Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
2.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl ; 103(7): 487-492, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1288676

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, our emergency general surgery (EGS) service underwent significant restructuring, including establishing an enhanced ambulatory service and undertaking nonoperative management of selected pathologies. The aim of this study was to compare the activity of our EGS service before and after these changes. METHODS: Patients referred by the emergency department were identified prospectively over a 4-week period beginning from the date our EGS service was reconfigured (COVID) and compared with patients identified retrospectively from the same period the previous year (Pre-COVID), and followed up for 30 days. Data were extracted from handover documents and electronic care records. The primary outcomes were the rate of admission, ambulation and discharge. RESULTS: There were 281 and 283 patients during the Pre-COVID and COVID periods respectively. Admission rate decreased from 78.7% to 41.7%, while there were increased rates of ambulation from 7.1% to 17.3% and discharge from 6% to 22.6% (all p<0.001). For inpatients, mean duration of admission decreased (6.9 to 4.8 days), and there were fewer operative or endoscopic interventions (78 to 40). There were increased ambulatory investigations (11 to 39) and telephone reviews (0 to 39), while early computed tomography scan was increasingly used to facilitate discharge (5% vs 34.7%). There were no differences in 30-day readmission or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Restructuring of our EGS service in response to COVID-19 facilitated an increased use of ambulatory services and imaging, achieving a decrease of 952 inpatient bed days in this critical period, while maintaining patient safety.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Treatment/statistics & numerical data , General Surgery/organization & administration , Surgery Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Adult , Aged , Ambulatory Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Conservative Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Treatment/methods , Emergency Treatment/standards , Female , Follow-Up Studies , General Surgery/standards , General Surgery/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infection Control/standards , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Patient Safety/standards , Prospective Studies , Referral and Consultation/organization & administration , Referral and Consultation/standards , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surgery Department, Hospital/standards , Surgery Department, Hospital/statistics & numerical data
3.
J Cancer Res Ther ; 17(2): 547-550, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1268381

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Health emergency due to COVID-19 started in Uruguay on March 13, 2020; our mastology unit tried to ensure adequate oncological care, and protect patients from the virus infection and complications. OBJECTIVE: To assess the health care activities in the "peak" of the pandemic during 3 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: we collected data from the electronic health record. RESULTS: There were a total of 293 medical appointments from 131 patients (221 face-to-face), that decreased by 16.7% compared to the same period in 2019 (352 appointments). The medical appointments were scheduled to evaluate the continuity of systemic treatment or modifications (95 patients; 72.5%), follow-up (17; 12.9%), first-time consultation (12; 9.1%), and assess paraclinical studies (7; 5.3%). The patients were on hormone therapy (81 patients; 74%), chemotherapy (CT) (21; 19%), and anti-HER2 therapies (9; 8%). New twenty treatments were initiated. Of the 14 patients that were on adjuvant/neoadjuvant CT, 9 (64.3%) continued with the same regimen with the addition of prophylactic granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), and 5 (35.7%), who were receiving weekly paclitaxel, continued the treatment with no changes. Of the seven patients that were on palliative CT, 2 (28.5%) continued the treatment with the addition of G-CSF, 3 (42.8%) continued with weekly capecitabine or paclitaxel with no treatment changes, and 2 (28.5%) changed their treatment regimen (a less myelosuppressive regimen was selected for one and due to progression of the disease in the other patient). The ninety patients who were receiving adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or palliative criteria hormone therapy and/or anti-HER2 therapies, continued the treatment with no changes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that, although medical appointments decreased by approximately 17%, we could maintain healthcare activities, continued most of the treatments while the most modified was CT with G-CSF to avoid myelosuppression.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Continuity of Patient Care/statistics & numerical data , Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Medical Oncology/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Bone Marrow/drug effects , Breast Neoplasms/complications , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Continuity of Patient Care/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Female , Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor/administration & dosage , Hematopoiesis/drug effects , Hematopoiesis/immunology , Humans , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/standards , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Referral and Consultation/standards , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/standards , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Triage/organization & administration , Triage/standards , Uruguay/epidemiology
4.
J Fr Ophtalmol ; 44(3): 307-312, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1078008

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the ability of a freely accessible internet algorithm to correctly identify the need for emergency ophthalmologic consultation for correct diagnosis and management. METHOD: This retrospective observational cohort study was based on the first 100 patients who requested recommendations on the necessity of breaking the lockdown for emergency ophthalmology consultation during the period from March to May 2020. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients completed questionnaires. Forty-nine were directed to emergency consultation and 42 to differed scheduled visits or telemedicine visits. One patient sent for emergency consultation had an overestimated severity and could have been seen later, while two patients initially recommended for a scheduled visit were considered appropriate for emergency consultation. However, these patients' management did not suffer as a consequence of the delay. The sensitivity of the algorithm, defined as the number of emergency consultations suggested by the algorithm divided by the total number of emergency consultations deemed appropriate by the practitioner's final evaluation, was 96.0%. The specificity of the algorithm, defined as the number of patients recommended for delayed consultation by the algorithm divided by the number of patients deemed clinically appropriate for this approach, was 97.5%. The positive predictive value, defined as the number of appropriate emergency consultations divided by the total number of emergency consultations suggested by the algorithm, was 97.9%. Finally, the negative predictive value, defined as the number of appropriately deferred patients divided by the number of deferred patients recommended by the algorithm, was 95.2%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the reliability of an algorithm based on patients' past medical history and symptoms to classify patients and direct them to either emergency consultation or to a more appropriate deferred, scheduled appointment. This algorithm might allow reduction of walk-in visits by half and thus help control patient flow into ophthalmologic emergency departments.


Subject(s)
Algorithms , Appointments and Schedules , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergencies , Eye Diseases/therapy , Ophthalmology/organization & administration , Quarantine , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Emergencies/epidemiology , Emergency Medical Services/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Eye Diseases/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Paris/epidemiology , Referral and Consultation/organization & administration , Referral and Consultation/standards , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/standards , Young Adult
7.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 24(21): 11402-11408, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-937847

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to explore the best follow-up management strategy for patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) during the novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) epidemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing PD who were followed up during the NCP epidemic by our hospital were enrolled in this study. Because of the need to control the epidemic, a follow-up system was established during the epidemic period, with WeChat, QQ, and the telephone as the main methods of communication. Outpatient and emergency follow-ups were carried out to ensure the safety of dialysis and the prevention and control of the epidemic. The follow-up strategy included response measures related to the epidemic situation, prevention of peritonitis related to PD, water and salt control, exercise guidance, and psychological care. According to the patient's condition, the appointment system was implemented, with one consulting room and one process for each patient. The emergency patients were isolated in accordance with the epidemic situation. RESULTS: Since January 2020, among the 580 patients undergoing PD who were followed up in our department and their families, none had NCP infection. During the epidemic period, the standard hemoglobin level and the inpatient rate decreased. Complications related to PD, such as peritonitis, cardiovascular complications caused by volume overload, and pulmonary infection, did not significantly increase, and the withdrawal rate and mortality rate decreased compared with those in the same period last year. CONCLUSIONS: The patient follow-up strategy during the epidemic period had a significant positive effect on preventing and controlling the epidemic. Furthermore, during the epidemic period, encouraging patients and caregivers to pay attention to protection at home, avoid going out, strengthen self-management, and other measures were beneficial to the control of kidney disease itself, which is worth promoting. The close relationship between doctors and patients during the epidemic had a positive effect on the occurrence of complications related to patients undergoing PD.


Subject(s)
Aftercare/methods , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Hemodialysis, Home/standards , Kidney Failure, Chronic/therapy , Pandemics/prevention & control , Peritoneal Dialysis/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Aftercare/standards , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Caregivers/psychology , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Follow-Up Studies , Hemodialysis, Home/adverse effects , Hemodialysis, Home/psychology , Humans , Patient Education as Topic , Peritoneal Dialysis/adverse effects , Peritoneal Dialysis/psychology , Peritonitis/epidemiology , Peritonitis/etiology , Physician-Patient Relations , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Referral and Consultation/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Self-Management/psychology , Telemedicine/standards , Treatment Outcome
9.
Gastroenterology ; 159(1): 320-334.e27, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-683713

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Multiple gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, including diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver enzyme abnormalities, have been variably reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This document provides best practice statements and recommendations for consultative management based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of international data on GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search to identify published and unpublished studies using OVID Medline and preprint servers (medRxiv, LitCovid, and SSRN) up until April 5, 2020; major journal sites were monitored for US publications until April 19, 2020. We pooled the prevalence of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver function tests abnormalities, using a fixed-effect model and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: We identified 118 studies and used a hierarchal study selection process to identify unique cohorts. We performed a meta-analysis of 47 studies including 10,890 unique patients. Pooled prevalence estimates of GI symptoms were as follows: diarrhea 7.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2%-8.2%), nausea/vomiting 7.8% (95% CI, 7.1%-8.5%), and abdominal pain 2.7% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.4%). Most studies reported on hospitalized patients. The pooled prevalence estimates of elevated liver abnormalities were as follows: aspartate transaminase 15.0% (95% CI, 13.6%-16.5%) and alanine transaminase 15.0% (95% CI, 13.6%-16.4%). When we compared studies from China to studies from other countries in subgroup analyses, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and liver abnormalities were more prevalent outside of China, with diarrhea reported in 18.3% (95% CI, 16.6%-20.1%). Isolated GI symptoms were reported rarely. We also summarized the Gl and liver adverse effects of the most commonly utilized medications for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: GI symptoms are associated with COVID-19 in <10% of patients. In studies outside of China, estimates are higher. Further studies are needed with standardized GI symptoms questionnaires and liver function test checks on admission to better quantify and qualify the association of these symptoms with COVID-19. Based on findings from our meta-analysis, we provide several Best Practice Statements for the consultative management of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Gastrointestinal Diseases/diagnosis , Liver Diseases/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Referral and Consultation/standards , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Gastroenterology/standards , Gastrointestinal Diseases/epidemiology , Gastrointestinal Diseases/therapy , Gastrointestinal Diseases/virology , Gastrointestinal Tract/drug effects , Gastrointestinal Tract/virology , Humans , Liver/drug effects , Liver/virology , Liver Diseases/epidemiology , Liver Diseases/therapy , Liver Diseases/virology , Liver Function Tests , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Societies, Medical/standards , United States
11.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 14(5): 797-799, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-595346

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: With restrictions on face to face clinical consultations in the COVID-19 pandemic, Telemedicine has become an essential tool in providing continuity of care to patients. We explore the common pitfalls in remote consultations and strategies that can be adopted to avoid them. METHODS: We have done a comprehensive review of the literature using suitable keywords on the search engines of PubMed, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and Research Gate in the first week of May 2020 including 'COVID-19', 'telemedicine' and 'remote consultations'. RESULTS: Telemedicine has become an integral part to support patient's clinical care in the current COVID-19 pandemic now and will be in the future for both primary and secondary care. Common pitfalls can be identified and steps can be taken to prevent them. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine it is going to play a key role in future of health medicine, however, telemedicine technology should be applied in appropriate settings and situations. Suitable training, enhanced documentations, communication and observing information governance guidelines will go a long way in avoiding pitfalls associated with remote consultations.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Services Needs and Demand , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Referral and Consultation/organization & administration , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus/physiology , COVID-19 , Health Services Needs and Demand/organization & administration , Health Services Needs and Demand/standards , Humans , Pandemics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Quarantine/organization & administration , Quarantine/standards , Referral and Consultation/standards , Referral and Consultation/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/methods , Telemedicine/standards , Telemedicine/trends
13.
Br J Dermatol ; 182(6): e195, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-457055

ABSTRACT

Since cases first emerged in December 2019, COVID-19 (a type of coronavirus) has rapidly become pandemic. This fast-tracked paper (published quickly) from China on COVID-19 is written by dermatologists at the epicentre of the outbreak in Wuhan. Dermatology clinic staff may be at risk because protective equipment is not routinely available, and skin lesions might possibly transmit the virus indirectly. These authors suggest preventive measures based on experience in this and previous coronavirus outbreaks. Online consultation for non-urgent patients reduces the numbers of patients attending clinics. Nurse-led triage, to identify patients with possible COVID-19, at the entrances of hospital and skin clinics directs patients with a cough or fever to a specific COVID-19 area and a dermatologist is consulted if the fever might be related to skin disease. Clinic staff wear N95 masks and observe hand hygiene during consultations. Patients are admitted to a ward only if routine blood tests and chest CT scans exclude COVID-19. Triage will not detect patients who are showing no symptoms but who are developing the disease, so the hospital should provide an on-call expert team to discuss inpatients suspected or diagnosed with COVID-19 and refer them to radiology, respiratory or intensive care colleagues as required. Confirmed cases are managed following local policies. Skin disorders in COVID-19 inpatients can usually be managed remotely using photographs, email and teleconferencing. If necessary a multidisciplinary team (a team of medical staff from different specialties) can meet in the clean area of the isolation ward. If the dermatologist must see the patient, all records should be provided in advance to minimise exposure time. With these precautions, as of 20th February 2020 no infected patients were detected in the Wuhan Dermatology Department. This is a summary of the study: Emergency management for preventing and controlling nosocomial infection of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for the dermatology department.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Dermatology/standards , Emergencies , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Hand Hygiene/standards , Hospitals/standards , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Referral and Consultation/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Triage/standards
16.
J Vasc Surg ; 72(2): 396-402, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-141599

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Ever since the first positive test was identified on January 21, 2020, Washington State has been on the frontlines of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Using information obtained from Italian surgeons in Milan and given the concerns regarding the increasing case numbers in Washington State, we implemented new vascular surgery guidelines, which canceled all nonemergent surgical procedures and involved significant changes to our inpatient and outpatient workflow. The consequences of these decisions are not yet understood. METHODS: The vascular surgery division at Harborview Medical Center immediately instituted new vascular surgery COVID-19 practice guidelines on March 17, 2020. Subsequent clinic, operative, and consultation volume data were collected for the next 4 weeks and compared with the historical averages. The Washington State case and death numbers and University of Washington Medical Center (UW Medicine) hospital case volumes were collected from publicly available sources. RESULTS: Since March 10, 2020, the number of confirmed positive COVID-19 cases within the UW Medicine system has increased 1867%, with floor and intensive care unit bed usage increasing by 120% and 215%, respectively. After instituting our new COVID-19 guidelines, our average weekly clinical volume decreased by 96.5% (from 43.1 patients to 1.5 patients per week), our average weekly surgical volume decreased by 71.7% (from 15 cases to 4.25 cases per week), and our inpatient consultation volume decreased to 1.81 consultations daily; 60% of the consultations were completed as telemedicine "e-consults" in which the patient was never evaluated in-person. The trainee surgical volume has also decreased by 86.4% for the vascular surgery fellow and 84.8% for the integrated resident. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed every aspect of "normal" vascular surgical practice in a large academic institution. New practice guidelines effectively reduced operating room usage and decreased staff and trainee exposure to potential infection, with the changes to clinic volume not resulting in an immediate increase in emergency department or inpatient consultations or acute surgical emergencies. These changes, although preserving resources, have also reduced trainee exposure and operative volume significantly, which requires new modes of education delivery. The lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, if analyzed, will help us prepare for the next crisis.


Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers/standards , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Vascular Surgical Procedures/standards , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Humans , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infection Control/standards , Operating Rooms/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/organization & administration , Referral and Consultation/organization & administration , Referral and Consultation/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/standards , Universities/standards , Vascular Surgical Procedures/organization & administration , Washington/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL