Is the Increase in Record of Skin Wounds in Hospitalized Patients in Internal Medicine Units a Side Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Wound care is an important public health challenge that is present in all areas of the healthcare system, whether in hospitals, long term care institutions or in the community. We aimed to quantify the number of skin wounds reported after and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This descriptive longitudinal retrospective study compared of wound records in patients hospitalized in the internal medicine service during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (from 1 March 2020, to 28 February 2021) and previous-year to the outbreak (from 1 January 2019, to 31 December 2019). A sample of 1979 episodes was collected corresponding to 932 inpatients, 434 from the pre-pandemic year and 498 from the first year of COVID-19 pandemic; 147 inpatients were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection (3.2%). The percentage of wound episodes in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic was higher than the pre-pandemic year, 17.9% (1092/6090) versus 15% (887/5906), with a significant increase in the months with the highest incidence of COVID cases. This study shows an increase in the burden of wound care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it could be attributable to the increase in the number of patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection in internal medicine units.

Clinical Burden of Inpatient Wound Care in Internal Medicine Units During the First Wave of COVID-19 Outbreak.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical burden and epidemiologic profile of hospitalized patients with wounds during the first wave of COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective and observational study was conducted to analyze the inpatient episodes of wound care in the University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain) during the initial COVID-19 crisis from March 1, 2020, to June 1, 2020. Data were collected from nursing care reports and clinical discharge reports. Included patients were 18 years or older, had a hospital length of stay of 1 day or longer, and were hospitalized in an internal medicine unit. Surgical and traumatic wounds and pediatric patients were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients and 216 wounds were included. The overall wound prevalence was 7.6%, and incidence was 3.5% in the internal medicine units. Pressure injuries (PIs) were the most common wound type, and patients with COVID-19 had significantly higher PI risk (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-4.0; P = .042). Significant differences in PI staging were noted: 83.2% of wounds in patients with COVID-19 were stages I-II versus 67.8% in patients without COVID-19; the probability of stage III-IV PIs among patients without COVID-19 was doubled (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5; P = .009). The probability of acute wounds tripled in patients with COVID-19 (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.1-6.6; P < .001). Patients with COVID-19 also had longer mean hospital stays and higher ICU admission rates. No case fatality rate differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this context of clinical practice, protocolized assessment and implementation of preventive measures must be ensured among older adult populations, patients with associated comorbidities, and ICU patients.

Are there differences between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 inpatient pressure injuries? Experiences in Internal Medicine Units.

BACKGROUND: Pressure Injuries (PIs) are major worldwide public health threats within the different health-care settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare epidemiological and clinical features of PIs in COVID-19 patients and patients admitted for other causes in Internal Medicine Units during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A descriptive longitudinal retrospective study. SETTING: This study was conducted in Internal Medicine Units in Salamanca University Hospital Complex, a tertiary hospital in the Salamanca province, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: All inpatients ≥18-year-old admitted from March 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020 for more than 24 hours in the Internal Medicine Units with one or more episodes of PIs. RESULTS: A total of 101 inpatients and 171 episodes were studied. The prevalence of PI episodes was 6% and the cumulative incidence was 2.9% during the first-wave of COVID-19. Risk of acute wounds was four times higher in the COVID-19 patient group (p<0.001). Most common locations were sacrum and heels. Among hospital acquired pressure injuries a significant association was observed between arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus in patients with COVID-19 diagnosis. CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19, COVID-19 patients tend to present a higher number of acute wounds, mainly of hospital origin, compared to the profile of the non-COVID group. Diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension were identified as main associated comorbidities in patients with COVID-19 diagnosis.

Development of a severity of disease score and classification model by machine learning for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Efficient and early triage of hospitalized Covid-19 patients to detect those with higher risk of severe disease is essential for appropriate case management. METHODS: We trained, validated, and externally tested a machine-learning model to early identify patients who will die or require mechanical ventilation during hospitalization from clinical and laboratory features obtained at admission. A development cohort with 918 Covid-19 patients was used for training and internal validation, and 352 patients from another hospital were used for external testing. Performance of the model was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: A total of 363 of 918 (39.5%) and 128 of 352 (36.4%) Covid-19 patients from the development and external testing cohort, respectively, required mechanical ventilation or died during hospitalization. In the development cohort, the model obtained an AUC of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 0.87) for predicting severity of disease progression. Variables ranked according to their contribution to the model were the peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio, age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, updated Charlson comorbidity index and lymphocytes. In the external testing cohort, the model performed an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.85). This model is deployed in an open source calculator, in which Covid-19 patients at admission are individually stratified as being at high or non-high risk for severe disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: This machine-learning model, applied at hospital admission, predicts risk of severe disease progression in Covid-19 patients.

Can an early mobilisation programme prevent hospital-acquired pressure injures in an intensive care unit?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to clarify the effect of an early mobilisation programme on the prevention of hospital-acquired pressure injuries in an intensive care unit as opposed to standard care. We searched a total of 11 databases until 1 May 2020 and included seven studies (n = 7.520) related to the effect of early mobilisation protocol in the prevention of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (five quasi-experimental and two random comparative). The five quasi-experimental studies were significantly heterogeneous (P = .02 for Q test and 66% for I2 ), and the odds ratio was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.49-1.91) with a non-significant statistical difference between both groups (P = .93). Our study shows inconclusive outcomes related to the effect of the implementation of an early mobility programme in the prevention of pressure injuries in critical patients. Future research is needed considering the small number of articles on the topic.

Use of noninvasive ventilation on internal wards for elderly patients with limitations to respiratory care: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) outside the intensive wards has been evaluated in patients with no limitation on life-sustaining support. Our aim was to evaluate its usefulness in general wards for patients with NPPV as the ceiling of ventilator care when admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) has been withheld. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation was used in 44 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and limitations to respiratory care- 22 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations and 22 with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (CPE). Survival at hospital discharge, and survival and readmission rate at 12 months were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-three per cent of COPD and 55% of CPE patients survived hospital discharge; and 50% and 37% respectively, were alive after 1 year. The cause of the in-hospital mortality was related to the admission diagnosis in 88% of cases. Cancer in COPD patients [P = 0·040, odds ratio (OR) = 15, 95% CI = 1·14-198] and the completion of NPPV treatment in both diseases (P = 0·008, OR = 0·03, 95% CI = 0·00-0·39 for COPD and P = 0·010, OR = 0·04, 95% CI = 0·00-0·45 for CPE) were related to in-hospital mortality. Fifty-six per cent of COPD and 33% of CPE patients that survived hospital admission were readmitted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the use of NPPV in general wards could be a safe and effective option, as a last choice treatment, in patients with NPPV as the ceiling of ventilator care when admission to ICU has been withheld.