Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Fam Pract ; 38(Suppl 1): i3-i8, 2021 Aug 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34448485

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Primary care has played a central role in the community response to the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. The use of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) has been advocated as a tool to guide escalation decisions in the community. The performance of this tool applied in this context is unclear. AIM: To evaluate the process of escalation of care to the hospital within a primary care assessment centre (PCAC) designed to assess patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective service evaluation of all adult patients assessed between 30 March and 22 April 2020 within a COVID-19 primary care assessment centre within Sandwell West Birmingham CCG. METHOD: A database of patient demographics, healthcare interactions and physiological observations was constructed. NEWS2 and CRB65 scores were calculated retrospectively. The proportion of patients escalated was within risk groups defined by NHSE guidelines in place during the evaluation period was determined. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were identified. Following assessment 13.3% (n = 20) patients were deemed to require escalation. The proportion of patients escalated with a NEWS2 greater than or equal to 3 was 46.9% (95% CI 30.8-63.6%). The proportion of patients escalated to secondary care using NHSE defined risk thresholds was 0% in the green group, 22% (n = 4) in the amber group, and 81.3% (n = 13) in the red group. CONCLUSION: Clinical decisions to escalate care to the hospital did not follow initial guidance written for the COVID-19 outbreak but were demonstrated to be safe.


In most cases, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is a mild illness that resolves on its own. Some patients develop severe disease requiring hospital treatment. Identifying which patients are likely to need hospital treatment is a challenge. Many GP practices have developed specific services designed to assess patients with suspected COVID-19 and establish whether hospital treatment is necessary. We evaluated a service providing this function in Birmingham. We examined the care pathway of 150 patients assessed within the service to established factors associated with the need for hospital assessment. We found a national decision tool designed to aid the process was a poor descriptor of what happened in practice.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Early Warning Score , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Primary Health Care , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Adult , England/epidemiology , Female , Guideline Adherence , Health Services Research , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 7: CD006932, 2020 07 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32678464

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This is the second updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2010 and first updated in Issue 5, 2013. People with a primary brain tumour often experience depression, for which drug treatment may be prescribed. However, they are also at high risk of epileptic seizures, cognitive impairment, and fatigue, all of which are potential adverse side effects of antidepressants. The benefit, or harm, of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search to include CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to September 2019. As in the original review, we also handsearched Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, and Journal of Clinical Oncology: for the current update we handsearched the latest three years of articles from these journals (up to November 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a histologically diagnosed primary brain tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No studies met the inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We found no eligible studies evaluating the benefits of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no high-quality studies that investigated the value of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour. RCTs and detailed prospective studies are required to inform the effective pharmacological treatment of this common and important complication of brain tumours. Since the last version of this review none of the related new literature has provided additional information to change these conclusions.


Subject(s)
Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Brain Neoplasms/psychology , Depression/drug therapy , Antidepressive Agents/adverse effects , Depression/etiology , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...