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.
Subject(s)
Obesity , Intellectual Disability , COVID-19ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Death , Hypoxia , COVID-19ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Objective To assess the early vaccine administration coverage and vaccine effectiveness and outcome data across an integrated care system of eight CCGs leveraging a unique population-level care dataset Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Individuals eligible for COVID 19 vaccination in North West London based on linked primary and secondary care data. Participants 2,183,939 individuals eligible for COVID 19 vaccination Results During the NWL vaccine programme study time period 5.88% 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% (4,337). There was a strong negative association between deprivation and rate of declining vaccination (r=-0.94, p<0.01) with 13.5% of individuals declining vaccination in the most deprived postcodes compared to 0.98% in the least deprived postcodes. In the first six days after vaccination 344 of 389587 individuals tested positive for COVID-19 (0.09%). 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% (HR 0.26 (0.19-0.35)) and 78% (HR 0.22 (0.18-0.27)) reduction in risk of testing positive for COVID -19 for individuals that received the Oxford/Astrazeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines respectively, when compared with unvaccinated individuals. After vaccination very low rates of hospital admission were seen in individuals testing positive for COVID-19 (0.01% of all patients vaccinated). Conclusions 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 adult age groups, ethnic groups, and risk categories in an urban UK population. There was no difference in effectiveness up to 28 days between the Oxford/Astrazeneca and Pfizer/BioNtech vaccines. In those declining vaccination higher rates were seen in those living in the most deprived areas and in Black and Black British groups. There was no definitive evidence to suggest COVID-19 was transmitted as a result of vaccination hubs during vaccine the administration roll-out in NWL, and the risk of contracting COVID-19 and/or becoming hospitalised after vaccination has been demonstrated to be very low in the vaccinated population.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Anxiety Disorders , Intellectual Disability , COVID-19ABSTRACT
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.