Which outcomes are most important to measure in patients with COVID-19 and how and when should these be measured? Development of an international standard set of outcomes measures for clinical use in patients with COVID-19: a report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) COVID-19 Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread morbidity and mortality with the consequences expected to be felt for many years. Significant variation exists in the care even of similar patients with COVID-19, including treatment practices within and between institutions. Outcome measures vary among clinical trials on the same therapies. Understanding which therapies are of most value is not possible unless consensus can be reached on which outcomes are most important to measure. Furthermore, consensus on the most important outcomes may enable patients to monitor and track their care, and may help providers to improve the care they offer through quality improvement. To develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes for clinical care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a working group (WG) of 28 volunteers, including health professionals, patients and patient representatives. DESIGN: A list of outcomes important to patients and professionals was generated from a systematic review of the published literature using the MEDLINE database, from review of outcomes being measured in ongoing clinical trials, from a survey distributed to patients and patient networks, and from previously published ICHOM standard sets in other disease areas. Using an online-modified Delphi process, the WG selected outcomes of greatest importance. RESULTS: The outcomes considered by the WG to be most important were selected and categorised into five domains: (1) functional status and quality of life, (2) mental functioning, (3) social functioning, (4) clinical outcomes and (5) symptoms. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, clinical factors and treatment-related factors. CONCLUSION: Implementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of care to patients with COVID-19. Their consistent definition and collection could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research.

Insurance status and mortality in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: The association between insurance status and outcome in critically ill patients is uncertain. We aimed to determine if there was an independent relationship between the presence or absence of compensable insurance status and mortality, after admission to the intensive care unit. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in five public hospitals in Victoria, comprising adult patients admitted to the ICU between 2007 and 2012. We obtained data on demographics, severity of illness, chronic health status, insurance category, length of stay (LOS) and mortality. We matched socio-economic indices (collected from the Australian Bureau of Statistics) to postcodes. The primary outcome measured was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, and ICU and hospital LOS, measured in days. RESULTS: We studied 33 306 patients. Compensable patients comprised 21.2% of the study population (7046). Personal private insurance accounted for 13.4% (4451) and Transport Accident Commission insurance for 5.1% (1701) of compensable patients. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was higher in publicly insured patients (13.4% v 10.6%, P < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, severity of illness, diagnosis and socio-economic status, being a compensable patient in a public hospital ICU was independently associated with a reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among ICU patients treated in public hospitals in Victoria, being a compensable patient appears to be independently associated with a reduction in mortality. Further studies are needed to confirm and validate these findings elsewhere in Australia.

Preparing ICUs for pandemics.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Influenza pandemics occur intermittently and represent an existential global infectious diseases threat. The purpose of this review is to describe clinical and research preparedness for future pandemics. RECENT FINDINGS: Pandemic influenza typically results in large numbers of individuals with life-threatening pneumonia requiring treatment in ICUs. Clinical preparedness of ICUs relates to planning to provide increased 'surge' capacity to meet increased demand and requires consideration of staffing, equipment and consumables, bed-space availability and management systems. Research preparedness is also necessary, as timely clinical research has the potential to change the trajectory of a pandemic. The clinical research response during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic was suboptimal. SUMMARY: Better planning is necessary to optimize both clinical and research responses to future pandemics.