COVID-19 community assessment hubs in Ireland: A study of staff and patient perceptions of their value.

BACKGROUND: Critical care bed capacity per capita in Ireland is among the lowest in Europe. The COVID-19 pandemic has put additional strain on an over-stretched healthcare system. COVID-19 community assessment hubs (CAHs) were established to prevent unnecessary admission to acute hospitals and to reduce infection spread. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of CAHs and identify how the service might be improved or adapted for possible future use. DESIGN: This was a mixed methods study, incorporating co-design with clinical stakeholders. Data collection was via an online survey and semistructured telephone interviews with staff and patients conducted between January and May 2021. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one patients completed the survey and nine were interviewed. Twenty interviews were conducted with staff. RESULTS: The findings suggest that the CAH model was successful in providing a dedicated pathway for assessing patients with COVID-19 symptoms, whilst mitigating the risk of infection. Patients were particularly positive about the timely, comprehensive and holistic care they received, as well as the accessibility of the clinics and the friendly attitudes of the staff. Staff welcomed the training and clinical protocols which contributed to their feelings of safety and competency in delivering care to this cohort of patients. They also highlighted the benefits of working in a multidisciplinary environment. Both staff and patients felt that the hubs could be repurposed for alternative use, including the treatment of chronic diseases. DISCUSSION: This study describes staff and patients' experiences of these hubs. An unexpected outcome of this study is its demonstration of the true value of effective multidisciplinary working, not only for the staff who were deployed to this service but also for the patients in receipt of care in these hubs. CONCLUSION: This multidisciplinary patient-centred service may provide a useful model for the delivery of other services currently delivered in hospital settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: An earlier phase of this study involved interviews with COVID-19-positive patients on a remote monitoring programme. The data informed this phase. Several of the authors had worked in the CAHs and provided valuable input into the design of the staff and patient interviews.

Oral, enteral and parenteral nutritional therapies in scleroderma: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Scleroderma is a multi-system disease that causes hardening of connective tissue. The gastrointestinal (GI) tract is affected in 90% of patients, which may cause nutritional decline. Due to the rarity of the disease, current nutritional guidelines in scleroderma are extrapolated from evidence in other chronic diseases. This systematic review examines the effects of oral nutrition supplements (ONS), enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) on both clinical and nutritional outcomes of scleroderma patients. METHOD: Three separate systematic searches for scleroderma and ONS, EN, and PN were performed. The searches were conducted using EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science databases. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies (ONS: 2, EN: 1 and PN: 6) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the review. All patients had scleroderma and were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition [weighted average age: 53 years, Body Mass Index (BMI): 19 kg/m2]. Artificial nutrition support was shown to be an effective therapy for preventing nutritional decline and reversing malnutrition but had no impact on disease progression. Mean BMI increased with home parenteral nutrition (HPN) and EN, from 15 kg/m2 to 21.0 kg/m2. Weight was maintained with ONS, and sarcopenia decreased. Only HPN positively impacted quality of life and GI symptoms, with complication rates similar to patients with other indications. CONCLUSION: Scleroderma patients should be routinely screened for malnutrition. Malnutrition is treated in a stepwise manner, starting with ONS, then EN and finally PN, based on GI sufficiency and tolerance of the patient. HPN is an effective therapy for patients with advanced disease and intestinal failure. However, larger, long-term, prospective studies for each nutritional therapy are required to make firm conclusions.