Seven-hundred and ninety-six participants (mean age 19.6 [SD 2.7]) took part in the first survey in April 2020. Survey data showed 26.6% had poor mental health and 10% had self-harmed since lockdown. Young people identifying as Black/Black British ethnicity in our study had the highest increased odds of experiencing poor mental health. Logistic regression showed behavioural disengagement, self-blame and substance misuse coping strategies, negative affect, sleep problems and reduced conscientiousness were all significantly associated with poor mental health. Eighteen participants were followed up and interviewed. There were three main interlinking themes: (1) pre-existing and developed helpful coping strategies employed during lockdown, (2) mental health difficulties worsened during lockdown and (3) the need for mental health and non-mental health support during and after lockdown. Interpretation: To our knowledge this is the first sequential co-produced mixed methods study to examine mental health status and coping strategies of young people during COVID-19 lockdown. On average, young people’s mental health has significantly worsened since lockdown, and dysfunctional coping strategies are associated with this. However, young people have found innovative and adaptive ways to cope, including distraction and having a good routine. Going forward, appropriate and effective mental health support adapted to lockdown conditions is needed to help young people during and after lockdown.Trial Registration: The study was registered with COVID MINDS.Funding Statement: NIHR Patient Safety Translational Research Centre programme grant (Ref: PSTRC-2016-004) and Institute of Global Health Innovation. We are also grateful for support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under the Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) programme for North West London. and the Imperial NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Declaration of Interests: PA received funding from Dr Foster Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Telstra Health). AB received funding from Dr Foster Ltd and Medtronic. All other authors declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the Imperial Research Ethics committee (ICREC ref: 20IC914) on 20/04/2020.

5.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-325419

ABSTRACT

Introduction: We examined the epidemiology of community- and hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (BSIs) in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients across two epidemic waves. Methods: We analysed blood cultures, SARS-CoV-2 tests, and hospital episodes of patients presenting and admitted to a London hospital group between January 2020 and February 2021. We reported BSI incidence, as well as changes in sampling, case mix, bed and staff capacity, and COVID-19 variants. Results: 34,044 blood cultures were taken. We identified 1,047 BSIs;653 (62.4%) defined epidemiologically as community-acquired and 394 (37.6%) as hospital-acquired. BSI rates and community / hospital ratio were similar to those pre-pandemic. However, important changes in patterns were seen. Among community-acquired BSIs, Escherichia coli BSIs remained lower than pre-pandemic level during the two COVID-19 waves, however peaked following lockdown easing in May 2020, deviating from the historical trend of peaking in August. The hospital-acquired BSI rate was 100.4 per 100,000 patient-days across the pandemic, increasing to 132.3 during the first COVID-19 wave and 190.9 during the second, with significant increase seen in elective non-COVID-19 inpatients. Patients who developed a hospital-acquired BSI, including those without COVID-19, experienced 20.2 excess days of hospital stay and 26.7% higher mortality, higher than reported in pre-pandemic literature. In intensive care units (ICUs), the overall BSI rate was 311.8 per 100,000 patient-ICU days, increasing to 421.0 during the second wave, compared to 101.3 pre-COVID. The BSI incidence in those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was similar to that seen with earlier variants. Conclusion: The pandemic and national responses have had an impact on patterns of community- and hospital-acquired BSIs, in both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Factors driving the observed BSI patterns are complex, including changed patient mix, deferred access to health care, and sub-optimal practice. Infection surveillance needs to consider key aspects of pandemic response and changes in healthcare access and practice.

6.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-323423

ABSTRACT

Background: Hospitals in England have undergone considerable change to address the surge in demand imposed by the COVID-19 epidemic. The impact of this on emergency department (ED) attendances is unknown, especially for non-COVID-19 related emergencies. Methods We calibrated auto-regressive integrated moving average time-series models of ED attendances to Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (ICHNT) using historic (2015–2019) data. Forecasted trends were compared to present year ICHNT data for the period between March 12 (when England implemented the first COVID-19 public health measure) and May 31. We compared ICHTN trends with publicly available regional and national data. Lastly, we compared emergency admissions and in-hospital mortality at ICHNT during the present year to a historic 5-year average. Results ED attendances at ICHNT decreased by 35%, in keeping with the trend for ED attendances across all England regions, which fell by approximately 50%. For ICHNT, the decrease in attendances was mainly amongst those aged < 65 years and those arriving by their own means (e.g. personal or public transport). Increasing distance from postcode of residence to hospital was a significant predictor of reduced attendances. Non-COVID related emergency admissions to hospital after March 12 fell by 48%;there was an indication of a non-significant increase in non-COVID-19 crude mortality risk (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.94–1.37, p = 0.19). Conclusions Our study finds strong evidence that emergency healthcare seeking has drastically changed across the population in England. At ICHNT, we find that a larger proportion arrived by ambulance and that hospitalisation outcomes of non-COVID patients did not differ from previous years. The extent to which these findings relate to ED avoidance behaviours compared to having sought alternative emergency health services outside of hospital remains unknown. National analyses and strategies to streamline emergency services in England going forward are urgently needed.

7.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther ; 55(7): 836-846, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1672991

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) services have been particularly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. Delays in referral to secondary care and access to investigations and surgery have been exacerbated. AIMS: To investigate the use of and outcomes for emergency IBD care during the Covid-19 pandemic. METHODS: Nationwide observational study using administrative data for England (2015-2020) comparing cohorts admitted from 1 January 2015, to 31 January 2020 (pre-pandemic) and from 1 February 2020, to 31 January 2021 (pandemic). Autoregressive integrated moving average forecast models were run to estimate the counterfactual IBD admissions and procedures for February 2020 to January 2021. RESULTS: Large decreases in attendances to hospital for emergency treatment were observed for both acute ulcerative colitis (UC, 16.4%) and acute Crohn's disease (CD, 8.7%). The prevalence of concomitant Covid-19 during the same episode was low [391/16 494 (2.4%) and 349/15 613 (2.2%), respectively]. No significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed. A shorter median length of stay by 1 day for acute IBD admissions was observed (P < 0.0001). A higher rate of emergency readmission within 28 days for acute UC was observed (14.1% vs 13.4%, P = 0.012). All IBD procedures and investigations showed decreases in volume from February 2020 to January 2021 compared with counterfactual estimates. The largest absolute deficit was in endoscopy (17 544 fewer procedures, 35.2% reduction). CONCLUSION: There is likely a significant burden of untreated IBD in the community. Patients with IBD may experience clinical harm or protracted decreases in quality of life if care is not prioritised.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colitis, Ulcerative , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , COVID-19/epidemiology , Colitis, Ulcerative/epidemiology , Humans , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/complications , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/epidemiology , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/therapy , Pandemics , Quality of Life
8.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(12): e26584, 2021 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1592825

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Disrupted social connections may negatively affect youth mental health. In contrast, sustained quality social connections (QSCs) can improve mental health outcomes. However, few studies have examined how these quality connections affect depression and anxiety outcomes within digital interventions, and conceptualization is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to conceptualize, appraise, and synthesize evidence on QSC within digital interventions (D-QSC) and the impact on depression and anxiety outcomes for young people aged 14-24 years. METHODS: A systematic scoping review and meta-analysis was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological frameworks and guided by experts with lived experience. Reporting was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched against a comprehensive combination of key concepts on June 24, 2020. The search concepts included young people, digital intervention, depression, anxiety, and social connection. Google was also searched. A reviewer independently screened abstracts and titles and full text, and 9.99% (388/3882) of these were screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was used to structure the findings on indicators of D-QSC and mechanisms that facilitate the connection. Indicators of D-QSC from the included studies were synthesized to produce a conceptual framework. RESULTS: Of the 5715 publications identified, 42 (0.73%) were included. Among the included studies, there were 23,319 participants. Indicators that D-QSC was present varied and included relatedness, having a sense of belonging, and connecting to similar people. However, despite the variation, most of the indicators were associated with improved outcomes for depression and anxiety. Negative interactions, loneliness, and feeling ignored indicated that D-QSC was not present. In 24% (10/42) of the applicable studies, a meta-analysis showed a significant decrease in depression (-25.6%, 95% CI -0.352 to -0.160; P<.001) and anxiety (-15.1%, 95% CI -0.251 to -0.051; P=.003) after a D-QSC. Digital mechanisms that helped create a quality connection included anonymity, confidentiality, and peer support. In contrast, mechanisms that hindered the connection included disconnection from the real world and inability to see body language. Data synthesis also identified a 5-component conceptual framework of D-QSC that included rapport, identity and commonality, valued interpersonal dynamic, engagement, and responded to and accepted. CONCLUSIONS: D-QSC is an important and underconsidered component for youth depression and anxiety outcomes. Researchers and developers should consider targeting improved QSC between clinicians and young people within digital interventions for depression. Future research should build on our framework to further examine relationships among individual attributes of QSC, various digital interventions, and different populations.


Subject(s)
Anxiety Disorders , Depression , Adolescent , Anxiety/therapy , Depression/therapy , Humans , Loneliness , Mental Health
9.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248387, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1573672

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to investigate GPs' experiences of how UK COVID-19 policies have affected the management and safety of complex elderly patients, who suffer from multimorbidity, at the primary care level in North West London (NWL). DESIGN: This is a service evaluation adopting a qualitative approach. SETTING: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted between 6 and 22 May 2020, 2 months after the introduction of the UK COVID-19 Action Plan, allowing GPs to adapt to the new changes and reflect on their impact. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen GPs working in NWL were interviewed, until data saturation was reached. OUTCOME MEASURES: The impact of COVID-19 policies on the management and safety of complex elderly patients in primary care from the GPs' perspective. RESULTS: Participants' average experience was fourteen years working in primary care for the NHS. They stated that COVID-19 policies have affected primary care at three levels, patients' behaviour, work conditions, and clinical practice. GPs reflected on the impact through five major themes; four of which have been adapted from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) framework, changes in primary care (at the three levels mentioned above), involvement of GPs in policy making, communication and coordination (with patients and in between medical teams), stressors and worries; in addition to a fifth theme to conclude the GPs' suggestions for improvement (either proposed mitigation strategies, or existing actions that showed relative success). A participant used an expression of "infodemic" to describe the GPs' everyday pressure of receiving new policy updates with their subsequent changes in practice. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all levels of the health system in the UK, particularly primary care. Based on the GPs' perspective in NWL, changes to practice have offered opportunities to maintain safe healthcare as well as possible drawbacks that should be of concern.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , General Practitioners/psychology , Patient Safety , Primary Health Care , Aged , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/virology , Health Policy , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Pandemics , Policy Making , Qualitative Research , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , United Kingdom/epidemiology
10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(11): e4047-e4057, 2021 12 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560034

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Detailed clinical analyses of multicultural hospitalized patient cohorts remain largely undescribed. METHODS: We performed regression, survival, and cumulative competing risk analyses to evaluate factors associated with mortality in patients admitted for COVID-19 in 3 large London hospitals between 25 February and 5 April, censored as of 1 May 2020. RESULTS: Of 614 patients (median age, 69 [interquartile range, 25] years) and 62% male), 381 (62%) were discharged alive, 178 (29%) died, and 55 (9%) remained hospitalized at censoring. Severe hypoxemia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.25 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.36-7.64]), leukocytosis (aOR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.35-4.11]), thrombocytopenia (aOR [1.01, 95% CI, 1.00-1.01], increase per 109 decrease), severe renal impairment (aOR, 5.14 [95% CI, 2.65-9.97]), and low albumin (aOR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.09], increase per gram decrease) were associated with death. Forty percent (n = 244) were from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic (BAME) groups, 38% (n = 235) were white, and ethnicity was unknown for 22% (n = 135). BAME patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities. Although the unadjusted odds of death did not differ by ethnicity, when adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, black patients were at higher odds of death compared to whites (aOR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.00-2.86]). This association was stronger when further adjusting for admission severity (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.06-3.24]). CONCLUSIONS: BAME patients were overrepresented in our cohort; when accounting for demographic and clinical profile of admission, black patients were at increased odds of death. Further research is needed into biologic drivers of differences in COVID-19 outcomes by ethnicity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , London/epidemiology , Male , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , State Medicine
11.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-293222

ABSTRACT

Background: The Covid-19 case fatality ratio varies between countries and over time but it is unclear whether variation is explained by the underlying risk in those infected. This study aims to describe the trends and risk factors for admission and mortality rates over time in England. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we included all adults (≥18 years) in England with a positive Covid-19 test result between 1st October 2020 and 30th April 2021. Data were linked to primary and secondary care electronic health records and death registrations. Our outcomes were i) one or more emergency hospital admissions and ii) death from any cause, within 28 days of a positive test. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression was used to model each outcome with patient risk factors and time. Results 2,311,282 people were included in the study, of whom 164,046 (7.1%) were admitted and 53,156 (2.3%) died within 28 days. There was significant variation in the case hospitalisation and mortality risk over time, peaking in December 2020-February 2021, which remained after adjustment for individual risk factors. Older age groups, males, those resident in more deprived areas, and those with obesity had higher odds of admission and mortality. Of risk factors examined, severe mental illness and learning disability had the highest odds of admission and mortality. Conclusions In one of the largest studies of nationally representative Covid-19 risk factors, case hospitalisation and mortality risk varied significantly over time in England during the second pandemic wave, independent of the underlying risk in those infected.

12.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-293221

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To identify the population level impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for covid-19 (COVID Oximetry @home;CO@h) in England on mortality and health service use. Design Retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre- and post- implementation design. Setting All Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme. Participants 217,650 people with a positive covid-19 polymerase chain reaction test result and symptomatic, from 1st October 2020 to 3rd May 2021, aged ≥65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable. Care home residents were excluded. Interventions A pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared to a post-intervention period after implementation. Main outcome measures Five outcome measures within 28 days of a positive covid-19 test: i) death from any cause;ii) any A&E attendance;iii) any emergency hospital admission;iv) critical care admission;and v) total length of hospital stay. Results Implementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. Implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of A&E attendance (95% CI: 6%-18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5%-20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5%-47%). In a secondary analysis of CO@h sites with at least 10% or 20% of eligible people enrolled, there was no significant association with any outcome measure. However, uptake of the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5,527 (2.5%) of the eligible population. Conclusions At a population level, there was no association with mortality following implementation of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. Low enrolment of eligible people may have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level.

13.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-293220

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To identify the impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for covid-19 (COVID Oximetry @home;CO@h) on health service use and mortality in patients attending Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments. Design Retrospective matched cohort study of patients enrolled onto the CO@h pathway from A&E. Setting National Health Service (NHS) A&E departments in England. Participants All patients with a positive covid-19 test from 1st October 2020 to 3rd May 2021 who attended A&E from three days before to ten days after the date of the test. All patients who were admitted or died on the same or following day to the first A&E attendance within the time window were excluded. Interventions Participants enrolled onto CO@h were matched using demographic and clinical criteria to participants who were not enrolled. Main outcome measures Five outcome measures were examined within 28 days of first A&E attendance: i) death from any cause;ii) any subsequent A&E attendance;iii) any emergency hospital admission;iv) critical care admission;and v) length of stay. Results 15,621 participants were included in the primary analysis, of whom 639 were enrolled onto CO@h and 14,982 were controls. Odds of death were 52% lower in those enrolled (95% CI: 7%-75% lower) compared to those not enrolled on CO@h. Odds of any A&E attendance or admission were 37% (95% CI: 16-63%) and 59% (95% CI: 16-63%) higher, respectively, in those enrolled. Of those admitted, those enrolled had 53% (95% CI: 7%-76%) lower odds of critical care admission. There was no significant impact on length of stay. Conclusions These findings indicate that for patients assessed in A&E, pulse oximetry remote monitoring may be a clinically effective and safe model for early detection of hypoxia and escalation, leading to increased subsequent A&E attendance and admissions, and reduced critical care requirement and mortality.

14.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 2021 Nov 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537962

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Hospital admissions in many countries fell dramatically at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Less is known about how care patterns differed by patient groups. We sought to determine whether areas with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation or larger ethnic minority populations saw larger falls in emergency and planned admissions in England. METHODS: We conducted a national observational study of hospital care in the English National Health Service (NHS) in 2019-2020. Weekly volumes of elective (planned) and emergency admissions in 2020 compared with 2019 were calculated for each census area. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to estimate the reductions in volumes for areas in different quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation and ethnic minority populations after controlling for national time trends and local area composition. RESULTS: Between March and December 2020, there were 35.5% (3.0 million) fewer elective admissions and 22.0% (1.2 million) fewer emergency admissions with a non-COVID-19 primary diagnosis than in 2019. Areas with the largest share of ethnic minority populations experienced a 36.7% (95% CI 24.1% to 49.3%) larger reduction in non-primary COVID-19 emergency admissions compared with those with the smallest. The most deprived areas experienced a 10.1% (95% CI 2.6% to 17.7%) smaller reduction in non-COVID-19 emergency admissions compared with the least deprived. These patterns are not explained by differential prevalence of COVID-19 cases by area. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a healthcare system founded on the principle of equal access for equal need, the impact of COVID-19 on NHS hospital care for non-COVID patients has not been spread evenly by ethnicity and deprivation in England. While we cannot conclusively determine the mechanisms behind these differences, they risk exacerbating prepandemic health inequalities.

15.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1447581

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We examined the epidemiology of community- and hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (BSIs) in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients across two epidemic waves. METHODS: We analysed blood cultures of patients presenting and admitted to a London hospital group between January 2020 and February 2021. We reported BSI incidence, as well as changes in sampling, case mix, healthcare capacity, and COVID-19 variants. RESULTS: 34,044 blood cultures were taken. We identified 1,047 BSIs; 653 (62.4%) community-acquired and 394 (37.6%) hospital-acquired. Important changes in patterns were seen. Among community-acquired BSIs, Escherichia coli BSIs remained lower than pre-pandemic level during COVID-19 waves, however peaked following lockdown easing in May 2020, deviating from the historical trend of peaking in August. The hospital-acquired BSI rate was 100.4 per 100,000 patient-days across the pandemic, increasing to 132.3 during the first wave and 190.9 during the second, with significant increase seen in elective inpatients. Patients who developed a hospital-acquired BSI, including those without COVID-19, experienced 20.2 excess days of hospital stay and 26.7% higher mortality, higher than reported in pre-pandemic literature. In intensive care, the BSI rate was 421.0 per 100,000 patient-ICU days during the second wave, compared to 101.3 pre-COVID. The BSI incidence in those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was similar to that seen with earlier variants. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic and national responses have impacted the patterns of community- and hospital-acquired BSIs, in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Factors driving the observed patterns are complex. Infection surveillance needs to consider key aspects of pandemic response and changes in healthcare access and practice.

16.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 1008, 2021 Sep 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438273

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hospitals in England have undergone considerable change to address the surge in demand imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of this on emergency department (ED) attendances is unknown, especially for non-COVID-19 related emergencies. METHODS: This analysis is an observational study of ED attendances at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (ICHNT). We calibrated auto-regressive integrated moving average time-series models of ED attendances using historic (2015-2019) data. Forecasted trends were compared to present year ICHNT data for the period between March 12, 2020 (when England implemented the first COVID-19 public health measure) and May 31, 2020. We compared ICHTN trends with publicly available regional and national data. Lastly, we compared hospital admissions made via the ED and in-hospital mortality at ICHNT during the present year to the historic 5-year average. RESULTS: ED attendances at ICHNT decreased by 35% during the period after the first lockdown was imposed on March 12, 2020 and before May 31, 2020, reflecting broader trends seen for ED attendances across all England regions, which fell by approximately 50% for the same time frame. For ICHNT, the decrease in attendances was mainly amongst those aged < 65 years and those arriving by their own means (e.g. personal or public transport) and not correlated with any of the spatial dependencies analysed such as increasing distance from postcode of residence to the hospital. Emergency admissions of patients without COVID-19 after March 12, 2020 fell by 48%; we did not observe a significant change to the crude mortality risk in patients without COVID-19 (RR 1.13, 95%CI 0.94-1.37, p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings reflect broader trends seen across England and give an indication how emergency healthcare seeking has drastically changed. At ICHNT, we find that a larger proportion arrived by ambulance and that hospitalisation outcomes of patients without COVID-19 did not differ from previous years. The extent to which these findings relate to ED avoidance behaviours compared to having sought alternative emergency health services outside of hospital remains unknown. National analyses and strategies to streamline emergency services in England going forward are urgently needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Communicable Disease Control , Emergency Service, Hospital , Hospitals , Humans , London , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
17.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(9): e30010, 2021 09 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1417039

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared SARS-CoV-2, causing COVID-19, as a pandemic. The UK mass vaccination program commenced on December 8, 2020, vaccinating groups of the population deemed to be most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the early vaccine administration coverage and outcome data across an integrated care system in North West London, leveraging a unique population-level care data set. Vaccine effectiveness of a single dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines were compared. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified 2,183,939 individuals eligible for COVID-19 vaccination between December 8, 2020, and February 24, 2021, within a primary, secondary, and community care integrated care data set. These data were used to assess vaccination hesitancy across ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic deprivation measures (Pearson product-moment correlations); investigate COVID-19 transmission related to vaccination hubs; and assess the early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination (after a single dose) using time-to-event analyses with multivariable Cox regression analysis to investigate if vaccination independently predicted positive SARS-CoV-2 in those vaccinated compared to those unvaccinated. RESULTS: In this study, 5.88% (24,332/413,919) of individuals declined and did not receive a vaccination. Black or Black British individuals had the highest rate of declining a vaccine at 16.14% (4337/26,870). There was a strong negative association between socioeconomic deprivation and rate of declining vaccination (r=-0.94; P=.002) with 13.5% (1980/14,571) of individuals declining vaccination in the most deprived areas compared to 0.98% (869/9609) in the least. In the first 6 days after vaccination, 344 of 389,587 (0.09%) individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The rate increased to 0.13% (525/389,243) between days 7 and 13, before then gradually falling week on week. At 28 days post vaccination, there was a 74% (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.35) and 78% (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.18-0.27) reduction in risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for individuals that received the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, respectively, when compared with unvaccinated individuals. A very low proportion of hospital admissions were seen in vaccinated individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (288/389,587, 0.07% of all patients vaccinated) providing evidence for vaccination effectiveness after a single dose. CONCLUSIONS: There was no definitive evidence to suggest COVID-19 was transmitted as a result of vaccination hubs during the vaccine administration rollout in North West London, and the risk of contracting COVID-19 or becoming hospitalized after vaccination has been demonstrated to be low in the vaccinated population. This study provides further evidence that a single dose of either the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine or the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is effective at reducing the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 up to 60 days across all age groups, ethnic groups, and risk categories in an urban UK population.


Subject(s)
Anti-Vaccination Movement/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Vaccines/standards , Immunization Programs/standards , Anti-Vaccination Movement/psychology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Immunization Programs/statistics & numerical data , London , Retrospective Studies
18.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 31(3): 211-220, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1301651

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A report suggesting large between-hospital variations in mortality after admission for COVID-19 in England attracted much media attention but used crude rates. We aimed to quantify these variations between hospitals and over time during England's first wave (March to July 2020) and assess available patient-level and hospital-level predictors to explain those variations. METHODS: We used administrative data for England, augmented by hospital-level information. Admissions were extracted with COVID-19 codes. In-hospital death was the primary outcome. Risk-adjusted mortality ratios (standardised mortality ratios) and interhospital variation were calculated using multilevel logistic regression. Early-wave (March to April) and late-wave (May to July) periods were compared. RESULTS: 74 781 admissions had a primary diagnosis of COVID-19, with 21 984 in-hospital deaths (29.4%); the 30-day total mortality rate was 28.8%. The crude in-hospital death rate fell in all ages and overall from 32.9% in March to 13.4% in July. Patient-level predictors included age, male gender, non-white ethnic group (early period only) and several comorbidities (obesity early period only). The only significant hospital-level predictor was daily COVID-19 admissions in the late period; we did not find a relation with staff absences for COVID-19, mechanical ventilation bed occupancies, total bed occupancies or bed occupancies for COVID-19 admissions in either period. Just 4 (3%) and 2 (2%) hospitals were high, and 5 (4%) and 0 hospitals were low funnel plot mortality outliers at 3 SD for early and late periods, respectively, after risk adjustment. We found no strong correlation between early and late hospital-level mortality (r=0.17, p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: There was modest variation in mortality following admission for COVID-19 between English hospitals after adjustment for risk and random variation, in marked contrast to early media reports. Early-period mortality did not predict late-period mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , England/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Med Care ; 59(5): 371-378, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1254915

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Planning for extreme surges in demand for hospital care of patients requiring urgent life-saving treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while retaining capacity for other emergency conditions, is one of the most challenging tasks faced by health care providers and policymakers during the pandemic. Health systems must be well-prepared to cope with large and sudden changes in demand by implementing interventions to ensure adequate access to care. We developed the first planning tool for the COVID-19 pandemic to account for how hospital provision interventions (such as cancelling elective surgery, setting up field hospitals, or hiring retired staff) will affect the capacity of hospitals to provide life-saving care. METHODS: We conducted a review of interventions implemented or considered in 12 European countries in March to April 2020, an evaluation of their impact on capacity, and a review of key parameters in the care of COVID-19 patients. This information was used to develop a planner capable of estimating the impact of specific interventions on doctors, nurses, beds, and respiratory support equipment. We applied this to a scenario-based case study of 1 intervention, the set-up of field hospitals in England, under varying levels of COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: The Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics pandemic planner is a hospital planning tool that allows hospital administrators, policymakers, and other decision-makers to calculate the amount of capacity in terms of beds, staff, and crucial medical equipment obtained by implementing the interventions. Flexible assumptions on baseline capacity, the number of hospitalizations, staff-to-beds ratios, and staff absences due to COVID-19 make the planner adaptable to multiple settings. The results of the case study show that while field hospitals alleviate the burden on the number of beds available, this intervention is futile unless the deficit of critical care nurses is addressed first. DISCUSSION: The tool supports decision-makers in delivering a fast and effective response to the pandemic. The unique contribution of the planner is that it allows users to compare the impact of interventions that change some or all inputs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Planning Guidelines , Health Services Needs and Demand , Hospitals , Surge Capacity , Workforce , Critical Care Nursing , England , Equipment and Supplies, Hospital , Health Personnel , Hospital Bed Capacity , Humans
20.
J Adolesc Health ; 68(4): 666-675, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081321

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people's mental health is an increasing priority. Studies to date are largely surveys and lack meaningful involvement from service users in their design, planning, and delivery. The study aimed to examine the mental health status and coping strategies of young people during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown using coproduction methodology. METHODS: The mental health status of young people (aged 16-24) in April 2020 was established utilizing a sequential explanatory coproduced mixed methods design. Factors associated with poor mental health status, including coping strategies, were also examined using an online survey and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Since the lockdown, 30.3% had poor mental health, and 10.8% had self-harmed. Young people identifying as Black/Black-British ethnicity had the highest increased odds of experiencing poor mental health (odds ratio [OR] 3.688, 95% CI .54-25.40). Behavioral disengagement (OR 1.462, 95% CI 1.22-1.76), self-blame (OR 1.307 95% CI 1.10-1.55), and substance use (OR 1.211 95% CI 1.02-1.44) coping strategies, negative affect (OR 1.109, 95% CI 1.07-1.15), sleep problems (OR .915 95% CI .88-.95) and conscientiousness personality trait (OR .819 95% CI .69-.98) were significantly associated with poor mental health. Three qualitative themes were identified: (1) pre-existing/developed helpful coping strategies employed, (2) mental health difficulties worsened, and (3) mental health and nonmental health support needed during and after lockdown. CONCLUSION: Poor mental health is associated with dysfunctional coping strategies. Innovative coping strategies can help other young people cope during and after lockdowns, with digital and school promotion and application.


Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19/psychology , Mental Health , Adolescent , Communicable Disease Control , Health Status , Humans , Pandemics , United Kingdom , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL