COVID-19 Management in a UK NHS Foundation Trust with a High Consequence Infectious Diseases Centre: A Retrospective Analysis.

Recent large national and international cohorts describe the baseline characteristics and outcome of hospitalised patients with COVID-19, however there is limited granularity to these reports. We aimed to provide a detailed description of a UK COVID-19 cohort, focusing on management and outcome. We performed a retrospective single-centre analysis of clinical management and 28-day outcomes of consecutive adult inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 from 31 January to 16 April 2020 inclusive. In total, 316 cases were identified. Most patients were elderly (median age 75) with multiple comorbidities. One quarter were admitted from residential or nursing care. Mortality was 84 out of 316 (26.6%). Most deaths occurred in patients in whom a ceiling of inpatient treatment had been determined and for whom end of life care and specialist palliative care input was provided where appropriate. No deaths occurred in patients aged under 56 years. Decisions to initiate respiratory support were individualised after consideration of patient wishes, premorbid frailty and comorbidities. In total, 59 (18%) patients were admitted to intensive care, of which 31 (10% overall cohort) required intubation. Multiple logistic regression identified associations between death and age, frailty, and disease severity, with age as the most significant factor (odds ratio 1.07 [95% CI 1.03-1.10] per year increase, p < 0.001). These findings provide important clinical context to outcome data. Mortality was associated with increasing age. Most deaths were anticipated and occurred in patients with advance decisions on ceilings of treatment.

Monitoring the use and outcomes of new devices and procedures: how does coding affect what Hospital Episode Statistics contribute? Lessons from 12 emerging procedures 2006-10.

BACKGROUND: New devices and procedures are often introduced into health services when the evidence base for their efficacy and safety is limited. The authors sought to assess the availability and accuracy of routinely collected Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data in the UK and their potential contribution to the monitoring of new procedures. METHODS: Four years of HES data (April 2006-March 2010) were analysed to identify episodes of hospital care involving a sample of 12 new interventional procedures. HES data were cross checked against other relevant sources including national or local registers and manufacturers' information. RESULTS: HES records were available for all 12 procedures during the entire study period. Comparative data sources were available from national (5), local (2) and manufacturer (2) registers. Factors found to affect comparisons were miscoding, alternative coding and inconsistent use of subsidiary codes. The analysis of provider coverage showed that HES is sensitive at detecting centres which carry out procedures, but specificity is poor in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected HES data have the potential to support quality improvements and evidence-based commissioning of devices and procedures in health services but achievement of this potential depends upon the accurate coding of procedures.