Mixed methods protocol to examine the acceptability and clinical characteristics of a remote monitoring programme for delivery of COVID-19 care, among healthcare staff and patients

IntroductionThe use of remote monitoring technology to manage the care of patients with COVID-19 has been implemented to help reduce the burden placed on healthcare systems during the pandemic and protect the well-being of both staff and patients. Remote monitoring allows patients to record their signs and symptoms remotely (eg, while self-isolating at home) rather than requiring hospitalisation. Healthcare staff can, therefore, continually monitor their symptoms and be notified when the patient is showing signs of clinical deterioration. However, given the recency of the COVID-19 outbreak, there is a lack of research regarding the acceptance of remote monitoring interventions to manage COVID-19. This study will aim to evaluate the use of remote monitoring for managing COVID-19 cases from the perspective of both the patient and healthcare staff.Methods and analysisDischarged patients from a large urban teaching hospital in Ireland, who have undergone remote monitoring for COVID-19, will be recruited to take part in a cross-sectional study consisting of a quantitative survey and a qualitative interview. A mixed methods design will be used to understand the experiences of remote monitoring from the perspective of the patient. Healthcare staff who have been involved in the provision of remote monitoring of patients with COVID-19 will be recruited to take part in a qualitative interview to understand their experiences with the process. Structural equation modelling will be used to examine the acceptance of the remote monitoring technology. Latent class analysis will be used to identify COVID-19 symptom profiles. Interview data will be examined using thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the ethical review boards at University College Dublin and the National Research Ethics Committee for COVID-19-related Research. Findings will be disseminated via publications in scientific journals, policy briefs, short reports and social media.

Rapid and Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing in High-Risk Hospital Associated Cohorts of Unknown COVID-19 Exposure, a Validation and Epidemiological Study After the First Wave of the Pandemic.

Objective: We aimed to use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to assess the asymptomatic seroprevalence of individuals in high-risk hospital cohorts who's previous COVID-19 exposure is unknown; staff, and patients requiring haemodialysis or chemotherapy after the first wave. Methods: In a single Center, study participants had five SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests done simultaneously; one rapid diagnostic test (RDT) (Superbio Colloidal Gold IgM/IgG), and four laboratory tests (Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG [RE], Abbott Architect i2000SR IgG [AAr], Abbott Alinity IgG [AAl], and Abbott Architect IgM CMIA). To determine seroprevalence, only positive test results on laboratory assay were considered true positives. Results: There were 157 participants, of whom 103 (65.6%) were female with a median age of 50 years (range 19-90). The IgG component of the RDT showed a high number of false positives (n = 18), was inferior to the laboratory assays (p < 0.001 RDT vs. AAl/AAr, p < 0.001 RDT vs. RE), and had reduced specificity (85.5% vs. AAl/AAr, 87.2% vs. RE). Sero-concordance was 97.5% between IgG laboratory assays (RE vs. AAl/AAr). Specificity of the IgM component of the RDT compared to Abbott IgM CMIA was 95.4%. Ten participants had positivity in at least one laboratory assay, seven (9.9%) of which were seen in HCWs. Two (4.1%) hematology/oncology (H/O) patients and a single (2.7%) haemodialysis (HD) were asymptomatically seropositive. Asymptomatic seroprevalence of HCWs compared to patients was not significant (p = 0.105). Conclusion: HCWs (9.9%) had higher, although non-significant asymptomatic seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies compared to high-risk patients (H/O 4.1%, HD 2.7%). An IgM/IgG rapid diagnostic test was inferior to laboratory assays. Sero-concordance of 97.5% was found between IgG laboratory assays, RE vs. AAl/AAr.

Antibiotic prescribing patterns in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: lessons from the first wave.

BACKGROUND: A high proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receive antibiotics despite evidence to show low levels of true bacterial coinfection. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study examining antibiotic prescribing patterns of 300 patients sequentially diagnosed with COVID-19. Patients were grouped into 3 sub-cohorts: Group 1 received no antibiotics, Group 2 received antibiotics for microbiologically confirmed infections and Group 3 was empirically treated with antibiotics for pneumonia. The primary aim was to identify factors that influenced prescription and continuation of antibiotics in Group 3. Secondary aims were to examine differences in outcomes between groups. RESULTS: In total, 292 patients were included (63 Group 1, 35 Group 2, 194 Group 3), median age was 60 years (IQR 44-76) and the majority were ethnically Irish (62%). The median duration of antibiotics was 7 days (IQR 5-10). In Group 3, factors associated with prescription IV antibiotics on admission were raised C-reactive protein (CRP) (P = 0.024), increased age (P = 0.023), higher quick SOFA (P = 0.016) score and fever >37.5 °C (P = 0.011). Factors associated with duration of antibiotic course were duration of hypoxia (P < 0.001) and maximum respiratory support requirement (P = 0.013). Twenty-one patients in Group 3 had one or more antibiotic escalation events, most (n = 139) had no escalation or de-escalation of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of hypoxia and need for respiratory support may have acted as surrogate measures of improvement where usual response measures (CRP, neutrophilia, culture clearance) were absent. Continuous review of antibiotic prescriptions should be at the forefront of clinical management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Documentation of Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary-Resuscitation orders amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: the COVID-19 pandemic has brought the decision-making process regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) into focus. The aim of this study is to compare rates of Do-Not-Attempt-CPR (DNACPR) documentation in older hospitalised patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: this was a retrospective repeated cross-sectional study. Data including co-morbidities and resuscitation status was collected on 300 patients with COVID-19 hospitalised from 1 March to 31 May 2020. DNACPR documentation rates in patients aged ≥65 years with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were compared to those without COVID-19 admitted during the same period and were also compared to the documentation rates pre-COVID-19 pandemic (1 March-31 May 2019). RESULTS: of 300 COVID-19-positive patients, 28% had a DNACPR order documented during their admission. Of 131 older (≥65 years) patients with COVID-19, 60.3% had a DNACPR order compared to 25.4% of 130 older patients without COVID-19 (P < 0.0001). During a comparable time period pre-pandemic, 15.4% of 130 older patients had a DNACPR order in place (P < 0.0001). Almost fifty percent of DNACPR orders were recorded within 24 h of a positive swab result for SARS-CoV-2. Of older COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% were referred to palliative care services and 70.2% survived. CONCLUSION: the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted more widespread and earlier decision-making regarding resuscitation status. Although case fatality rates were higher for older hospitalised patients with COVID-19, many older patients survived the illness. Advance care planning should be prioritised in all patients and should remain as part of good clinical practice despite the pandemic.