Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
2.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations ; 23(6):801-807, 2020.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1714544

ABSTRACT

This special issue of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (GPIR) on group processes in the digital age began life in the middle of 2019, when the world was a rather different place. As we write this editorial in the middle of 2020, the world has become all too familiar with the transformations brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic and is experiencing the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement after the murder of George Floyd. All the papers in this special issue were written before those seismic events forced their way into our consciousness. And yet, the papers are all remarkably prescient.

3.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-321783

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: People with vestibular disorders experience symptoms which put them at risk of reduced wellbeing during the Covid-19 pandemic.OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on vestibular symptoms, access to healthcare and daily activities amongst people living with a vestibular disorder.METHODS: An online survey was completed by 124 people in the UK with a vestibular disorder. The survey incorporated the Vertigo Symptom Scale-Short Form and questions regarding health status, healthcare received, daily activities and employment during Covid-19.RESULTS: The Covid-19 pandemic affected perceptions of wellbeing. 54.1% rated their health as worse now than before the pandemic. Vertigo, unsteadiness, dizziness, tinnitus, loss of concentration/memory, and headaches were the most exacerbated symptoms. Respondents reported changes to their daily activities including reduced social contact (83%) and exercise (54.3%). Some experienced healthcare delays or received a remote appointment. Remote care was perceived as convenient, but barriers included difficulty communicating, trouble concentrating and perceived unsuitability for initial appointments. Unintended benefits of the pandemic included less social pressure, avoiding busy environments, and engaging in self-care. CONCLUSION: The effects of the Covid-19 pandemic are diverse. Clinical services should be mindful that Covid-19 can exacerbate vestibular and allied neuropsychiatric symptoms that require acute, multi-disciplinary intervention, but not lose sight of the potential benefit and cost saving associated with promoting self-management and delivering remote care, especially post-diagnosis.

4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-306550

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The Covid-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom has seen two waves;the first starting in March 2020 and the second in late October 2020. It is not known whether outcomes were different in the first and second waves.Methods: The study population comprised all patients admitted to a 1,500-bed London Hospital Trust between March 2020 and January 2021, who tested positive for Covid-19 by PCR within 3-days of admissions. Primary outcome was death within 28-days of admission. Socio-demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), hypertension, diabetes, obesity, baseline physiological observations, CRP, neutrophil, chest x-ray abnormality, remdesivir and dexamethasone were incorporated as co-variates. Proportional subhazards models compared mortality risk between wave 1 and wave 2. Cox-proportional hazard model with propensity score adjustment were used to compare mortality in patients prescribed remdesivir and dexamethasone.Findings: There were 3,457 COVID-19 admissions, 2,494 hospital discharges and 619 deaths. There were notable differences in age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and admission disease severity between wave 1 and wave 2. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher during wave 1 (25.7% versus 13.2%). Mortality risk adjusted for co-variates was significantly lower in wave 2 compared to wave 1 [adjSHR 0.41(0.30, 0.56)p<0.001]. Analysis of treatment impact did not show statistically different effects of remdesivir [HR 1.22(95%CI 0.91, 1.62),p=0.18] or dexamethasone [HR 1.31(95%CI 0.80, 2.14),p=0.29].Interpretation: There has been substantial improvements in COVID-19 mortality in the second wave, even accounting for demographics, comorbidity, and disease severity. Neither dexamethasone nor remdesivir appeared to be key explanatory factors, although there may be unmeasured confounding present.Funding: None.Conflict of Interest: None declared by authors.Ethical Approval: This project operated under London South East Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/LO/2048) approval granted to the King’s Electronic Records Research Interface (KERRI);specific work on COVID-19 research was reviewed with expert patient input on a virtual committee with Caldicott Guardian oversight.

5.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0261142, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622334

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom has seen two waves; the first starting in March 2020 and the second in late October 2020. It is not known whether outcomes for those admitted with severe Covid were different in the first and second waves. METHODS: The study population comprised all patients admitted to a 1,500-bed London Hospital Trust between March 2020 and March 2021, who tested positive for Covid-19 by PCR within 3-days of admissions. Primary outcome was death within 28-days of admission. Socio-demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), hypertension, diabetes, obesity, baseline physiological observations, CRP, neutrophil, chest x-ray abnormality, remdesivir and dexamethasone were incorporated as co-variates. Proportional subhazards models compared mortality risk between wave 1 and wave 2. Cox-proportional hazard model with propensity score adjustment were used to compare mortality in patients prescribed remdesivir and dexamethasone. RESULTS: There were 3,949 COVID-19 admissions, 3,195 hospital discharges and 733 deaths. There were notable differences in age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and admission disease severity between wave 1 and wave 2. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher during wave 1 (26.1% versus 13.1%). Mortality risk adjusted for co-variates was significantly lower in wave 2 compared to wave 1 [adjSHR 0.49 (0.37, 0.65) p<0.001]. Analysis of treatment impact did not show statistically different effects of remdesivir [HR 0.84 (95%CI 0.65, 1.08), p = 0.17] or dexamethasone [HR 0.97 (95%CI 0.70, 1.35) p = 0.87]. CONCLUSION: There has been substantial improvements in COVID-19 mortality in the second wave, even accounting for demographics, comorbidity, and disease severity. Neither dexamethasone nor remdesivir appeared to be key explanatory factors, although there may be unmeasured confounding present.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality/trends , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity/trends , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , London , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Proportional Hazards Models
6.
Neurol Clin Pract ; 11(6): 484-496, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613275

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess patient experiences with rapid implementation of ambulatory telehealth during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: A mixed-methods study was performed to characterize the patients' experience with neurology telehealth visits during the first 8 weeks of the COVID-19 response. Consecutive patients who completed a telehealth visit were contacted by telephone. Assenting patients completed a survey quantifying satisfaction with the visit followed by a semistructured telephone interview. Qualitative data were analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis. Results: A total of 2,280 telehealth visits were performed, and 753 patients (33%) were reached for postvisit feedback. Of these, 47% of visits were by video and 53% by telephone. Satisfaction was high, with 77% of patients reporting that all needs were met, although only 51% would consider telehealth in the future. Qualitative themes were constructed, suggesting that positive patient experiences were associated not only with the elimination of commute time and associated costs but also with a positive physician interaction. Negative patient experiences were associated with the inability to complete the neurologic examination. Overall, patients tended to view telehealth as a tool that should augment, and not replace, in-person visits. Conclusion: In ambulatory telehealth, patients valued convenience, safety, and physician relationship. Barriers were observed but can be addressed.

7.
BMJ Open Qual ; 10(3)2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438092

ABSTRACT

AIM: To improve communication on the medical ward round with patients with limited English through implementation of a medical communication chart. LOCAL PROBLEM: King's College Hospital (KCH), London, is situated in Southwark in which 11% of households have no members that speak English as a first language, 4.1% of London's population report they do not speak English well. Language barriers impair healthcare delivery including during daily ward rounds. This has been exacerbated by the need for PPE during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Effective communication between healthcare teams and patients is essential for high quality, patient-centred care. Communication tools commonly used include online, telephone and face-to-face translation services but these have limitations. METHODS: Face-to-face patient questionnaires were conducted in the pre-QIP (baseline) group to assess communication on medical ward rounds. Medical communication charts were designed by adapting pre-existing aids commonly used by speech and language therapy. Charts were translated into commonly spoken languages among KCH inpatients. Patients with limited English were selected from both COVID-19 and non-Covid wards. Preintervention and postintervention questionnaires were completed in three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. RESULTS: At baseline, patients agreed or strongly agreed that the ward round addressed physical symptoms (8/8), concerns or anxieties (7/8), ongoing needs (7/8). Only two of eight doctors felt they could communicate effectively with patients. In PDSA 1, four of five patients reported high satisfaction in communicating physical symptoms, anxieties or concerns preintervention with five of five postchart implementation. Five of five patients reported high satisfaction in communicating ongoing needs preintervention but only three of five postintervention. In PDSA 2, two of five patients reported increased satisfaction in communicating physical symptoms, concerns or anxieties with four of four doctors reporting improved satisfaction in communication in PDSA 2 and two of three doctors reporting higher satisfaction in communication in PDSA 3. CONCLUSION: Using communication charts in patients with limited English can improve bidirectional communication on medical ward rounds.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , RNA, Viral , Communication , Hospitals , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Respir Care ; 66(1): 113-119, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389654

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Low airway surface pH is associated with many airway diseases, impairs antimicrobial host defense, and worsens airway inflammation. Inhaled Optate is designed to safely raise airway surface pH and is well tolerated in humans. Raising intracellular pH partially prevents activation of SARS-CoV-2 in primary normal human airway epithelial (NHAE) cells, decreasing viral replication by several mechanisms. METHODS: We grew primary NHAE cells from healthy subjects, infected them with SARS-CoV-2 (isolate USA-WA1/2020), and used clinical Optate at concentrations used in humans in vivo to determine whether Optate would prevent viral infection and replication. Cells were pretreated with Optate or placebo prior to infection (multiplicity of infection = 1), and viral replication was determined with plaque assay and nucleocapsid (N) protein levels. Healthy human subjects also inhaled Optate as part of a Phase 2a safety trial. RESULTS: Optate almost completely prevented viral replication at each time point between 24 h and 120 h, relative to placebo, on both plaque assay and N protein expression (P < .001). Mechanistically, Optate inhibited expression of major endosomal trafficking genes and raised NHAE intracellular pH. Optate had no effect on NHAE cell viability at any time point. Inhaled Optate was well tolerated in 10 normal subjects, with no change in lung function, vital signs, or oxygenation. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled Optate may be well suited for a clinical trial in patients with pulmonary SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it is vitally important for patient safety that formulations designed for inhalation with regard to pH, isotonicity, and osmolality be used. An inhalational treatment that safely prevents SARS-CoV-2 viral replication could be helpful for treating patients with pulmonary SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Epithelial Cells/drug effects , Glycine/pharmacology , Isotonic Solutions/pharmacology , Lung/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Virus Replication/drug effects , Administration, Inhalation , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Cells, Cultured/drug effects , Glycine/administration & dosage , Healthy Volunteers , Humans , Hydrogen-Ion Concentration/drug effects , Isotonic Solutions/administration & dosage
10.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(1)2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081206

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A standardised approach to assessing COVID-19 survivors has not been established, largely due to the paucity of data on medium- and long-term sequelae. Interval chest radiography is recommended following community-acquired pneumonia; however, its utility in monitoring recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia remains unclear. METHODS: This was a prospective single-centre observational cohort study. Patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (admission duration ≥48 h and oxygen requirement ≥40% or critical care admission) underwent face-to-face assessment at 4-6 weeks post-discharge. The primary outcome was radiological resolution of COVID-19 pneumonitis (Radiographic Assessment of Lung Oedema score <5). Secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, symptom questionnaires, mental health screening (Trauma Screening Questionnaire, seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder assessment and nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire) and physiological testing (4-m gait speed (4MGS) and 1-min Sit-to-Stand (STS) tests). RESULTS: 119 patients were assessed between June 3, 2020 and July 2, 2020 at median (interquartile range (IQR)) 61 (51-67) days post-discharge: mean±sd age 58.7±14.4 years, median (IQR) body mass index 30.0 (25.9-35.2) kg·m-2, 62% male and 70% ethnic minority. Despite radiographic resolution of pulmonary infiltrates in 87%, modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea (breathlessness) scale grades were above pre-COVID-19 baseline in 44%, and patients reported persistent fatigue (68%), sleep disturbance (57%) and breathlessness (32%). Screening thresholds were breached for post-traumatic stress disorder (25%), anxiety (22%) and depression (18%). 4MGS was slow (<0.8 m·s-1) in 38% and 35% desaturated by ≥4% during the STS test. Of 56 thoracic computed tomography scans performed, 75% demonstrated COVID-19-related interstitial and/or airways disease. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent symptoms, adverse mental health outcomes and physiological impairment are common 2 months after severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Follow-up chest radiography is a poor marker of recovery; therefore, holistic face-to-face assessment is recommended to facilitate early recognition and management of post-COVID-19 sequelae.

11.
Front Public Health ; 8: 609608, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069769

ABSTRACT

Household energy insecurity (HEINS) is detrimental to the health of the poor and most vulnerable in resource-poor settings. However, this effect amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and the uneven implementation of restrictions can create a synergistic burden of diseases and health risks for the most vulnerable in low- and middle-income countries, exacerbating the health equity gap. Based on existing literature, this paper develops three key arguments: (1) COVID-19 increases the health risks of energy insecurity; (2) HEINS increases the risk of spreading COVID-19; and (3) the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and HEINS will have compounding health effects. These arguments make context-specific interventions, rather than a generic global health approach without recourse to existing vulnerabilities critical in reducing the spread of COVID-19 and mitigating the effects of energy insecurity. Targeted international efforts aimed at financing and supporting resource security, effective testing, contact tracing, and the equitable distribution of vaccines and personal protective equipment have the potential to ameliorate the synergistic effects of HEINS and COVID-19 in resource-poor countries.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Energy-Generating Resources , Family Characteristics , Health Status Disparities , Vulnerable Populations , Developing Countries , Global Health , Humans , Income , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Bone Marrow Transplant ; 56(2): 305-313, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-803158

ABSTRACT

On January 20, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States of America was diagnosed in Washington state, which subsequently experienced rapidly increasing numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. This placed the Seattle Blood and Marrow Transplant Program at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Fred Hutch) in the national epicenter of this pandemic. Here, we summarize the experience gained during our rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our efforts were aimed at safely performing urgent and potentially life-saving stem cell transplants in the setting of pandemic-related stresses on healthcare resources and shelter-in-place public health measures. We describe the unique circumstances and challenges encountered, the current state of the program amidst evolving COVID-19 cases in our community, and the guiding principles for recovery. We also estimate the collateral impact of directing clinical resources toward COVID-19-related care on cancer patients in need of stem cell transplantation. Although our experience was influenced by specific regional and institutional factors, it may help inform how transplant programs respond to COVID-19 and future pandemics.


Subject(s)
Blood Transfusion/methods , Bone Marrow Transplantation/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Transplantation Conditioning/methods , Humans , Pandemics , United States/epidemiology
13.
Ther Adv Psychopharmacol ; 10: 2045125320959560, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-781400

ABSTRACT

There is both uncertainty regarding the safety of clozapine in COVID-19 patients owing to limited published data and a lack of consensus on continuing clozapine in patients with severe respiratory infections. COVID-19 is known to induce an acute immune response which can affect haematological parameters associated with clozapine monitoring, and systemic infection may reduce clozapine clearance. Clozapine, which has been associated with worse outcomes in some pneumonias, may in theory worsen outcomes in COVID-19. Despite these concerns, there are some data to indicate it is safe to continue clozapine in COVID-19 infection. In this retrospective case series, we describe our experiences of clozapine prescribing and disease progression of eight SARS-CoV-2 positive patients on medical wards in a major London teaching hospital. In four cases clozapine was stopped during the hospital admission. A COVID-19 pneumonia developed in four patients: three of these required intensive care unit admission for an average of 34 days. At the time of writing, three patients had died (two directly from COVID-19 pneumonia), two remained in general hospital wards, two were recovering in the community and one had been transferred to an inpatient psychiatric hospital. Follow-up length varied but in each case was not more than 104 days. Delirium was the most common adverse neuropsychiatric event, and in one case a relapse of psychosis occurred after cessation of clozapine. This retrospective case series illustrates the safe use of clozapine during COVID-19 infection. Our experiences suggest that consideration should be made to continuing clozapine even in those most unwell with COVID-19. We also identify areas which require larger scale hypothesis-testing research.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL