ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Patients seen by infectious disease (ID) specialists are more complex compared to patients treated by other subspecialities according to Tonelli et al. (2018). However, larger studies on the complexity of patients related to the involvement of ID consultation services are missing. METHODS: Data of patients being treated in 2015 and 2019 in four different German university hospitals was retrospectively collected. Data were collected from the hospitals' software system and included whether the patients received an ID consultation as well as patient clinical complexity level (PCCL), case mix index (CMI) and length of stay (LOS) as a measurement for the patients' complexity. Furthermore, a comparison of patients with distinct infectious diseases treated with or without an ID consultation was initiated. RESULTS: In total, 215.915 patients were included in the study, 3% (n = 6311) of those were seen by an ID consultant. Patients receiving ID consultations had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher PCCL (median 4 vs. 0), CMI (median 3,8 vs. 1,1) and deviation of the expected mean LOS (median 7 days vs. 0 days) than patients in the control group. No differences among hospitals or between years were observed. Comparing patients with distinct infectious diseases treated with or without an ID consultation, the differences were confirmed throughout the groups. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving ID consultations are highly complex, frequently need further treatment after discharge and have a high economic impact. Thus, ID specialists should be clinically trained in a broad spectrum of diseases and treating these complex patients should be sufficiently remunerated.
Subject(s)
Communicable Diseases , Humans , Tertiary Care Centers , Retrospective Studies , Communicable Diseases/diagnosis , Communicable Diseases/epidemiology , Communicable Diseases/therapy , Referral and Consultation , Germany/epidemiologyABSTRACT
PATIENT HISTORY AND CLINICAL FINDINGS: A 46-year old construction worker presented at the emergency department with two orthostatic syncopes. The patient complained of prolonged fever and coughs for 7 days which had not improved after oral treatment with sultamicillin for 5 days, prescribed by the patient's general practitioner. Physical examination showed high blood pressure due to previously known hypertension. Other vital signs without pathological findings. Pulmonary auscultation showed basal soft crackling noises of the left lung. FINDINGS AND DIAGNOSIS: Laboratory examination showed increased values for LDH, pro-BNP and CRP and normal values for leucocytes and procalcitonin. Conventional X-Ray of the chest showed bipulmonal lateral atypical infiltrates. After the first PCR turned in negative another PCR-analysis for SARS-CoV-2 of a deep oral swab-sample was performed since the clinical, laboratory and radiological findings were typical for COVID-19.âAgain, SARS-CoV-2-RNA was not detected. A CT-scan of the chest showed bipulmonal lateral ground-glass attenuation, again typical for COVID-19 associated pneumonia. After a third attempt for a PCR-analysis of a deep oral swab-sample was negative, analysis of a sputum was performed which finally confirmed the diagnosis of COVID-19 associated pneumonia. THERAPY AND COURSE OF EVENTS: The patient was admitted for evaluation of syncopes and suspect of COVID-19 associated pneumonia. The patient was prophylactically isolated while the result of SARS-CoV-2-PCR from a deep oral swab was pending. Suspecting a possible secondary bacterial infection at the beginning, intravenous antibiotic treatment with ampicillin/sulbactam was initiated. While further examinations showed no indication for bacterial infection, antibiotics were discontinued after 3 days. Due to clinical recovery antiviral therapy was not performed after confirming the diagnosis. The patient was discharged 17 days after onset of first symptoms without any requirements for further isolation. CONCLUSION: This casuistic describes a case of COVID-19 associated pneumonia presenting with typical clinical features, laboratory and radiological findings. Detection of viral RNA was not successful from deep oral swab-samples despite repeated attempts. Finally, PCR-analysis of sputum confirmed the diagnosis. Analysis of deeper airway samples (sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, tracheal secretions) or stool for SARS-CoV-2 should be performed in cases of evident clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and negative PCR results from deep oral swabs.
