Brazilian Psychiatric Association Consensus on the physical structure and ideal team for psychiatric emergencies services.

INTRODUCTION: An integral part of Brazil's public health system, the psychiatric emergency service (PES) has been instrumental in improving qualified support for crisis situations of mental disorders, equitable, universally accessible, and humanized. The purpose of this article is to present a systematic review and consensus about the physical area and facilities, and ideal team qualified for psychiatric emergencies services on both Brazilian settings. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature search using electronic databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Scielo, the Cochrane Database, and documents from the WHO, the Brazilian Ministry of Health, and others deemed relevant by experts. A total of 6839 manuscripts were found, but only 46 were selected. The analysis of article content summarizes consensus statements using the Delphi method and a series of interactive versions to provide a final report. RESULTS: Changes to PES are evaluated considering various experiences and models. The authors highlighted that The Emergency Care Network (ECN) must be coordinated with qualified management, effective implementation of integration of all health equipment's and units. PES must have adequate infrastructure; qualified staff, including a psychiatrist; sufficient consultation and observational spaces; tools and resources for differential diagnosis; training for all staff members; and communication with the health care network to facilitate referrals following patient discharge are all necessary. CONCLUSION: These standardized models need to be available to public health managers so that they can guide the installation of new services and adjust the existing ones, always looking for improvement. The authors propose requirements for PES as a model to be passed over.

Post-infection depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms: A prospective cohort study in patients with mild COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether COVID-19 is associated with psychiatric symptoms during or after the acute illness phase. Being affected by the disease exposes the individual to an uncertain prognosis and a state of quarantine. These factors can predispose individuals to the development of mental symptoms during or after the acute phase of the disease. There is a need for prospective studies assessing psychiatric symptoms in COVID-19 patients in the post-infection period. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 tests were collected at patients' homes under the supervision of trained healthcare personnel. Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were classified as mild cases (N = 895) at treatment intake were further assessed for the presence of psychiatric symptoms (on average, 56.6 days after the intake). We investigated the association between the number of COVID-19 symptoms at intake and depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic symptoms approximately two months later, adjusting for previous mental health status, time between baseline and outcome, and other confounders. Multivariate logistic regression and generalized linear models were employed for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: A clinically significant level of depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms were reported by 26.2% (N = 235), 22.4% (N = 201), and 17.3% (N = 155) of the sample. Reporting an increased number of COVID-related symptoms was associated with the presence of clinically significant levels of depressive (aOR = 1.059;95%CI = 1.002-1.119), anxiety (aOR = 1.072;95%CI = 1.012-1.134), and post-traumatic stress (aOR = 1.092;95%CI = 1.024-1.166) symptoms. Sensitivity analyses supported findings for both continuous and categorical measures. CONCLUSION: Exposure to an increased number of COVID-19 symptoms may be associated with depressive, anxiety and post-traumatic symptoms after the acute phase of the disease. These patients should be monitored for the development of psychiatric symptoms after COVID-19 treatment discharge. Early interventions, such as brief interventions of psychoeducation on coping strategies, could benefit these individuals.

Corrigendum: Substance Use in Mild-COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.634396.].

Substance Use in Mild-COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study.

Background: There is a need for prospective studies investigating substance use variations in mild COVID-19 patients. These individuals represent the majority of patients affected by the disease and are routinely treated at home, facing periods of quarantine. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. All people who tested positive for COVID-19 and classified as mild cases (i.e., no alarm sign/symptom, no need for in-person consultation) during the treatment in the public health system of a Brazilian city with around 160,000 inhabitants were monitored by phone for all the COVID-19 symptoms listed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the active phase of the disease (i.e., no longer experiencing symptoms, up to 14 days in mild cases). After this phase (median = 108 days after intake, IQR = 76-137), we asked these patients who were classified as experiencing mild COVID-19 (n = 993) about last-month substance use in three time-points: pre-COVID, just after COVID-19 acute phase (post-COVID acute phase) and in the period before survey (post-COVID follow-up phase). Results: The number of COVID-19 symptoms was not associated with pre- or post-infection substance use. Pre-COVID alcohol and non-medical benzodiazepine use were associated with specific COVID-19 symptoms. However, sensitivity analyses showed that such associations could be explained by previous psychiatric and medical profiles. Alcohol and tobacco use decreased and non-medical analgesics increased in the post-COVID acute phase. However, just alcohol use remained lower in the post-COVID follow-up period. Higher pre-COVID levels of tobacco and alcohol were associated with post-COVID follow-up cannabis and non-medical analgesic use, respectively. Non-medical benzodiazepine use had positive and negative bi-directional associations with cannabis and non-medical analgesic use, respectively. Conclusion: We were not able to find specific associations between substance use and COVID-19 symptomatology in the present study. Patients with mild COVID-19 should be monitored for substance use in the post-COVID-19 period, and preventive interventions for non-medical analgesic use should be implemented. Focused preventive interventions increasing the perceived risks of cannabis and non-medical benzodiazepine and analgesic use among people experiencing mild COVID-19 that reported previous substance use could be useful.