In-Hospital Delays for Acute Stroke Treatment Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of regionally imposed social and healthcare restrictions due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to the time metrics in the management of acute ischemic stroke patients admitted at the regional stroke referral site for Central South Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We compared relevant time metrics between patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and/or endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) before and after the declared restrictions and state of emergency imposed in our region (March 17, 2020). RESULTS: We identified a significant increase in the median door-to-CT times for patients receiving intravenous tPA (19 min, interquartile range (IQR): 14-27 min vs. 13 min, IQR: 9-17 min, p = 0.008) and/or EVT (20 min, IQR: 15-33 min vs. 11 min, IQR: 5-20 min, p = 0.035) after the start of social and healthcare restrictions in our region compared to the previous 12 months. For patients receiving intravenous tPA treatment, we also found a significant increase (p = 0.005) in the median door-to-needle time (61 min, IQR: 46-72 min vs. 37 min, IQR: 30-50 min). No delays in the time from symptom onset to hospital presentation were uncovered for patients receiving tPA and/or endovascular reperfusion treatments in the first 1.5 months after the establishment of regional and institutional restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: We detected an increase in our institutional time to treatment metrics for acute ischemic stroke patients receiving tPA and/or endovascular reperfusion therapies, related to delays from hospital presentation to the acquisition of cranial CT imaging for both tPA- and EVT-treated patients, and an added delay to treatment with tPA.

Délais dans le traitement en milieu hospitalier des AVC aigus dans le contexte de la pandémie de COVID-19. CONTEXTE: Nous nous sommes penchés, dans le contexte de la pandémie de COVID-19, sur l'impact de restrictions régionales imposées dans le domaine social et dans les soins de santé sur les délais de prise en charge de patients victimes d'un AVC aigu. À noter que ces patients ont été admis dans un centre régional de traitement des AVC situé dans le centre-ouest de l'Ontario (Canada). MÉTHODES: Nous avons comparé entre eux les délais de prise en charge de patients ayant bénéficié d'activateurs tissulaires du plasminogène par intraveineuse (tPA) et/ou d'une procédure de thrombectomie endovasculaire (TE) avant et après la mise sur pied de restrictions et l'imposition d'un état d'urgence sanitaire dans notre région (17 mars 2020). RÉSULTATS: Après la mise sur pied de ces restrictions, nous avons identifié, par rapport aux 12 mois précédent, une augmentation notable des délais médians entre l'arrivée à l'hôpital et un examen de tomodensitométrie dans le cas de patients bénéficiant de tPA (19 minutes, EI : 14­27 minutes contre 13 minutes, EI : 9­17 minutes ; p = 0,008) et/ou d'une procédure de TE (20 minutes, EI : 15­33 minutes contre 11 minutes, EI : 5­20 minutes ; p = 0,035). Pour ce qui est des patients bénéficiant de tPA, nous avons également observé une augmentation importante (p = 0,005) des délais médians entre leur arrivée à l'hôpital et l'injection d'un traitement (61 minutes, EI : 46­72 minutes contre 37 minutes, EI : 30­50 minutes). Enfin, dans le premier mois et demi suivant la mise sur pied des restrictions régionales et institutionnelles attribuables à la pandémie de COVID-19, aucun délai supplémentaire entre l'apparition des premiers symptômes d'un AVC et l'arrivée à l'hôpital n'a été remarqué pour des patients bénéficiant de tPA et/ou d'une procédure de TE. CONCLUSION: En somme, nous avons détecté une augmentation de nos délais de traitement dans le cas de patients victimes d'un AVC aigu ayant bénéficié de tPA et/ou d'une procédure de TE. Cela peut être attribué à une augmentation des délais de présentation à l'hôpital mais aussi à des délais dans l'obtention d'images de tomodensitométrie pour des patients traités avec des tPA et une procédure de TE, sans compter des délais accrus pour bénéficier d'un traitement de tPA.

Experiences and concerns of health workers throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A longitudinal qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the experiences and concerns of health workers (HWs), and how they changed, throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS: Longitudinal, qualitative study with HWs involved in patient management or delivery of care related to COVID-19 in general practice, emergency departments and hospitals. Participants were identified through snowballing. Semi-structured telephone or video interviews were conducted between February 2020 and February 2021, audio-recorded, summarised, and transcribed. Data were analysed longitudinally using framework and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 105 interviews with 14 participants and identified three phases corresponding with shifts in HWs' experiences and concerns. (1) Emergency and mobilisation phase (late winter-spring 2020), with significant rapid shifts in responsibilities, required skills, and training, and challenges in patient care. (2) Consolidation and preparation phase (summer-autumn 2020), involving gradual return to usual care and responsibilities, sense of professional development and improvement in care, and focus on learning and preparing for future. (3) Exhaustion and survival phase (autumn 2020-winter 2021), entailing return of changes in responsibilities, focus on balancing COVID-19 and non-COVID care (until becoming overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases), and concerns about longer-term impacts of unceasing pressure on health services. Participants' perceptions of COVID-19 risk and patient/public attitudes changed throughout the year, and tiredness and weariness turned into exhaustion. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed a long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK HWs' experiences and concerns related to changes in their roles, provision of care, and personal wellbeing. Despite mobilisation in the emergency phase, and trying to learn from this, HWs' experiences seemed to be similar or worse in the second wave partly due to many COVID-19 cases. The findings highlight the importance of supporting HWs and strengthening system-level resilience (e.g., with resources, processes) to enable them to respond to current and future demands and emergencies.

Violence Against Healthcare: A Public Health Issue beyond Conflict Settings.

A 3-year analysis released in August 2021 by the WHO indicated that more than 700 healthcare workers and patients have died (2,000 injured) as a result of attacks against health facilities since 2017. The COVID-19 pandemic has made the risks even worse for doctors, nurses, and support staff, unfortunately. According to the latest figures from the International Committee of the Red Cross, 848 COVID-19-related violent incidents were recorded in 2020, and this is likely an underrepresentation of a much more widespread phenomenon. In response to rises in COVID-19-related attacks against healthcare, some countries have taken action. In Algeria, for instance, the penal code was amended to increase protection for healthcare workers against attacks and to punish individuals who damage health facilities. In the United Kingdom, the police, crime, sentencing, and courts bill proposed increased the maximum penalty from 12 months to 2 years in prison for anyone who assaults an emergency worker. Measures taken by countries represent a good practical way to counteract this crisis within COVID-19. However, we stress the importance of primary prevention with the use of communication: social media and other communication channels are fundamentally important to combat violence against health professionals, both to inform the population with quality data and to disseminate campaigns to prevent these acts.

Pandemic-related declines in hospitalization for non-COVID-19-related illness in the United States from January through July 2020.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has substantially impacted healthcare utilization worldwide. The objective of this retrospective analysis of a large hospital discharge database was to compare all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations during the first six months of the pandemic in the United States with the same months in the previous four years. METHODS: Data were collected from all hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) and PHD Special Release reporting hospitalizations from January through July for each year from 2016 through 2020. Hospitalization trends were analyzed stratified by age group, major diagnostic categories (MDCs), and geographic region. RESULTS: The analysis included 286 hospitals from all 9 US Census divisions. The number of all-cause hospitalizations per month was relatively stable from 2016 through 2019 and then fell by 21% (57,281 fewer hospitalizations) between March and April 2020, particularly in hospitalizations for non-respiratory illnesses. From April onward there was a rise in the number of monthly hospitalizations per month. Hospitalizations per month, nationally and in each Census division, decreased for 20 of 25 MDCs between March and April 2020. There was also a decrease in hospitalizations per month for all age groups between March and April 2020 with the greatest decreases in hospitalizations observed for patients 50-64 and ≥65 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of hospitalization declined substantially during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting delayed routine, elective, and emergency care in the United States. These lapses in care for illnesses not related to COVID-19 may lead to increases in morbidity and mortality for other conditions. Thus, in the current stage of the pandemic, clinicians and public-health officials should work, not only to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but also to ensure that care for non-COVID-19 conditions is not delayed.

Impact of COVID-19 on mental health: Effects on screening, care delivery, and people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are two to four times more prevalent in people with CF (pwCF) than the general population. COVID-19 may exacerbate mental health challenges, increasing demand for psychological services, while decreasing their availability. We assessed the impact of the pandemic on depression and anxiety in pwCF, including how COVID-19 affected the frequency of mental health screening and the types of services provided. METHODS: A 38-item internet survey, completed in June 2020, assessed how COVID-19 affected: 1) the mental health clinician's role and screening processes; 2) barriers to screening and resource needs; 3) impact of COVID-19 on depression and anxiety, and 4) positive outcomes and confidence in sustaining mental health screening and treatment, including telehealth services, after the pandemic. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 131 of the 289 US CF programs. Overall, 60% of programs (n=79) continued mental health screening and treatment, although less frequently; 50% provided individual tele-mental health interventions, and 9% provided telehealth group therapy. Clinically elevated depression symptoms (PHQ-9≥10; moderate to severe), were found in 12% of 785 pwCF, with 3.1% endorsing suicidal ideation. Similarly, elevated anxiety (moderate to severe; GAD-7≥10) was found in 13% of pwCF (n=779). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to implement innovative solutions to disruptions in mental health screening and treatment in CF programs. We found that pwCF had increased access to psychological interventions during the pandemic via telehealth, supporting the continued integration of tele-mental health screening and treatment into CF care.

Remote monitoring in telehealth care delivery across the U.S. cystic fibrosis care network.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) programs and people with CF (PwCF) employed various monitoring methods for virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper characterizes experiences with remote monitoring across the U.S. CF community. METHODS: The CF Foundation (CFF) sponsored distribution of home spirometers (April 2020 to May 2021), surveys to PwCF and CF programs (July to September 2020), and a second program survey (April to May 2021). We used mixed methods to explore access, use, and perspectives regarding the use of remote monitoring in future care. RESULTS: By October 2020, 13,345 spirometers had been distributed, and 19,271 spirometers by May 2021. Programs (n=286) estimated proportions of PwCF with home devices increased over seven months: spirometers (30% to 70%), scales (50% to 70%), oximeters (5% to 10%) with higher estimates in adult programs for spirometers and oximeters. PwCF (n=378) had access to scales (89%), followed by oximeters (48%) and spirometers (47%), often using scales and oximeters weekly, and spirometers monthly. Over both surveys, some programs had no method to collect respiratory specimens for cultures associated with telehealth visits (47%, n=132; 41%, n=118). Most programs (81%) had a process for phlebotomy associated with a telehealth visit, primarily through off-site labs. Both PwCF and programs felt future care should advance remote monitoring and recommended improvements for access, training, and data collection systems. CONCLUSIONS: PwCF and programs experienced unprecedented access to remote monitoring and raised its importance for future care. Improvements to current systems may leverage these shared experiences to augment future care models.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: How our response is shaping the future of cystic fibrosis care.

The findings of this body of work are presented in the eight articles included in this supplement. The impact and perspectives of adult and pediatric care teams and patient/families are covered with special attention to mental health care, the financial and personnel impacts within care programs, the experiences of vulnerable and underrepresented patient populations, and implementation of remoting monitoring. Commentaries from colleagues provide a broader perspective, offering reflections on the findings and their implications regarding the future CF care model.

Prevalence and determinants of healthcare avoidance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of consultations and diagnoses in primary care and referrals to specialist care declined substantially compared to prepandemic levels. Beyond deferral of elective non-COVID-19 care by healthcare providers, it is unclear to what extent healthcare avoidance by community-dwelling individuals contributed to this decline in routine healthcare utilisation. Moreover, it is uncertain which specific symptoms were left unheeded by patients and which determinants predispose to healthcare avoidance in the general population. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed prevalence of healthcare avoidance during the pandemic from a patient perspective, including symptoms that were left unheeded, as well as determinants of healthcare avoidance. METHODS AND FINDINGS: On April 20, 2020, a paper COVID-19 survey addressing healthcare utilisation, socioeconomic factors, mental and physical health, medication use, and COVID-19-specific symptoms was sent out to 8,732 participants from the population-based Rotterdam Study (response rate 73%). All questionnaires were returned before July 10, 2020. By hand, prevalence of healthcare avoidance was subsequently verified through free text analysis of medical records of general practitioners. Odds ratios (ORs) for avoidance were determined using logistic regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and history of chronic diseases. We found that 1,142 of 5,656 included participants (20.2%) reported having avoided healthcare. Of those, 414 participants (36.3%) reported symptoms that potentially warranted urgent evaluation, including limb weakness (13.6%), palpitations (10.8%), and chest pain (10.2%). Determinants related to avoidance were older age (adjusted OR 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.21]), female sex (1.58 [1.38 to 1.82]), low educational level (primary education versus higher vocational/university 1.21 [1.01 to 1.46), poor self-appreciated health (per level decrease 2.00 [1.80 to 2.22]), unemployment (versus employed 2.29 [1.54 to 3.39]), smoking (1.34 [1.08 to 1.65]), concern about contracting COVID-19 (per level increase 1.28 [1.19 to 1.38]) and symptoms of depression (per point increase 1.13 [1.11 to 1.14]) and anxiety (per point increase 1.16 [1.14 to 1.18]). Study limitations included uncertainty about (perceived) severity of the reported symptoms and potentially limited generalisability given the ethnically homogeneous study population. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cross-sectional study, 1 in 5 individuals avoided healthcare during lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic, often for potentially urgent symptoms. Healthcare avoidance was strongly associated with female sex, fragile self-appreciated health, and high levels of depression and anxiety. These results emphasise the need for targeted public education urging these vulnerable patients to timely seek medical care for their symptoms to mitigate major health consequences.

The rise of tele-mental health in perinatal settings.

We discuss the use of tele-mental health in settings serving expectant parents in fetal care centers and parents with children receiving treatment in neonatal intensive care units within a pediatric institution. Our emphasis is on the dramatic rise of tele-mental health service delivery for this population in the wake of the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S., including relevant practice regulations, challenges and advantages associated with the transition to tele-mental health in these perinatal settings.

Reimagining health preparedness in the aftermath of COVID-19.

Efficiency is an essential part of sustainable healthcare, especially in emergency and acute care (including surgical) settings. Waste minimisation, streamlined processes, and lean principles are all important for responsible stewardship of finite health resources. However, the promotion of efficiency above all else has effectively subordinated preparedness as a form of waste. Investment in preparedness is an essential part of resilient healthcare. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the gap between efficient processes and resilient systems in many health settings. In anticipation of future pandemics, natural disasters, and mass casualty incidents, health systems, and individual healthcare workers, must prioritise preparedness to be ready for the unexpected or for crises. This requires a reframing of priorities to view preparedness as crucial insurance against system failure during disasters, by taking advantage of lessons learnt preparing for war and mass casualty incidents.