RESUMEN
We conducted voluntary Covid-19 testing programmes for symptomatic and asymptomatic staff at a UK teaching hospital using naso-/oro-pharyngeal PCR testing and immunoassays for IgG antibodies. 1128/10,034 (11.2%) staff had evidence of Covid-19 at some time. Using questionnaire data provided on potential risk-factors, staff with a confirmed household contact were at greatest risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.82 [95%CI 3.45-6.72]). Higher rates of Covid-19 were seen in staff working in Covid-19-facing areas (22.6% vs. 8.6% elsewhere) (aOR 2.47 [1.99-3.08]). Controlling for Covid-19-facing status, risks were heterogenous across the hospital, with higher rates in acute medicine (1.52 [1.07-2.16]) and sporadic outbreaks in areas with few or no Covid-19 patients. Covid-19 intensive care unit staff were relatively protected (0.44 [0.28-0.69]), likely by a bundle of PPE-related measures. Positive results were more likely in Black (1.66 [1.25-2.21]) and Asian (1.51 [1.28-1.77]) staff, independent of role or working location, and in porters and cleaners (2.06 [1.34-3.15]).
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Infecciones Asintomáticas/epidemiología , Betacoronavirus/aislamiento & purificación , COVID-19 , Infecciones por Coronavirus/transmisión , Infecciones por Coronavirus/virología , Femenino , Hospitales de Enseñanza/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Incidencia , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/estadística & datos numéricos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/transmisión , Neumonía Viral/virología , Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2 , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Epistaxis is frequently managed with intra-nasal packing devices, traditionally requiring patient admission. Current COVID-19 guidelines encourage ambulatory care where possible in this patient cohort. This paper aims to establish the impact of the Clinical Frailty Scale, anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapeutics and season variation on pre-pandemic admissions to help identify patients suitable for ambulatory epistaxis management. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study SETTING: Scottish Regional Health Board PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients attending secondary care with epistaxis between March 2019 and March 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Likelihood of epistaxis hospital admission based on Clinical Frailty Scale. RESULTS: 299 epistaxis presentations were identified, of which 122 (40.8%) required admission. Clinical Frailty Scale of ≥4 had an increased likelihood of admission (OR 3.15 (95% CI:1.94-5.16), P < .05). In the majority of presentations (66.2%), patients were taking either an antiplatelet or anticoagulant. Of these presentations, the use of an anticoagulant (OR: 2.00 (95% CI: 1.20-3.33), P < .05 and dual antiplatelet (OR: 2.82 (95% CI: 1.02-7.86), P < .05) demonstrated increased likelihood of admission. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that frailty increases the risk of admission in adult patients presenting with epistaxis. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) could be utilised in risk stratification to identify suitable patients for outpatient management. Patients with CFS ≤ 3 could be considered for outpatient management of their epistaxis. It is likely that patients with CFS ≥4 on anticoagulant or dual antiplatelet will require admission.