A 360 degree mixed-methods evaluation of a specialized COVID-19 outpatient clinic and remote patient monitoring program.

BACKGROUND: Our goals are to quantify the impact on acute care utilization of a specialized COVID-19 clinic with an integrated remote patient monitoring program in an academic medical center and further examine these data with stakeholder perceptions of clinic effectiveness and acceptability. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was drawn from enrolled and unenrolled ambulatory patients who tested positive in May through September 2020 matched on age, presence of comorbidities and other factors. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients, frontline clinician, and administrators were analyzed in an inductive-deductive approach to identify key themes. RESULTS: Enrolled patients were more likely to be hospitalized than unenrolled patients (N = 11/137 in enrolled vs 2/126 unenrolled, p = .02), reflecting a higher admittance rate following emergency department (ED) events among the enrolled vs unenrolled, though this was not a significant difference (46% vs 25%, respectively, p = .32). Thirty-eight qualitative interviews conducted June to October 2020 revealed broad stakeholder belief in the clinic's support of appropriate care escalation. Contrary to beliefs the clinic reduced inappropriate care utilization, no difference was seen between enrolled and unenrolled patients who presented to the ED and were not admitted (N = 10/137 in enrolled vs 8/126 unenrolled, p = .76). Administrators and providers described the clinic's integral role in allowing health services to resume in other areas of the health system following an initial lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care utilization and multi-stakeholder interviews suggest heightened outpatient observation through a specialized COVID-19 clinic and remote patient monitoring program may have contributed to an increase in appropriate acute care utilization. The clinic's role securing safe reopening of health services systemwide was endorsed as a primary, if unmeasured, benefit.

Anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels and pulmonary comorbid conditions are linked to post-COVID-19 syndrome.

BACKGROUNDProlonged symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well documented. However, which factors influence development of long-term symptoms, how symptoms vary across ethnic groups, and whether long-term symptoms correlate with biomarkers are points that remain elusive.METHODSAdult SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR-positive (RT-PCR-positive) patients were recruited at Stanford from March 2020 to February 2021. Study participants were seen for in-person visits at diagnosis and every 1-3 months for up to 1 year after diagnosis; they completed symptom surveys and underwent blood draws and nasal swab collections at each visit.RESULTSOur cohort (n = 617) ranged from asymptomatic to critical COVID-19 infections. In total, 40% of participants reported at least 1 symptom associated with COVID-19 six months after diagnosis. Median time from diagnosis to first resolution of all symptoms was 44 days; median time from diagnosis to sustained symptom resolution with no recurring symptoms for 1 month or longer was 214 days. Anti-nucleocapsid IgG level in the first week after positive RT-PCR test and history of lung disease were associated with time to sustained symptom resolution. COVID-19 disease severity, ethnicity, age, sex, and remdesivir use did not affect time to sustained symptom resolution.CONCLUSIONWe found that all disease severities had a similar risk of developing post-COVID-19 syndrome in an ethnically diverse population. Comorbid lung disease and lower levels of initial IgG response to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen were associated with longer symptom duration.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04373148.FUNDINGNIH UL1TR003142 CTSA grant, NIH U54CA260517 grant, NIEHS R21 ES03304901, Sean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Sunshine Foundation, Crown Foundation, and Parker Foundation.

A Systematic Review of Studies Describing the Effectiveness, Acceptability, and Potential Harms of Place-Based Interventions to Address Loneliness and Mental Health Problems.

Given the links between the built environment and loneliness, there is interest in using place-based approaches (addressing built environment characteristics and related socio-spatial factors) in local communities to tackle loneliness and mental health problems. However, few studies have described the effectiveness, acceptability, or potential harms of such interventions. This review aimed to synthesize the literature describing local community-based interventions that target place-based factors to address loneliness and mental health problems, informing the development of future public health approaches. We searched PsycINFO, Medline, and Embase using a structured search strategy to identify English-language studies evaluating the effectiveness, acceptability, and potential harms of place-based community interventions in addressing loneliness and mental health problems, both in general and clinical populations. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, classified as evaluating provision of community facilities (such as clubhouses), active engagement in local green spaces, and housing regeneration. None were randomised trials. Quantitative and qualitative findings suggested promising effects and/or acceptability of six interventions, with minimal potential harms. There is a clear need for randomised trials or quasi-experimental studies of place-based interventions to describe their effectiveness in addressing loneliness and mental health problems, as well as complementary qualitative work investigating acceptability. This will inform future policy development.

Use of home pulse oximetry with daily short message service messages for monitoring outpatients with COVID-19: The patient's experience.

Studies have shown COVID-19 patients may have a low oxygen saturation (SpO2) independent of visible respiratory distress, a phenomenon termed "silent hypoxia." Silent hypoxia creates uncertainty in the outpatient setting for clinicians and patients alike. In this study, we examined the potential for pulse oximeters in identifying early signs of clinical deterioration. We report descriptive results on COVID-positive patients' experiences with a comprehensive home monitoring tool comprised of home SpO2 measurements with a novel symptom-tracking short message service/text messaging application. Of patients who required hospitalization, 83% sought care as a result of low pulse oximeter readings. Nearly all patients who did not require hospitalization reported that having a pulse oximeter provided them with the confidence to stay at home. Essentially all patients found a home pulse oximeter useful. Keeping COVID-19-positive patients at home reduces the potential for disease spread and prevents unnecessary costs and strain on the healthcare system.

Implementing Value-Added Medical Education: Lessons Learned From the Student-Initiated Stanford Frontline COVID-19 Consult Service.

PROBLEM: Value-added medical education (VAME) has been difficult to implement due to student and educator constraints. The COVID-19 pandemic caused mass transitions to online learning, removed students from clinical settings, and underscored students' desires for meaningful VAME opportunities. The authors introduced the Stanford Frontline COVID-19 Consult Service (SFCS), through which off-service medical and physician assistant (PA) students provided assistance to clinicians in the form of rapid research regarding COVID-19 clinical questions. APPROACH: The SFCS, a student-derived VAME initiative, was implemented from March to May 2020 by Stanford University medical students, PA students, and faculty. SFCS aligned with not only the interests of clinicians and students but also national accreditation standards. Students attended weekly editorial meetings, didactic sessions on literature reviews and information management, and they underwent rigorous training on the peer review process. After 2 months, the authors expanded the service to local community clinicians. OUTCOMES: The SFCS enrolled 16 students, was supported by 13 faculty members, and produced 87 peer-reviewed evidence syntheses. Of the 16 SFCS students, 13 (81%) completed evaluations; of 128 Stanford Primary Care and Population Health clinicians, 48 (38%) completed evaluations. Overall student satisfaction with the SFCS was 4.9/5 (standard deviation [SD] 0.3). Self-assessed achievement of SFCS learning objectives exceeded 90% for all objectives. Overall faculty satisfaction with the SFCS was 4.4/5 (SD 0.8). Most faculty (40/46 [87%]) planned to use the database to answer future COVID-19 questions. NEXT STEPS: The SFCS is a novel, student-initiated VAME curriculum focused on increasing students' meaningful contributions to patient care. The authors will track SFCS students throughout their clerkships to gauge clerkship performance/preparedness, and they will develop training for integrating VAME into preclerkship curricula at other institutions. Given its adaptive, student-driven design, the VAME framework used to develop the SFCS empowers students to create their own personalized, experiential learning.

Relationship of socio-demographics, comorbidities, symptoms and healthcare access with early COVID-19 presentation and disease severity.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 studies are primarily from the inpatient setting, skewing towards severe disease. Race and comorbidities predict hospitalization, however, ambulatory presentation of milder COVID-19 disease and characteristics associated with progression to severe disease is not well-understood. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review including all COVID-19 positive cases from Stanford Health Care (SHC) in March 2020 to assess demographics, comorbidities and symptoms in relationship to: 1) their access point of testing (outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room (ER)) and 2) development of severe disease. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-seven patients tested positive: 127 (49%), 96 (37%), and 34 (13%) at outpatient, ER and inpatient, respectively. Overall, 61% were age < 55; age > 75 was rarer in outpatient setting (11%) than ER (14%) or inpatient (24%). Most patients presented with cough (86%), fever/chills (76%), or fatigue (63%). 65% of inpatients reported shortness of breath compared to 30-32% of outpatients and ER patients. Ethnic/minority patients had a significantly higher risk of developing severe disease (Asian OR = 4.8 [1.6-14.2], Hispanic OR = 3.6 [1.1-11.9]). Medicare-insured patients were marginally more likely (OR = 4.0 [0.9-17.8]). Other factors associated with developing severe disease included kidney disease (OR = 6.1 [1.0-38.1]), cardiovascular disease (OR = 4.7 [1.0-22.1], shortness of breath (OR = 5.4 [2.3-12.6]) and GI symptoms (OR = 3.3 [1.4-7.7]; hypertension without concomitant CVD or kidney disease was marginally significant (OR = 2.3 [0.8-6.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Early widespread symptomatic testing for COVID-19 in Silicon Valley included many less severely ill patients. Thorough manual review of symptomatology reconfirms the heterogeneity of COVID-19 symptoms, and challenges in using clinical characteristics to predict decline. We re-demonstrate that socio-demographics are consistently associated with severity.