Methodology to Support the Triage of Suspected COVID-19 Patients in Resource-Limited Circumstances

COVID-19 pandemic has put health systems worldwide under pressure. Thus, establish a triage protocol to support the allocation of resources is important to deal with this public health crisis. In this paper, a structured methodology to support the triage of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients has been proposed, based on the utilitarian principle. A decision model has been proposed for evaluating three treatment alternatives: intensive care, hospital stay and home isolation. The model is developed according to multi-attribute utility theory and considers two criteria: the life of the patient and the overall cost to the health system. A screening protocol is proposed to support the use of the decision model, and a method is presented for calculating the probability of which of three treatment is the best one. The proposed methodology was implemented in an information and decision system. The originality of this study is using of the multi-attribute utility theory to support the triage of suspected COVID-19 and implement the decision model in an information and decision system.

Use of a Screening Protocol to Identify Asymptomatic COVID-19 in a Free Community Health Clinic in Shelby County, Alabama, October 2020-February 2021.

OBJECTIVE: Community of Hope Health Clinic (CHHC), a free and charitable clinic in Shelby County, Alabama, developed a screening protocol to identify patients with asymptomatic COVID-19 with the goal of minimizing infection risk for other patients, health care providers, and staff. We sought to determine whether the use of the CHHC screening protocol identified asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2 before their scheduled clinic visits. METHODS: The CHHC screening protocol included the use of an adapted Centers for Disease Control and Prevention questionnaire via telephone 48-72 hours before a scheduled clinic appointment, coupled with a second administration of the questionnaire and a temperature check immediately before the patient's scheduled visit. Patients with positive responses to any questions or whose temperatures were greater than 100.4 °F were refused entry to the clinic, their appointments were rescheduled, and a SARS-CoV-2 test was recommended. SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing was conducted on all patients with an appointment from October 26, 2020, through February 18, 2021, to verify whether the screening protocol was effective. RESULTS: Of 298 patient encounters, 20 patients screened positive on the SARS-CoV-2 patient screen. Another 278 patients screened negative, were seen for patient care, and received a SARS-CoV-2 test via nasal swab; 274 (98.6%) patients received a negative test result, and 4 (1.4%) patients received a positive test result. CONCLUSIONS: The CHHC SARS-CoV-2 screening protocol, as validated by SARS-CoV-2 assay, was effective in screening out asymptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 before they were seen in clinic. As clinics and office practices return to prepandemic volumes, the use of such a screening protocol can help mitigate the risk of serious COVID-19 infection, especially for unvaccinated patients, health care providers, and staff.

Analysis of patient outcomes after urological surgery during the second and third waves of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a high incidence area.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze surgical safety through postoperative COVID-19 incidence and mortality at the urology department of a tertiary hospital located in Madrid (Spain). METHODS: Observational, prospective study including all patients undergoing urological surgery from 1st March 2020 to 28th February 2021. According to the hospital organization and local epidemiological situation we delimitate three epidemic waves. A set of screening and protective measures was applied from 4th May onwards. Demographic, baseline, surgical and perioperative variables, as well as postoperative outcomes, were collected. Telephone follow-up was performed at least 3 weeks after hospital discharge. RESULTS: 940 urological surgeries were performed, 12 of them had to be rescheduled due to active or recent SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by the screening protocol. Thirty-one patients developed COVID-19 (3.3% incidence) and 7 died (22.6% mortality). The average time to onset of symptoms was 62.6 days after discharge, being 25 cases attributable to community transmission. The remaining 6 cases, due to in-hospital transmission, had worse outcomes. Five of them were identified during the first wave, especially when no preoperative PCR was obtained. In contrast, during the second and third waves, fewer and milder cases were diagnosed, with just 1 in-hospital transmission among 857 urological patients. CONCLUSIONS: After implementing complete protective measures, postoperative in-hospital COVID-19 cases almost disappeared, even during the second and third waves. Most of the cases were due to community transmission and thus driven by the general epidemiological situation. While hospitals follow recommendations to avoid COVID-19 infection, urological surgery remains safe and can be maintained.

Evaluation of a comprehensive pre-procedural screening protocol for COVID-19 in times of a high SARS CoV-2 prevalence: a prospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission, an ambulant screening protocol for COVID-19 in patients before admission to the hospital was implemented, combining the SARS CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on a nasopharyngeal swab, a chest computed tomography (CT) and assessment of clinical symptoms. The aim of this study was to evaluatethe diagnostic yield and the proportionality of this pre-procedural screeningprotocol. METHODS: In this mono-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study, all patients admitted to the hospital between 22nd April 2020 until 14th May 2020 for semi-urgent surgery, haematological or oncological treatment, or electrophysiological investigationunderwent a COVID-19 screening 2 days before their procedure. At a 2-week follow-up, the presence of clinical symptoms was evaluated by telephone as a post-hoc evaluation of the screening approach.Combined positive RT-PCR assay and/or positive chest CT was used as gold standard. Post-procedural outcomes of all patients diagnosed positive for COVID-19 were assessed. RESULTS: In total,528 patients were included of which 20 (3.8%) were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive and 508 (96.2%) as COVID-19 negative. 11 (55.0%) of COVID-19 positive patients had only a positive RT-PCR assay, 3 (15.0%) had only a positive chest CT and 6 (30%) had both a positive RT-PCR assay and chest CT. 10 out of 20 (50.0%) COVID-19 positive patients reported no single clinical symptom at the screening. At 2 week follow-up, 50% of these patients were still asymptomatic. 37.5% of all COVID-19 negative patients were symptomatic at screening. In the COVID-19 negative group without symptoms at screening, 78 (29.3%) patients developed clinical symptoms at a 2-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that routine chest CT and assessment of self-reported symptoms have limited value in the preprocedural COVID-19 screening due to low sensitivity and/or specificity.

A Case Series: Successfully Preventing COVID-19 Outbreak in a Residential Community Setting at a Drug and Alcohol Addiction Treatment Center.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has reduced the capacity of many addiction treatment centers, limiting access to safe, continual treatment for people with substance use disorders (SUD) in the setting of a pandemic. Here, we describe the COVID-19 screening process of a residential addiction treatment center in rural Connecticut that has had no outbreaks, closures, or reductions in capacity since the pandemic began. Out of 420 patients screened for COVID-19 from 1 February to 1 July, five patients tested positive for COVID-19: four prior to entering its residential community setting, and one after entering the residential community, resulting in no COVID-19 spread to other patients. Patient 1 presented from home and tested positive during screening prior to entry into the community. The primary care provider for patient 2 notified staff of a recent pos-itive COVID-19 test prior to the patient's arrival on-site. Patient 3 had a COVID-19 infection in the weeks prior to arrival and tested positive during initial screening. Patient 4 tested positive af-ter coming from another addiction treatment facility that was shut down due to a COVID-19 outbreak. Patient 5 tested negative for COVID-19 during initial screening, entered the residential community, and later tested positive. It is imperative that in-person support for SUD continues during the pandemic. This case report highlights the importance of implementing a variety of tools in an effective screening process, including polymerase chain reaction screening and daily symptomology and temperature screening, which may help prevent further closures or reductions in capacity of addiction treatment centers during the COVID-19 pandemic or future outbreaks.

Noncontact Body Temperature Measurement: Uncertainty Evaluation and Screening Decision Rule to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19.

The need to measure body temperature contactless and quickly during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency has led to the widespread use of infrared thermometers, thermal imaging cameras and thermal scanners as an alternative to the traditional contact clinical thermometers. However, limits and issues of noncontact temperature measurement devices are not well known and technical-scientific literature itself sometimes provides conflicting reference values on the body and skin temperature of healthy subjects. To limit the risk of contagion, national authorities have set the obligation to measure body temperature of workers at the entrance to the workplace. In this paper, the authors analyze noncontact body temperature measurement issues from both clinical and metrological points of view with the aim to (i) improve body temperature measurements accuracy; (ii) estimate the uncertainty of body temperature measurement on the field; (iii) propose a screening decision rule for the prevention of the spread of COVID-19. The approach adopted in this paper takes into account both the traditional instrumental uncertainty sources and clinical-medical ones related to the subjectivity of the measurand. A proper screening protocol for body temperature measurement considering the role of uncertainty is essential to correctly choose the threshold temperature value and measurement method to access critical places during COVID-19 pandemic emergency.

Urological surgery during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Descriptive analysis of the experience in a Urology Department across the pandemic phases. / Cirugía urológica durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2. Análisis descriptivo de la experiencia en un Servicio de Urología durante distintas fases epidemiológicas.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has changed the urological practice around the world. Our objective is to describe the outcomes presented by patients undergoing surgery in the urology department of a tertiary hospital, across the pandemic phases. METHODS: Observational, cohort study including all patients undergoing surgery from March 1 to May 14. According to the hospital organization, we identified three periods: there were no changes during the first two weeks (1st. period), the following seven weeks, when only urgent interventions were carried out after performance of nasopharyngeal swab test (2nd. period), and finally, elective surgery was resumed on May 4, after the implementation of a multidisciplinary screening protocol (3rd. period). Demographic, baseline, surgical and perioperative variables, as well as postoperative outcomes, were obtained in a retrospective (periods 1 and 2) and prospective (period 3) manner. Telephone follow-up was initiated at least 3 weeks after hospital discharge. RESULTS: 103 urological surgeries were performed, and 11 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, 8 of them within the 1st. PERIOD: The diagnosis was already known in 1 patient, while the other 10 developed the disease in an average of 25 days after the intervention and 16,6 days after discharge. Of seven transplant patients, four got the infection. Three deaths were recorded due to the disease: a 69-year-old woman transplanted and two men over 80 with comorbidities and high anesthetic risk who underwent drainage of retroperitoneal abscess and retrograde intrarenal surgery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection mainly affected renal transplant recipients or elderly patients with high anesthetic risk, during the first 2 weeks of the pandemic. After implementing preoperative PCR tests and a comprehensive screening protocol, cases were substantially reduced, and safe surgical procedures were achieved.

An Algorithm for Ramp Up of Ophthalmic Elective Surgeries Post-COVID-19.

Purpose: As ophthalmic elective surgeries resume amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, protocols for testing patients for SARS-CoV-2 is important due to the transmissibility of the virus. Here, we describe the protocol our institution has implemented for screening asymptomatic patients before proceeding to elective ophthalmic surgery. Methods: A retrospective chart review analyzed the number of elective surgeries, results of SARS-CoV-2 testing, and the effect of a positive result on surgery scheduling. Results: We display the screening protocol our institution used to test for SARS-CoV-2. Through its implementation, we found 2 asymptomatic patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 resulting in cancellation of their surgeries.  Conclusion: Because of the possibility of positive COVID-19 status in asymptomatic patients and the risk this poses to patients and staff, we recommend testing all asymptomatic patients for SARS-CoV-2 prior to elective surgeries.

COVID-19 screening protocols for preoperative assessment of head and neck cancer patients candidate for elective surgery in the midst of the pandemic: A narrative review with comparison between two Italian institutions.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative screening had a key role in planning elective surgical activity for head and neck cancer (HNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: All patients undergoing surgery for HNC at two Italian referral hospitals (University of Padua and National Cancer Institute [NCI]) during the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic in Italy were included. Accuracy of screening protocols was assessed. RESULTS: In the Padua protocol, 41 patients were screened by pharyngeal swab. The entire sample (100%) was admitted to surgery, diagnostic accuracy was 100%. In the NCI protocol, 23 patients underwent a telephone interview, blood test, and chest CT. Twenty patients (87%) were negative and were directly admitted to surgery. In the remaining 3 (13%), pharyngeal swab was performed. The screening was repeated until a negative chest CT was found. Diagnostic accuracy was 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated screening protocols for COVID-19 allow to safely perform elective HNC surgery.