Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Omicron-driven fourth wave compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare COVID-19 outcomes in the Omicron-driven fourth wave with prior waves in the Western Cape, assess the contribution of undiagnosed prior infection to differences in outcomes in a context of high seroprevalence due to prior infection and determine whether protection against severe disease conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination was maintained. METHODS: In this cohort study, we included public sector patients aged ≥20 years with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between 14 November and 11 December 2021 (wave four) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of the following outcomes using Cox regression: death, severe hospitalisation or death and any hospitalisation or death (all ≤14 days after diagnosis) adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, geography, vaccination and prior infection. RESULTS: We included 5144 patients from wave four and 11,609 from prior waves. The risk of all outcomes was lower in wave four compared to the Delta-driven wave three (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for death 0.27 [0.19; 0.38]. Risk reduction was lower when adjusting for vaccination and prior diagnosed infection (aHR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.29; 0.59) and reduced further when accounting for unascertained prior infections (aHR: 0.72). Vaccine protection was maintained in wave four (aHR for outcome of death: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.10; 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In the Omicron-driven wave, severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced mostly due to protection conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination, but intrinsically reduced virulence may account for a modest reduction in risk of severe hospitalisation or death compared to the Delta-driven wave.

Development and validation of a tool to measure patient experience in chronic disease care.

BACKGROUND:  There is a global increase in the prevalence of non-communicable diseases and a growing understanding that patients need to be involved in their care. Patient experience should be assessed and the information used to improve on the planning and delivery of health services. AIM:  This study described the development and validation of a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) tool which is appropriate for the South African context, to assess self-reported patient experience of chronic care. SETTING:  The study was conducted at four primary health care facilities in the Cape Town Metropole. METHODS:  This was a validity and reliability study with multiple phases to develop and determine the psychometric properties of a novel tool. It consisted of three phases, namely: Phase 1 - Consensus Validity; Phase 2 - Face Validity; Phase 3 - Reliability. Phase 1 consisted of an expert panel reaching consensus on a draft tool. Phase 2a consisted of qualitative semi-structured interviews and cognitive interviews. Phase 3 tested the internal consistency of the tool, the time necessary to complete, as well as floor and ceiling effects with 200 questionnaires. RESULTS:  The process described resulted in a final questionnaire with n = 10 items in three languages that was easily understood by patients. Internal consistency was determined with the overall Cronbach's alpha 0.86. This PREM has been named Chronic Care Assessment of Patient Experience. CONCLUSION:  Using best practice guidance in tool construction and validation, we delivered a PREM with the potential to improve the quality of care from the perspective of patients. Implementation studies are now required to determine how best to use this tool in routine practice.