Antimicrobial prescribing practices at a tertiary-care center in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 across the continuum of care.

In a single-center review of antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 patients, 10% of patients received antimicrobials, and inpatients encounters had the highest rate and spectrum of prescribing. Prescribing rate, spectrum, and duration appeared to increase with disease severity in inpatients. Antimicrobial prescribing in patients managed in ambulatory encounters was less common.

Threat of COVID-19 impacting on a quaternary healthcare service: a retrospective cohort study of administrative data.

OBJECTIVES: The threat of a pandemic, over and above the disease itself, may have significant and broad effects on a healthcare system. We aimed to describe the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (during a relatively low transmission period) and associated societal restrictions on presentations, admissions and outpatient visits. DESIGN: We compared hospital activity in 2020 with the preceding 5 years, 2015-2019, using a retrospective cohort study design. SETTING: Quaternary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency department presentations, hospital admissions and outpatient visits from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2020, n=896 934 episodes of care. INTERVENTION: In Australia, the initial peak COVID-19 phase was March-April. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Separate linear regression models were fitted to estimate the impact of the pandemic on the number, type and severity of emergency presentations, hospital admissions and outpatient visits. RESULTS: During the peak COVID-19 phase (March and April 2020), there were marked reductions in emergency presentations (10 389 observed vs 14 678 expected; 29% reduction; p<0.05) and hospital admissions (5972 observed vs 8368 expected; 28% reduction; p<0.05). Stroke (114 observed vs 177 expected; 35% reduction; p<0.05) and trauma (1336 observed vs 1764 expected; 24% reduction; p<0.05) presentations decreased; acute myocardial infarctions were unchanged. There was an increase in the proportion of hospital admissions requiring intensive care (7.0% observed vs 6.0% expected; p<0.05) or resulting in death (2.2% observed vs 1.5% expected; p<0.05). Outpatient attendances remained similar (30 267 observed vs 31 980 expected; 5% reduction; not significant) but telephone/telehealth consultations increased from 2.5% to 45% (p<0.05) of total consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Although case numbers of COVID-19 were relatively low in Australia during the first 6 months of 2020, the impact on hospital activity was profound.

The impact of Covid-19 pandemic related lockdown on clubfoot practice: Type of study design: Retrospective cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: We investigated whether the number of pediatric patients with congenital clubfoot treated with the Ponseti method decreased during the Covid-19 pandemic or not in a rural area. So we aimed to guide orthopedic surgeons and health infrastructure for future pandemics to be prepared in hospitals of rural areas for the treatment of children with congenital clubfoot.One hundred and fifty-four patients with clubfoot who were admitted to our clinic were evaluated retrospectively from March 2017 to December 2020. Institutional hospital electronic database was used to detect the number of weeks between the birth and first cast performed in clinic and the number of casts been applied and unilaterality or bilaterality. Patients were divided into four groups, which included pandemic period and three previous years. Recorded data were analyzed statistically to detect if there is a difference between the numbers of the patients in pandemic period and three previous years.The number of patients with clubfoot admitted to our hospital between March 2020 and December 2020 increased by 140% compared to previous year. There was a statistically significant difference between the average number of cast applications of Group 4 and other groups (P <.001). Achilles tenotomy was performed in 44 (61.1%) of 72 patients admitted during the pandemic period. Only 4 (13.3%) out of 30 patients admitted between March 2019 and December 2019 were performed Achilles tenotomy.We detected an increase in the number of clubfoot cases admitted to our rural-based hospital during the Covid-19 pandemic, treated with casting or surgically. We think this is because of preventive measures during the pandemic, which caused parents could not reach urban for treatment.

Patients in hospital with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in a network of Canadian acute care hospitals, Mar. 1 to Aug. 31, 2020: a descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Information on the epidemiology of patients in hospital with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Canadian acute care hospitals is needed to inform infection prevention and control strategies and public health measures. The aim of this surveillance was to describe the epidemiology of patients in hospital with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in a network of Canadian acute care hospitals between Mar. 1 and Aug. 31, 2020. METHODS: Through prospective surveillance, we identified adult and pediatric patients in hospital with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 using a standard definition between Mar. 1 and Aug. 31, 2020, through the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP), a network of 78 hospitals. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics and data on treatment, interventions and outcomes were reviewed and described. RESULTS: As of Aug. 31, 2020, the CNISP had received data for 1906 patients in hospital with COVID-19 in 49 sentinel hospitals in 9 provinces. The majority of patients in hospital with COVID-19 were older (median age 71 yr) and had underlying medical conditions (85.8%). Few children with COVID-19 were admitted to a participating hospital (n = 37, 1.9%). Acquisition of COVID-19 in hospitals was infrequent (6.4% of all cases). A total of 32.8% of patients were admitted from a long-term care facility or retirement home. Health care workers constituted 10.6% of adult patients aged 18-65 years in hospital with COVID-19. Thirty-day attributable mortality was 16.2%. Hospital admission rates peaked in mid-April and were highest in Ontario and Quebec. INTERPRETATION: Surveillance findings indicate that a high proportion of Canadian patients in hospital with COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic were older adults with underlying medical conditions. Active surveillance of patients in hospital with COVID-19 is critical to enhancing our knowledge of the epidemiology of COVID-19 and to identifying populations at risk for severe outcomes, which will help guide Canada's response in the coming months.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia in others. This can lead to some people requiring intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of smell or taste, and signs such as oxygen saturation are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19, or select patients for further testing. This is an update of this review, the first version of which published in July 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: For this review iteration we undertook electronic searches up to 15 July 2020 in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies in hospitalised patients were only included if symptoms and signs were recorded on admission or at presentation. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 44 studies including 26,884 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 varied from 3% to 71% with a median of 21%. There were three studies from primary care settings (1824 participants), nine studies from outpatient testing centres (10,717 participants), 12 studies performed in hospital outpatient wards (5061 participants), seven studies in hospitalised patients (1048 participants), 10 studies in the emergency department (3173 participants), and three studies in which the setting was not specified (5061 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild from severe COVID-19, so we present the results for all disease severities together. Fifteen studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. This may have especially influenced the sensitivity of those features used in referral protocols, such as fever and cough. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional 12 studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. This makes it very difficult to judge the validity of the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms from these included studies. The applicability of the results of this review update improved in comparison with the original review. A greater proportion of studies included participants who presented to outpatient settings, which is where the majority of clinical assessments for COVID-19 take place. However, still none of the studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 84 signs and symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. Only cough (25 studies) and fever (7 studies) had a pooled sensitivity of at least 50% but specificities were moderate to low. Cough had a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.8% to 74.1%) and specificity of 35.0% (95% CI 28.7% to 41.9%). Fever had a sensitivity of 53.8% (95% CI 35.0% to 71.7%) and a specificity of 67.4% (95% CI 53.3% to 78.9%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of cough was only 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11) and that of fever 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93). Anosmia alone (11 studies), ageusia alone (6 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had sensitivities below 50% but specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a pooled sensitivity of 28.0% (95% CI 17.7% to 41.3%) and a specificity of 93.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 96.4%). Ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 24.8% (95% CI 12.4% to 43.5%) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 81.3% to 96.3%). Anosmia or ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 41.0% (95% CI 27.0% to 56.6%) and a specificity of 90.5% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.4%). The pooled positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.25 (95% CI 3.17 to 5.71) and 4.31 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.18) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was only 2.88 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.09). Only two studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining fever and cough with other symptoms. These combinations had a specificity above 80%, but at the cost of very low sensitivity (< 30%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic accuracy, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out COVID-19. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for COVID-19. The presence of fever or cough, given their high sensitivities, may also be useful to identify people for further testing. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19, are still urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions.

Managing patient flows in radiation oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic : Reworking existing treatment designs to prevent infections at a German hot spot area University Hospital.

PURPOSE: The described work aimed to avoid cancellations of indispensable treatments by implementing active patient flow management practices and optimizing infrastructure utilization in the radiation oncology department of a large university hospital and regional COVID-19 treatment center close to the first German SARS-CoV­2 hotspot region Heinsberg in order to prevent nosocomial infections in patients and personnel during the pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised year-to-date intervention analyses of in- and outpatient key procedures, machine occupancy, and no-show rates in calendar weeks 12 to 19 of 2019 and 2020 to evaluate effects of active patient flow management while monitoring nosocomial COVID-19 infections. RESULTS: Active patient flow management helped to maintain first-visit appointment compliance above 85.5%. A slight appointment reduction of 10.3% daily (p = 0.004) could still significantly increase downstream planning CT scheduling (p = 0.00001) and performance (p = 0.0001), resulting in an absolute 20.1% (p = 0.009) increment of CT performance while avoiding overbooking practices. Daily treatment start was significantly increased by an absolute value of 18.5% (p = 0.026). Hypofractionation and acceleration were significantly increased (p = 0.0043). Integrating strict testing guidelines, a distancing regimen for staff and patients, hygiene regulations, and precise appointment scheduling, no SARS-CoV­2 infection in 164 tested radiation oncology service inpatients was observed. CONCLUSION: In times of reduced medical infrastructure capacities and resources, controlling infrastructural time per patient as well as optimizing facility utilization and personnel workload during treatment evaluation, planning, and irradiation can help to improve appointment compliance and quality management. Avoiding recurrent and preventable exposure to healthcare infrastructure has potential health benefits and might avert cross infections during the pandemic. Active patient flow management in high-risk COVID-19 regions can help Radiation Oncologists to continue and initiate treatments safely, instead of cancelling and deferring indicated therapies.

Managing cancer during COVID pandemic - Experience of a tertiary cancer care center.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced healthcare providers worldwide to bring in changes in the way cancer patients are cared for. Many cancer departments globally have brought in changes to their daily practice. This article is about our experience of evolving "COVID 19 PROTOCOL" devised in our department and taking a shape to suit a health care system with limited budget. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All the patient census & details of department of surgical oncology, Royapettah cancer hospital, from month of March 2020 to July 2020, who were subjected to COVID protocol were compared to patient census of similar duration in immediate past five months of October 2019 to February 2020. The data from out-patient department, ward in-patient census and healthcare personnel data was analyzed. RESULTS: There was a drop to 63.5% in OP census and 61.6% in IP census. There was a drop to 64.5% in number of major cases operated during initial phases of COVID pandemic. Health care workers were also infected with the COVID but cross infectivity can be checked if proper steps to adhere to an institutional protocol based on general measures of cleanliness are taken. CONCLUSION: Adherence to an institutional protocol based on compliance to general measures of masking, hand washing and social distancing plays a major role in minimizing disease spread. The Royapettah COVID protocol, though in process of evolution, can be recommended for any health care center with limited resources.

The success of virtual clinics during COVID-19: A closed loop audit of the British orthopaedic association (BOAST) guidelines of outpatient orthopaedic fracture management.

COVID-19 has had profound management implications for orthopaedic management due to balancing patient outcomes with clinical safety and limited resources. The BOAST guidelines on outpatient orthopaedic fracture management took a pragmatic approach. At Great Western Hospital, Swindon, a closed loop audit was performed looking at a selection of these guidelines, to assess if our initial changes were sufficient and what could be improved. METHOD: An audit was designed around fracture immobilisation, type of initial fracture clinic assessment, default virtual follow up clinic and late imaging. Interventions were implemented and re-audited. RESULTS: Initially 223 patients were identified over 4 weeks. Of these, 100% had removable casts and 99% did not have late imaging. 96% of patients were initially assessed virtually or had initial orthopaedic approval to be seen in face to face clinic. 97% had virtual follow up or had documented reasons why not. The 26 patients who were initially seen face to face were put through a simulated virtual fracture clinic. 22 appointments and 13 Xray attendances could have been avoided. We implemented a change of requiring all patients to be assessed at consultant level before having a face to face appointment. The re-audit showed over 99% achievement in all areas. CONCLUSION: Virtual fracture clinics, both triaging new patients and follow-up clinics have dramatically changed our outpatient management, helping the most appropriate patients to be seen face to face. Despite their limitations, they have been well tolerated by patients and improved patient safety and treatment.

Identifying the effects of an upgraded 'fever clinic' on COVID-19 control and the workload of emergency department: retrospective study in a tertiary hospital in China.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 started spreading widely in China in January 2020. Outpatient fever clinics (FCs), instituted during the SARS epidemic in 2003, were upgraded to serve for COVID-19 screening and prevention of disease transmission in large tertiary hospitals in China. FCs were hoped to relieve some of the healthcare burden from emergency departments (EDs). We aimed to evaluate the effect of upgrading the FC system on rates of nosocomial COVID-19 infection and ED patient attendance at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6365 patients were screened in the FC. METHODS: The FC of PUMCH was upgraded on 20 January 2020. We performed a retrospective study of patients presenting to the FC between 12 December 2019 and 29 February 2020. The date when COVID-19 was declared an outbreak in Beijing was 20 January 2020. Two groups of data were collected and subsequently compared with each other: the first group of data was collected within 40 days before 20 January 2020; the second group of data was collected within 40 days after 20 January 2020. All necessary data, including patient baseline information, diagnosis, follow-up conditions and the transfer records between the FC and ED, were collected and analysed. RESULTS: 6365 patients were screened in the FC, among whom 2912 patients were screened before 21 January 2020, while 3453 were screened afterward. Screening results showed that upper respiratory infection was the major disease associated with fever. After the outbreak of COVID-19, the number of patients who were transferred from the FC to the ED decreased significantly (39.21% vs 15.75%, p<0.001), and patients generally spent more time in the FC (55 vs 203 min, p<0.001), compared with before the outbreak. For critically ill patients waiting for their screening results, the total length of stay in the FC was 22 min before the outbreak, compared with 442 min after the outbreak (p<0.001). The number of in-hospital deaths of critically ill patients in the FC was 9 out of 29 patients before the outbreak and 21 out of 38 after the outbreak (p<0.05). Nineteen cases of COVID-19 were confirmed in the FC during the period of this study. However, no other patients nor any healthcare providers were cross-infected. CONCLUSION: The workload of the FC increased significantly after the COVID-19 outbreak. New protocols regarding the use of FC likely helped prevent the spread of COVID-19 within the hospital. The upgraded FC also reduced the burden on the ED.

COVID-19 strategy in organizing and planning orthopedic surgery in a major orthopedic referral center in an area of Italy severely affected by the pandemic: experience of the Department of Orthopedics, University of Padova.

BACKGROUND: According to the required reorganization of all hospital activities, the recent COVID-19 pandemic had dramatic consequences on the orthopedic world. We think that informing the orthopedic community about the strategy that we adopted both in our hospital and in our Department of Orthopedics could be useful, particularly for those who are facing the pandemic later than Italy. METHODS: Changes were done in our hospital by medical direction to reallocate resources to COVID-19 patients. In the Orthopedic Department, a decrease in the number of beds and surgical activity was stabilized. Since March 13, it has been avoided to perform elective surgery, and since March 16, non-urgent outpatient consultations were abolished. This activity reduction was associated with careful evaluation of staff and patients: extensive periodical swab testing of all healthcare staff and swab testing of all surgical patients were applied. RESULTS: These restrictions determined an overall reduction of all our surgical activities of 30% compared to 2019. We also had a reduction in outpatient clinic activities and admissions to the orthopedic emergency unit. Extensive swab testing has proven successful: of more than 160 people tested in our building, only three COVID-19 positives were found, and of over more than 200 surgical procedures, only two positive patients were found. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive swab test of all people (even if asymptomatic) and proactive tracing and quarantining of potential COVID-19 positive patients may diminish the virus spread.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19 disease.

BACKGROUND: Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst in others the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 pneumonia, leading some patients to require intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever or cough, and signs such as oxygen saturation or lung auscultation findings, are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19 disease, or select patients for further diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19 disease or COVID-19 pneumonia. SEARCH METHODS: On 27 April 2020, we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with suspected COVID-19 disease, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 disease and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), clinical expertise, imaging, serology tests and World Health Organization (WHO) or other definitions of COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Analyses were descriptive, presenting sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in ROC (receiver operating characteristic) space and in dumbbell plots. We did not attempt meta-analysis due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity across studies and the high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 16 studies including 7706 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 5% to 38% with a median of 17%. There were no studies from primary care settings, although we did find seven studies in outpatient clinics (2172 participants), and four studies in the emergency department (1401 participants). We found data on 27 signs and symptoms, which fall into four different categories: systemic, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular. No studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms and results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity; only six symptoms had a sensitivity of at least 50% in at least one study: cough, sore throat, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache. Of these, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache could be considered red flags (defined as having a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5) for COVID-19 as their specificity was above 90%, meaning that they substantially increase the likelihood of COVID-19 disease when present. Seven studies carried a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional four studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. These factors make it very difficult to determine the diagnostic properties of these signs and symptoms from the included studies. We also had concerns about the applicability of these results, since most studies included participants who were already admitted to hospital or presenting to hospital settings. This makes these findings less applicable to people presenting to primary care, who may have less severe illness and a lower prevalence of COVID-19 disease. None of the studies included any data on children, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We hope that future updates of this review will be able to provide more information about the diagnostic properties of signs and symptoms in different settings and age groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic properties, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19 disease, are urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions such as self-isolation or selecting patients for further diagnostic testing. We also need data on potentially more specific symptoms such as loss of sense of smell. Studies in older adults are especially important.