Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
2.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0260476, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528734

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Delays in patient flow and a shortage of hospital beds are commonplace in hospitals during periods of increased infection incidence, such as seasonal influenza and the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate the efficacy of machine learning methods at identifying and ranking the real-time readiness of individual patients for discharge, with the goal of improving patient flow within hospitals during periods of crisis. METHODS AND PERFORMANCE: Electronic Health Record data from Oxford University Hospitals was used to train independent models to classify and rank patients' real-time readiness for discharge within 24 hours, for patient subsets according to the nature of their admission (planned or emergency) and the number of days elapsed since their admission. A strategy for the use of the models' inference is proposed, by which the model makes predictions for all patients in hospital and ranks them in order of likelihood of discharge within the following 24 hours. The 20% of patients with the highest ranking are considered as candidates for discharge and would therefore expect to have a further screening by a clinician to confirm whether they are ready for discharge or not. Performance was evaluated in terms of positive predictive value (PPV), i.e., the proportion of these patients who would have been correctly deemed as 'ready for discharge' after having the second screening by a clinician. Performance was high for patients on their first day of admission (PPV = 0.96/0.94 for planned/emergency patients respectively) but dropped for patients further into a longer admission (PPV = 0.66/0.71 for planned/emergency patients still in hospital after 7 days). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the efficacy of machine learning methods at making operationally focused, next-day discharge readiness predictions for all individual patients in hospital at any given moment and propose a strategy for their use within a decision-support tool during crisis periods.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospital Administration/standards , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Machine Learning , Patient Care/statistics & numerical data , Patient Discharge/standards , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , COVID-19/virology , Humans
3.
Int J Gynecol Cancer ; 31(7): 1052-1060, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504094

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare discharge opioid refills, prescribed morphine equivalent dose and quantity, and longitudinal patient-reported outcomes before and after implementation of a tiered opioid prescribing algorithm among women undergoing open gynecologic surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery program. METHODS: We compared opioid prescriptions, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes among 273 women. Post-discharge symptom burden was collected up to 42 days after discharge using the validated 27-item MD Anderson Symptom Inventory and analyzed using linear mixed effects models and Kaplan-Meier curves for symptom recovery. RESULTS: Among 113 pre-implementation and 160 post-implementation patients there was no difference in opioid refills (9.7% vs 11.3%, p=0.84). The post-implementation cohort had a significant reduction in median morphine equivalent dose (112.5 mg vs 225 mg, p<0.01), with no difference in median hospital length of stay (3 days vs 3 days, p=1.0) or 30-day readmission rate (9.4% vs 7.1%, p=0.66). There was no difference in patient-reported pain between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts on the day of discharge (severity 4.93 vs 5.14, p=0.53) or in any patient-reported symptoms, interference measures, or composite scores by post-discharge day 7. The median recovery time for most symptoms was 7 days, except for pain (14 days), fatigue (18 days), and physical interference (21 days), with no differences between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of a tiered opioid prescribing algorithm, the quantity and dose of discharge opioids prescribed decreased with no change in post-operative refills and without negatively impacting patient-reported symptom burden or interference, which can be used to educate and reassure patients and providers.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Patient Discharge/standards , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Algorithms , Analgesics, Opioid/pharmacology , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
4.
Lancet Haematol ; 8(7): e524-e533, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1208801

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 is associated with a high incidence of thrombotic complications, which can be explained by the complex and unique interplay between coronaviruses and endothelial cells, the local and systemic inflammatory response, and the coagulation system. Empirically, an intensified dose of thrombosis prophylaxis is being used in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and several guidelines on this topic have been published, although the insufficiency of high quality and direct evidence has led to weak recommendations. In this Viewpoint we summarise the pathophysiology of COVID-19 coagulopathy in the context of patients who are ambulant, admitted to hospital, and critically ill or non-critically ill, and those post-discharge from hospital. We also review data from randomised controlled trials in the past year of antithrombotic therapy in patients who are critically ill. These data provide the first high-quality evidence on optimal use of antithrombotic therapy in patients with COVID-19. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for patients who are ambulant and post-discharge. A first ever trial in non-critically ill patients who were admitted to hospital has shown that a therapeutic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin might improve clinical outcomes in this population. In critically ill patients, this same treatment does not improve outcomes and prophylactic dose anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis is recommended. In the upcoming months we expect numerous data from the ongoing antithrombotic COVID-19 studies to guide clinicians at different stages of the disease.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Blood Coagulation Disorders/physiopathology , COVID-19/complications , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Blood Coagulation/physiology , Blood Coagulation Disorders/drug therapy , Blood Coagulation Disorders/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Critical Illness/therapy , Endothelial Cells/pathology , Endothelial Cells/virology , Hospitalization , Humans , Incidence , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Patient Discharge/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/physiopathology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
5.
Laryngoscope ; 131(11): 2471-2477, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1179005

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of at home drain removal in head and neck surgery patients. METHODS: The study population included patients who underwent head and neck surgery at an academic tertiary care center between February 2020 and November 2020 and were discharged with one to four drains with instructions for home removal. Prior to discharge, patients received thorough drain removal education. Patients were prospectively followed to evaluate for associated outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred patients were evaluated in the study. There was record for ninety-seven patients receiving education at discharge. The most common methods of education were face-to-face education and written instructions with educational video link provided. Of 123 drains upon discharge, 110 drains (89.4%) were removed at home while 13 (10.6%) were removed in office. Most drains were located in the neck (86.4%). There was one seroma, two hematomas, two drain site infections, and five ED visits; however, none of these complications were directly associated with the action of drain removal at home. Calculated cost savings for travel and lost wages was $259.82 per round trip saved. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that home drain removal can provide a safe and efficacious option for patients following head and neck surgery. This approach was safe and associated with patient cost savings and better utilization of provider's time. Furthermore, patients and healthcare providers avoided additional in-person encounters and exposures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings warrant further investigation into cost savings and formal patient satisfaction associated with home drain removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:2471-2477, 2021.


Subject(s)
Device Removal/adverse effects , Drainage/instrumentation , Home Care Services/statistics & numerical data , Neck Dissection/methods , Patient Discharge/standards , Postoperative Care/instrumentation , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Device Removal/economics , Drainage/methods , Efficiency , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hematoma/epidemiology , Hematoma/etiology , Home Care Services/trends , Humans , Infections/epidemiology , Infections/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Neck Dissection/statistics & numerical data , Patient Education as Topic/standards , Patient Education as Topic/trends , Postoperative Care/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Safety , Seroma/epidemiology , Seroma/etiology , Time Factors
6.
Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont) ; 34(1): 30-37, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1175768

ABSTRACT

In the field of digital health research, nurse leaders have an opportunity to be integral to the design, implementation and evaluation of virtual care interventions. This case study details the experiences of two emerging nurse leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic in providing research and clinical leadership for a national virtual health trial. These nurse leaders trained and led a national team of 70 nurses across eight participating centres delivering the virtual care and remote monitoring intervention, using the normalization process theory. This case study presents a theoretically informed approach to training and leadership and discusses the experiences and lessons learned.


Subject(s)
Aftercare/trends , Leadership , Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Nurse-Patient Relations , Patient Discharge/standards , Remote Consultation/instrumentation , COVID-19/epidemiology , Canada/epidemiology , Computers, Handheld/supply & distribution , Humans , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Procedures, Operative
7.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 8(1)2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1172762

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The symptoms, radiography, biochemistry and healthcare utilisation of patients with COVID-19 following discharge from hospital have not been well described. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 401 adult patients attending a clinic following an index hospital admission or emergency department attendance with COVID-19. Regression models were used to assess the association between characteristics and persistent abnormal chest radiographs or breathlessness. RESULTS: 75.1% of patients were symptomatic at a median of 53 days post discharge and 72 days after symptom onset and chest radiographs were abnormal in 47.4%. Symptoms and radiographic abnormalities were similar in PCR-positive and PCR-negative patients. Severity of COVID-19 was significantly associated with persistent radiographic abnormalities and breathlessness. 18.5% of patients had unscheduled healthcare visits in the 30 days post discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms and abnormal blood biomarkers with a gradual resolution of radiological abnormalities over time. These findings can inform patients and clinicians about expected recovery times and plan services for follow-up of patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Aftercare , Biomarkers/analysis , COVID-19 , Patient Discharge/standards , Radiography, Thoracic , Symptom Assessment , Aftercare/methods , Aftercare/organization & administration , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Recovery of Function , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Time Factors , United Kingdom/epidemiology
8.
Am J Med Qual ; 36(2): 84-89, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1172661

ABSTRACT

The posthospital discharge period is vulnerable for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The authors implemented a COVID-19 discharge pathway in the electronic medical record for UCHealth, a 12-hospital health care system, including an academic medical center (University of Colorado Hospital [UCH]), to improve patient safety by standardizing discharge processes for COVID-19 patients. There were 3 key elements: (1) building consensus on discharge readiness criteria, (2) summarizing discharge criteria for disposition locations, and (3) establishing primary care follow-up protocols. The discharge pathway was opened 821 times between April 20, 2020, and June 7, 2020. Of the 436 patients discharged from the hospital medicine service at UCH from April 20, 2020, and June 7, 2020, 18 (4%) were readmitted and 13 (3%) had a 30-day emergency department visit. The main trend observed was venous thromboembolism. This pathway allowed real-time integration of clinical guidelines and complex disposition requirements, decreasing cognitive burden and standardizing care for a complex population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Patient Discharge/standards , Patient Safety/standards , Academic Medical Centers , Age Factors , Clinical Protocols , Comorbidity , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Inflammation Mediators/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
10.
CMAJ Open ; 9(1): E142-E148, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1115548

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: After nonelective (i.e., semiurgent, urgent and emergent) surgeries, patients discharged from hospitals are at risk of readmissions, emergency department visits or death. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we are undertaking the Post Discharge after Surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring Technology (PVC-RAM) trial to determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) compared with standard care will increase the number of days adult patients remain alive at home after being discharged following nonelective surgery. METHODS: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial in which 900 adults who are being discharged after nonelective surgery from 8 Canadian hospitals are randomly assigned to receive virtual care with RAM or standard care. Outcome adjudicators are masked to group allocations. Patients in the experimental group learn how to use the study's tablet computer and RAM technology, which will measure their vital signs. For 30 days, patients take daily biophysical measurements and complete a recovery survey. Patients interact with nurses via the cellular modem-enabled tablet, who escalate care to preassigned and available physicians if RAM measurements exceed predetermined thresholds, patients report symptoms, a medication error is identified or the nurses have concerns they cannot resolve. The primary outcome is number of days alive at home during the 30 days after randomization. INTERPRETATION: This trial will inform management of patients after discharge following surgery in the COVID-19 pandemic and offer insights for management of patients who undergo nonelective surgery in a nonpandemic setting. Knowledge dissemination will be supported through an online multimedia resource centre, policy briefs, presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications and media engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04344665.


Subject(s)
Aftercare/trends , Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Patient Discharge/standards , Remote Consultation/instrumentation , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Canada/epidemiology , Computers, Handheld/supply & distribution , Humans , Middle Aged , Postoperative Period , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , User-Computer Interface
12.
J Emerg Med ; 59(6): 957-963, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065312

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is uniquely positioned to address challenges posed to emergency departments (EDs) by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. By reducing in-person contact, it should decrease provider risk of infection and preserve personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: To describe and assess the early results of a novel telehealth workflow in which remote providers collaborate with in-person nursing to evaluate and discharge well-appearing, low-risk ED patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was completed 3 weeks after implementation. Metrics include the number of patients evaluated, number of patients discharged without in-person contact, telehealth wait time and duration, collection of testing, ED length of stay (ED-LOS), 72-h return, number of in-person health care provider contacts, and associated PPE use. RESULTS: Among 302 patients evaluated by telehealth, 153 patients were evaluated and discharged by a telehealth provider with reductions in ED-LOS, PPE use, and close contact with health care personnel. These patients had a 62.5% shorter ED-LOS compared with other Emergency Severity Index level 4 patients seen over the same time period. Telehealth use for these 153 patients saved 413 sets of PPE. We observed a 3.9% 72-h revisit rate. One patient discharged after telehealth evaluation was hospitalized on a return visit 9 days later. CONCLUSION: Telehealth can be safely and efficiently used to evaluate, treat, test, and discharge ED patients suspected to have COVID-19. This workflow reduces infection risks to health care providers, PPE use, and ED-LOS. Additionally, it allows quarantined but otherwise well clinicians to continue working.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Patient Discharge/standards , Telemedicine/methods , Adult , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Patient Discharge/trends , Retrospective Studies , Telemedicine/trends , Triage/methods , Triage/trends
13.
Urology ; 149: 40-45, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1036165

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of same-day discharge (SDD) after robotic surgery METHODS: We reviewed our robotic surgeries during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020 and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. We followed our formerly described protocol in use since 2016 offering the option of SDD to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure type or patient-specific factors. RESULTS: During COVID-19 restrictions (COV), 89 robotic surgeries were performed and compared with 1667 of the same procedures performed previously (pre-COV) and 42 during the following month (post-COV). Among COV patients 98% (87/89 patients) opted for same-day discharge after surgery versus 52% in the historical pre-COV group (P < .00001). Post-COV, the higher rate of SDD was maintained at 98% (41/42 patients). There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients with only 2 COV (2%) and no post-COV 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: SDD after robotic surgery was safely applied during the COVID-19 crisis without increasing complications or readmissions. SDD may allow continuation of robotic surgery despite limited hospital beds and when minimizing hospital stay is important to protect postoperative patients from infection. Our experience suggests that patient attitude is a major factor in SDD after robotic surgery since the proportion of patients opting for SDD was much higher during COV and continued post-COV. Consideration of SDD long-term may be warranted for cost savings even in the absence of a crisis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Robotic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Urologic Neoplasms/surgery , Urologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Ohio/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Discharge/standards , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Patient Selection , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Prospective Studies , Robotic Surgical Procedures/standards , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Urologic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Urologic Surgical Procedures/standards , Young Adult
15.
Clin Lab ; 66(12)2020 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-994192

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has affected more than 100 countries worldwide and the discharge criteria of patients with COVID-19 vary across different countries. In China, patients with two negative respiratory viral RNA tests taken at least one day apart can be discharged with no further quarantine required. Currently, PCR testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in fecal sample is not routinely performed. METHODS: We present a patient with COVID-19, whose respiratory swabs became negative but fecal sample remained positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. RESULTS: Stool sample collected on 27th of February was still positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, 24 days after the first negative respiratory swab. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the experience from the 2003 SARS epidemic, we recommend that fecal RNA testing of SARS-CoV-2 should be incorporated into the discharge criteria to minimize the risk of transmission from the gastrointestinal tract.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/virology , Convalescence , Feces/virology , Patient Discharge/standards , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Drug Therapy, Combination , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , Pharynx/virology , Physical Distancing , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Thymalfasin/therapeutic use
16.
Healthc (Amst) ; 9(1): 100512, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-987773

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the follow-up healthcare needs of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after hospital discharge. Due to the unique circumstances of providing transitional care in a pandemic, post-discharge providers must adapt to specific needs and limitations identified for the care of COVID-19 patients. In this study, we conducted a retrospective chart review of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients discharged from an Emory Healthcare Hospital in Atlanta, GA from March 26 to April 21, 2020 to characterize their post-discharge care plans. A total of 310 patients were included in the study (median age 58, range: 23-99; 51.0% female; 69.0% African American). The most common presenting comorbidities were hypertension (200, 64.5%), obesity (BMI≥30) (138, 44.5%), and diabetes mellitus (112, 36.1%). The median length of hospitalization was 5 days (range: 0-33). Sixty-seven patients (21.6%) were admitted to the intensive care unit and 42 patients (13.5%) received invasive mechanical ventilation. The most common complications recorded at discharge were electrolyte abnormalities (124, 40.0%), acute kidney injury (86, 27.7%) and sepsis (55, 17.7%). The majority of patients were discharged directly home (281, 90.6%). Seventy-five patients (24.2%) required any home service including home health and home oxygen therapy. The most common follow-up need was an appointment with a primary care provider (258, 83.2%). Twenty-four patients (7.7%) had one or more visit to an ED after discharge and 16 patients (5.2%) were readmitted. To our knowledge, this is the first large study to report on post-discharge medical care for COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization/trends , Patient Discharge/standards , Patient Transfer/standards , Adult , Aged , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Patient Transfer/methods , Patient Transfer/statistics & numerical data
17.
Emergencias ; 32(6): 386-394, 2020 Nov.
Article in Spanish, English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-958785

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To analyze emergency department (ED) revisits from patients discharged with possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of consecutive patients who came to the ED over a period of 2 months and were diagnosed with possible COVID-19. We analyzed clinical and epidemiologic variables, treatments given in the ED, discharge destination, need to revisit, and reasons for revisits. Patients who did or did not revisit were compared, and factors associated with revisits were explored. RESULTS: The 2378 patients included had a mean age of 57 years; 49% were women. Of the 925 patients (39%) discharged, 170 (20.5%) revisited the ED, mainly for persistence or progression of symptoms. Sixty-six (38.8%) were hospitalized. Odds ratios (ORs) for the following factors showed an association with revisits: history of rheumatologic disease (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.10-7.99; P = .03), digestive symptoms (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.14-2.63; P = .01), respiratory rate over 20 breaths per minute (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.0-1.06; P = .05), and corticosteroid therapy given in the ED (OR, 7.78; 95% CI, 1.77-14.21, P = .01). Factors associated with hospitalization after revisits were age over 48 years (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1 42-4.67; P = .002) and fever (OR, 4.73; 95% CI, 1.99-11.27; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Patients under the age of 48 years without comorbidity and with normal vitals can be discharged from the ED without fear of complications. A history of rheumatologic disease, fever, digestive symptoms, and a respiratory rate over 20 breaths per minute, or a need for corticosteroid therapy were independently associated with revisits. Fever and age over 48 years were associated with a need for hospitalization.


OBJETIVO: Analizar las revisitas y los factores asociados a la misma en pacientes con diagnóstico de posible COVID-19 dados de alta de un servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH). METODO: Estudio observacional, retrospectivo que incluyó pacientes consecutivos que consultaron al SUH en un periodo de 2 meses y fueron diagnosticados de posible de COVID-19. Se analizaron variables clínico-epidemiológicas, tratamiento administrado en urgencias, destino final, revisita al SUH y motivo de esta. Se hizo un análisis comparativo entre ambos grupos (revisita sí/no) y se identificaron factores asociados a la revisita. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 2.378 pacientes (edad media 57 años; 49% mujeres). De los pacientes dados de alta (39% del total; n = 925), 170 (20,5%) reconsultaron al SUH, principalmente por persistencia o progresión de síntomas, y 66 (38,8%) precisaron ingreso. Los factores relacionados con la revisita fueron: antecedentes de enfermedad reumatológica [OR: 2,97 (IC 95%: 1,10-7,99, p = 0,03)], síntomas digestivos [OR: 1,73 (IC 95%: 1,14-2,63, p = 0,01)], frecuencia respiratoria $ 20 [OR: 1,03 (IC 95%: 1,0-1,06, p = 0,05)] y haber recibido tratamiento con esteroides en urgencias [OR: 7,78 (IC 95%: 1,77-14,21, p = 0,01)]. Los factores asociados al ingreso en la revisita fueron la edad $ 48 años [OR: 2,57 (IC 95%: 1,42-4,67, p = 0,002)] y presentar fiebre [OR: 4,73 (IC 95%: 1,99-11,27, p = 0,001)]. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes con posible COVID-19 menores de 48 años, sin comorbilidad y con signos vitales normales podrían ser dados de alta desde urgencias sin temor a sufrir complicaciones. Los antecedentes de enfermedad reumatológica, fiebre, sintomas digestivos, frecuencia respiratoria $ 20/min o necesidad de tratamiento con esteroides fueron factores independientes de revisita, y la fiebre y edad $ 48 años de necesidad de ingreso.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital , Patient Discharge/standards , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
18.
Aging (Albany NY) ; 12(21): 20997-21003, 2020 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-903136

ABSTRACT

The worldwide severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has led to the rapid spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The quantitative real time PCR (qPCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, more and more infected patients are relapsing after discharge, which suggests qPCR may fail to detect the virus in some cases. In this study, we selected 74 clinical samples from 43 recovering inpatients for qPCR and Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) synchronous blind detection, and established a cutoff value for ddPCR diagnosis of COVID-19. The results showed that at a cutoff value of 0.04 copies/µL, the ddPCR sensitivity and specificity are 97.6% and 100%, respectively. In addition, we also analyzed 18 retained samples from 9 discharged patients who relapsed. Although qPCR showed all 18 samples to be negative, ddPCR showed 12 to be positive, and there was only one patient with two negative samples; the other eight patients had at least one positive sample. These results indicate that ddPCR could significantly improve the accuracy of COVID-19 diagnosis, especially for discharged patients with a low viral load, and help to reduce misdiagnosis during recovery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 , Patient Discharge/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Secondary Prevention/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/classification , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/standards , China/epidemiology , Humans , Quality Improvement , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load/methods
19.
Urology ; 147: 43-49, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-884792

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To quantify and characterize the burden of urological patients admitted to emergency department (ED) in Lombardy during Italian COVID-19 outbreak, comparing it to a reference population from 2019. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all consecutive admissions to ED from 1 January to 9 April in both 2019 and 2020. According to the ED discharge ICD-9-CM code, patients were grouped in urological and respiratory patients. We evaluated the type of access (self-presented/ambulance), discharge priority code, ED discharge (hospitalization, home), need for urological consultation or urgent surgery. RESULTS: The number of urological diagnoses in ED was inversely associated to COVID-19 diagnoses (95% confidence interval -0.41/-0.19; Beta = -0.8; P < .0001). The average access per day was significantly lower after 10 March 2020 (1.5 ± 1.1 vs 6.5 ± 2.6; P < .0001), compared to reference period. From 11 March 2020, the inappropriate admissions to ED were reduced (10/45 vs 96/195; P = .001). Consequently, the patients admitted were generally more demanding, requiring a higher rate of urgent surgeries (4/45 vs 4/195; P = .02). This reflected in an increase of the hospitalization rate from 12.7% to 17.8% (Beta = 0.88; P < .0001) during 2020. CONCLUSION: Urological admissions to ED during lockdown differed from the same period of 2019 both qualitatively and quantitatively. The spectrum of patients seems to be relatively more critical, often requiring an urgent management. These patients may represent a challenge due to the difficult circumstances caused by the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Emergency Treatment/trends , Pandemics/prevention & control , Urologic Diseases/therapy , Academic Medical Centers/standards , Academic Medical Centers/statistics & numerical data , Academic Medical Centers/trends , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/trends , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/trends , Emergency Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/standards , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Patient Admission/trends , Patient Discharge/standards , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Patient Discharge/trends , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation/trends , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Tertiary Care Centers/standards , Tertiary Care Centers/statistics & numerical data , Tertiary Care Centers/trends , Urologic Diseases/diagnosis , Urologic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Urologic Surgical Procedures/trends
20.
J Prev Med Hyg ; 61(3): E313-E320, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-881538

ABSTRACT

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the microorganism responsible for the aggressive Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic. During the such pandemic, discharge and community reintegration of patients are critical phases in guaranteeing public health. A review of the international and Italian experiences that represent the best available evidence was carried out, mainly focusing on the precise allocation of tasks and related responsibilities. The report provides a proposal for a systematic management pathway dedicated to COVID-19 patients. The original result is a logigramme to guide health practitioners on discharge and community reintegration of COVID-19 patients. To standardize clinical attitudes helps in ensuring quality of care and patient safety, should be a core element even during a public health emergency. The logigramme suggests, after discharge, 14 days of further isolation with regular health monitoring and, finally, the execution of a nasopharyngeal swab for identification of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. Home-cared patients should be placed on 7 days of further isolation after at least 2 negative RT-PCR tests for respiratory tract samples (nasopharyngeal swab). The logigramme is already used in the Department of Prevention - Local Health Agency of Lecce (Apulia) but it will be updated according to the latest research findings.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Monitoring, Ambulatory , Pandemics , Patient Discharge/standards , Pneumonia, Viral , Quarantine , Asymptomatic Diseases , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Convalescence , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL