Home-based initiatives for acute management of COVID-19 patients needing oxygen: differences across The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic new collaborative-care initiatives were developed for treating and monitoring COVID-19 patients with oxygen at home. Aim was to provide a structured overview focused on differences and similarities of initiatives of acute home-based management in the Netherlands. METHODS: Initiatives were eligible for evaluation if (i) COVID-19 patients received oxygen treatment at home; (ii) patients received structured remote monitoring; (iii) it was not an 'early hospital discharge' program; (iv) at least one patient was included. Protocols were screened, and additional information was obtained from involved physicians. Design choices were categorised into: eligible patient group, organization medical care, remote monitoring, nursing care, and devices used. RESULTS: Nine initiatives were screened for eligibility; five were included. Three initiatives included low-risk patients and two were designed specifically for frail patients. Emergency department (ED) visit for an initial diagnostic work-up and evaluation was mandatory in three initiatives before starting home management. Medical responsibility was either assigned to the general practitioner or hospital specialist, most often pulmonologist or internist. Pulse-oximetry was used in all initiatives, with additional monitoring of heart rate and respiratory rate in three initiatives. Remote monitoring staff's qualification and authority varied, and organization and logistics were covered by persons with various backgrounds. All initiatives offered remote monitoring via an application, two also offered a paper diary option. CONCLUSIONS: We observed differences in the organization of interprofessional collaboration for acute home management of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients. All initiatives used pulse-oximetry and an app for remote monitoring. Our overview may be of help to healthcare providers and organizations to set up and implement similar acute home management initiatives for critical episodes of COVID-19 (or other acute disorders) that would otherwise require hospital care.

Home-based management of hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients: design of the Therapy@Home pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital capacity was strained. Home-based care could relieve the hospital care system and improve patient well-being if safely organised.We designed an intervention embedded in a regional collaborative healthcare network for the home-based management of acutely ill COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen treatment. Here, we describe the design and pilot protocol for the evaluation of the feasibility of this complex intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following a participatory action research approach, the intervention was designed in four consecutive steps: (1) literature review and establishment of an expert panel; (2) concept design of essential intervention building blocks (acute medical care, acute nursing care, remote monitoring, equipment and technology, organisation and logistics); (3) safety assessments (prospective risk analysis and a simulation patient evaluation) and (4) description of the design of the pilot (feasibility) study aimed at including approximately 15-30 patients, sufficient for fine-tuning for a large-scale randomised intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All patients will provide written, informed consent. The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands (protocol NL77421.041.21). The preparatory steps (1-4) needed to perform the pilot are executed and described in this paper. The findings of the pilot will be published in academic journals. If we consider the complex intervention feasible, we aim to continue with a large-scale randomised controlled study evaluating the clinical effectiveness, safety and implementation of the complex intervention.

Common Infections and Antibiotic Prescribing during the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Primary Care-Based Observational Cohort Study.

Presentation and antibiotic prescribing for common infectious disease episodes decreased substantially during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave in Dutch general practice. We set out to determine the course of these variables during the first pandemic year. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using routine health care data from the Julius General Practitioners' Network. All patients registered in the pre-pandemic year (n = 425,129) and/or during the first pandemic year (n = 432,122) were included. Relative risks for the number of infectious disease episodes (respiratory tract/ear, urinary tract, gastrointestinal, and skin), in total and those treated with antibiotics, and proportions of episodes treated with antibiotics (prescription rates) were calculated. Compared to the pre-pandemic year, primary care presentation for common infections remained lower during the full first pandemic year (RR, 0.77; CI, 0.76-0.78), mainly attributed to a sustained decline in respiratory tract/ear and gastrointestinal infection episodes. Presentation for urinary tract and skin infection episodes declined during the first wave, but returned to pre-pandemic levels during the second and start of the third wave. Antibiotic prescription rates were lower during the full first pandemic year (24%) as compared to the pre-pandemic year (28%), mainly attributed to a 10% lower prescription rate for respiratory tract/ear infections; the latter was not accompanied by an increase in complications. The decline in primary care presentation for common infections during the full first COVID-19 pandemic year, together with lower prescription rates for respiratory tract/ear infections, resulted in a substantial reduction in antibiotic prescribing in Dutch primary care.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antibiotic Prescribing for Common Infections in The Netherlands: A Primary Care-Based Observational Cohort Study.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic brought dramatic changes in the delivery of primary health care across the world, presumably changing the number of consultations for infectious diseases and antibiotic use. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on infections and antibiotic prescribing in Dutch primary care. All patients included in the routine health care database of the Julius General Practitioners' Network were followed from March through May 2019 (n = 389,708) and March through May 2020 (n = 405,688). We extracted data on consultations for respiratory/ear, urinary tract, gastrointestinal and skin infections using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) codes. These consultations were combined in disease episodes and linked to antibiotic prescriptions. The numbers of infectious disease episodes (total and those treated with antibiotics), complications, and antibiotic prescription rates (i.e., proportion of episodes treated with antibiotics) were calculated and compared between the study periods in 2019 and 2020. Fewer episodes were observed during the pandemic months than in the same months in 2019 for both the four infectious disease entities and complications such as pneumonia, mastoiditis and pyelonephritis. The largest decline was seen for gastrointestinal infections (relative risk (RR), 0.54; confidence interval (CI), 0.51 to 0.58) and skin infections (RR, 0.71; CI, 0.67 to 0.75). The number of episodes treated with antibiotics declined as well, with the largest decrease seen for respiratory/ear infections (RR, 0.54; CI, 0.52 to 0.58). The antibiotic prescription rate for respiratory/ear infections declined from 21% to 13% (difference -8.0% (CI, -8.8 to -7.2)), yet the prescription rates for other infectious disease entities remained similar or increased slightly. The decreases in primary care infectious disease episodes and antibiotic use were most pronounced in weeks 15-19, mid-COVID-19 wave, after an initial peak in respiratory/ear infection presentation in week 11, the first week of lock-down. In conclusion, our findings indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the presentation of infectious disease episodes and antibiotic use in primary care in the Netherlands. Consequently, the number of infectious disease episodes treated with antibiotics decreased. We found no evidence of an increase in complications.

A Strong Decline in the Incidence of Childhood Otitis Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Netherlands.

Introduction: Recent reports have highlighted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of infectious disease illnesses and antibiotic use. This study investigates the effect of the pandemic on childhood incidence of otitis media (OM) and associated antibiotic prescribing in a large primary care-based cohort in the Netherlands. Material and Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study using routine health care data from the Julius General Practitioners' Network (JGPN). All children aged 0-12 registered in 62 practices before the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2019 - 29 February 2020) and/or during the pandemic (1 March 2020 - 28 February 2021) were included. Data on acute otitis media (AOM), otitis media with effusion (OME), ear discharge episodes and associated antibiotic prescriptions were extracted. Incidence rates per 1,000 child years (IR), incidence rate ratios (IRR) and incidence rate differences (IRD) were compared between the two study periods. Results: OM episodes declined considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic: IR pre-COVID-19 vs COVID-19 for AOM 73.7 vs 27.1 [IRR 0.37]; for OME 9.6 vs 4.1 [IRR 0.43]; and for ear discharge 12.6 vs 5.8 [IRR 0.46]. The absolute number of AOM episodes in which oral antibiotics were prescribed declined accordingly (IRD pre-COVID-19 vs COVID-19: -22.4 per 1,000 child years), but the proportion of AOM episodes with antibiotic prescription was similar in both periods (47% vs 46%, respectively). Discussion: GP consultation for AOM, OME and ear discharge declined by 63%, 57% and 54% respectively in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar antibiotic prescription rates before and during the pandemic indicate that the case-mix presenting to primary care did not considerably change. Our data therefore suggest a true decline as a consequence of infection control measures introduced during the pandemic.

Involving the general practitioner during curative cancer treatment: a systematic review of health care interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The role of primary care providers (PCP) in the cancer care continuum is expanding. In the post-treatment phase, this role is increasingly recognised by policy makers and healthcare professionals. During treatment, however, the role of PCP remains largely undefined. This systematic review aims to map the content and effect of interventions aiming to actively involve the general practitioner (GP) during cancer treatment with a curative intent. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with cancer treated with curative intent. DATA SOURCES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCT), controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series focusing on interventions designed to involve the GP during curative cancer treatment were systematically identified from PubMed and EMBASE and were subsequently reviewed. Risk of bias was scored according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group risk of bias criteria. RESULTS: Five RCTs and one CCT were included. Interventions and effects were heterogeneous across studies. Four studies implemented interventions focussing on information transfer to the GP and two RCTs implemented patient-tailored GP interventions. The studies have a low-medium risk of bias. Three studies show a low uptake of the intervention. A positive effect on patient satisfaction with care was found in three studies. Subgroup analysis suggests a reduction of healthcare use in elderly patients and reduction of clinical anxiety in those with higher mental distress. No effects are reported on patients' quality of life (QoL). CONCLUSION: Interventions designed to actively involve the GP during curative cancer treatment are scarce and diverse. Even though uptake of interventions is low, results suggest a positive effect of GP involvement on patient satisfaction with care, but not on QoL. Additional effects for vulnerable subgroups were found. More robust evidence for tailored interventions is needed to enable the efficient and effective involvement of the GP during curative cancer treatment. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018102253.