Acceptability and Feasibility of the Transfer of Face-to-Face Group Therapy to Online Group Chats in a Psychiatric Outpatient Setting During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, several mental health care providers were obliged to shut down outpatient services, including group therapy and psychoeducational sessions. The lockdown in many countries is a serious threat to people's mental well-being, especially for individuals with severe mental illnesses. Discontinued outpatient treatments and disruption of daily routines are considered to be risk factors for destabilization of patients with mental illness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability, usability, and feasibility of a group chat program to replace cancelled face-to-face group sessions in an outpatient psychiatric department. METHODS: Participants (N=33) were recruited in the outpatient department of a large university medical center in Leipzig, Germany. Former face-to-face group participants were invited to take part in a therapist-guided group-chat for 4 weeks (8 sessions) and were asked to evaluate the program via self-administered standardized questionnaires at baseline (T0, preintervention), after every chat session (T1), and posttreatment (T2, after 4-6 weeks). The chat groups were specific to the following mental disorder diagnoses and based on the same therapeutic principles and techniques as the former face-to-face groups: anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Sociodemographic measures, attitudes toward the COVID-19 pandemic, depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), quality of life (abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment), treatment credibility/expectancy (Credibility Expectancy Questionnaire), and participants' satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 [ZUF-8]) were measured. RESULTS: Participants joined an average of 5 out of 8 offered chat sessions. Participation rates in the respective groups were highest in the ADHD group (8.6/11, 78%) and lowest in the anxiety group (3.7/9, 41%). The overall preintervention level of depressive symptoms was moderate and showed a slight, nonsignificant improvement at posttreatment (T0: mean 10.7, SD 5.5; T2: mean 10.2, SD 5.5). A similar result was observed regarding quality of life (T0: median 41.7-68.8; T2: median 50-70.3). Treatment credibility and expectancy scores were medium-high (T0: meancredibility 18.1, SD 3.8; meanexpectancy 11.2, SD 5.1; T2: meancredibility 17.1, SD 4.8; meanexpectancy 10.3, SD 5.8). Further, significant correlations were detected between posttreatment expectancy score and posttreatment PHQ-9 score (r=-0.41, P=.02), posttreatment physical quality of life (r=0.54, P=.001), and posttreatment psychological quality of life (r=0.53, P=.002). Overall, participants' satisfaction with the program was very high, both after chat sessions and at posttreatment (ZUF-8: mean score 20.6, SD 1.0). Of all participants, a majority (27/31, 87%) rated the program as excellent/good and indicated they would recommend the group chat program to a friend in need of similar help (23/31, 74%). CONCLUSIONS: A therapist-guided group chat program to substitute outpatient group setting treatment during the COVID-19 lockdown was shown to be feasible, usable, and highly acceptable for participants. Web-based programs such as this one provide an easy-to-implement tool to successfully stabilize participants during a difficult time, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00021527; https://tinyurl.com/3btyxc2r.

A Retrospective Study of COVID-19-Related Urgent Medical Visits and Hospitalizations After Outpatient COVID-19 Diagnosis in the US.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19 requiring urgent medical visits and hospitalizations (UMVs) among patients initially diagnosed in the outpatient setting may help inform patient management. The objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of and risk factors for COVID-19-related UMVs after outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis or positive SARS-CoV-2 test. METHODS: Data for this retrospective cohort study were from the Optum® de-identified COVID-19 Electronic Health Record database from June 1 to December 9, 2020. Adults with first COVID-19 diagnosis or positive SARS-CoV-2 test in outpatient settings were identified. Cumulative incidence function analysis stratified by risk factors was used to estimate the 30-day incidence of COVID-19-related UMVs. Competing risk regression models were used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for factors associated with UMVs. RESULTS: Among 206,741 patients [58.8% female, 77.5% non-Hispanic Caucasian, mean (SD) age: 46.7 (17.8) years], the 30-day incidence was 9.4% (95% CI 9.3-9.6) for COVID-19-related emergency room (ER)/urgent care (UC)/hospitalizations and 3.8% (95% CI 3.7-3.9) for COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Likelihood of hospitalization increased with age and body mass index, with age the strongest risk factor (aHR 5.61; 95% CI 4.90-6.32 for patients ≥ 85 years). Increased likelihood of hospitalization was observed for first presentation in the ER/UC vs. non-ER/UC outpatient settings (aHR 2.35; 95% CI 2.22-2.47) and prior all-cause hospitalization (aHR 1.90; 95% CI 1.79-2.00). Clinical risk factors of hospitalizations included pregnancy, uncontrolled diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and autoimmune disease. A study limitation is that data on COVID-19 severity and symptoms were not captured. CONCLUSION: Predictors of COVID-19-related UMVs include older age, obesity, and several comorbidities. These findings may inform patient management and resource allocation following outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis.

Outpatient Palliative Care Practice for Cancer Patients During COVID-19 Pandemic: Benefits and Barriers of Using Telemedicine.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the way outpatient palliative care providers deliver care for patients and their families. Operational changes such as the reduction of in-person care to minimize the risk of exposure is a way healthcare has adjusted to the pandemic. Our New York City-based outpatient palliative care practice is embedded in oncology. Adopting telemedicine was an essential tool to continue providing comprehensive palliative care to vulnerable oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe a case illustrating the benefits and barriers of telemedicine in the care of an oncology patient in the outpatient palliative care setting.

Hydroxychloroquine Safety Outcome within Approved Therapeutic Protocol for COVID-19 Outpatients in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Global healthcare is challenged following the COVID-19 pandemic, since late 2019. Multiple approaches have been performed to relieve the pressure and support existing healthcare. The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health (MOH) launched an initiative to support the National Healthcare System. Since the 5th of June 2020, 238 outpatient fever clinics were established nationwide. This study aimed to assess the safety outcome and reported adverse events from hydroxychloroquine use among suspected COVID-19 patients. METHOD: A cross-sectional study included 2,733 patients subjected to MOH treatment protocol (hydroxychloroquine) and followed-up within 3-7 days after initiation. Data was collected through an electronic link and cross-checked with the national database (Health Electronic Surveillance Network, HESN) and reports from the MOH Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) Committee. RESULTS: 240 patients (8.8%) discontinued treatment because of side effects (4.1%) and for non-clinical reasons in the remaining (4.7%). Adverse effects were reported among (6.7%) of all studied participants, including mainly cardiovascular (2.5%, 0.15% with QTc prolongation), and gastrointestinal (2.4%). No Intensive Care Unit admission or death were reported among these patients. CONCLUSION: Our results show that hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients in mild to moderate cases in an outpatient setting, within the protocol recommendation and inclusion/exclusion criteria, is safe, highly tolerable, and with minimum side effects.

Cardiovascular Comorbidities and Pharmacological Treatments of COVID-19 Patients Not Requiring Hospitalization.

INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is a whole Earth health emergency related to a highly pathogenic human coronavirus responsible for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2). Despite the fact that the majority of infected patients were managed in outpatient settings, little is known about the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients not requiring hospitalization. The aim of our study was to describe the clinical comorbidity and the pharmacological therapies of COVID-19 patients managed in outpatient settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an observational, retrospective analysis of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients managed in outpatient settings in Naples, Italy between 9 March and 1 May 2020. Data were sourced from the prospectively maintained Health Search (HS)/Thales database, shared by 128 primary care physicians (PCPs) in Naples, Italy. The clinical features and pharmacological therapies of COVID-19 patients not requiring hospitalization and managed in outpatient settings have been described. RESULTS: A total of 351 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients (mean age 54 ± 17 years; 193 males) with outpatient management were evaluated. Hypertension was the most prevalent comorbidity (35%). The distribution of cardiovascular comorbidities showed no gender-related differences. A total of 201 patients (57.3%) were treated with at least one experimental drug for COVID-19. Azithromycin, alone (42.78%) or in combination (27.44%), was the most widely used experimental anti-COVID drug in outpatient settings. Low Molecular Weight Heparin and Cortisone were prescribed in 24.87% and 19.4% of the study population, respectively. At multivariate regression model, diabetes (risk ratio (RR): 3.74; 95% CI 1.05 to 13.34; p = 0.04) and hypertension (RR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.7; p = 0.03) were significantly associated with the experimental anti-COVID drug administration. Moreover, only diabetes (RR: 2.43; 95% CI 1.01 to 5.8; p = 0.03) was significantly associated with heparin administration. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show a high prevalence of hypertension, more likely treated with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RASS) inhibitors, among COVID-19 patients not requiring hospitalization. Experimental COVID-19 therapies have been prescribed to COVID-19 patients considered at risk for increased venous thromboembolism based on concomitant comorbidities, in particular diabetes and hypertension.