Delirium in older patients with COVID-19: Prevalence, risk factors and clinical outcomes across the first three waves of the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Delirium is a serious condition, which poses treatment challenges during hospitalisation for COVID-19. Improvements in testing, vaccination and treatment might have changed patient characteristics and outcomes through the pandemic. We evaluated whether the prevalence and risk factors for delirium, and the association of delirium with in-hospital mortality changed through the pandemic. METHODS: This study was part of the COVID-OLD study in 19 Dutch hospitals including patients ≥70 years in the first (spring 2020), second (autumn 2020) and third wave (autumn 2021). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to study risk factors for delirium, and in-hospital mortality. Differences in effect sizes between waves were studied by including interaction terms between wave and risk factor in logistic regression models. RESULTS: 1540, 884 and 370 patients were included in the first, second and third wave, respectively. Prevalence of delirium in the third wave (12.7%) was significantly lower compared to the first (22.5%) and second wave (23.5%). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, pre-existing memory problems was a consistent risk factor for delirium across waves. Previous delirium was a risk factor for delirium in the first wave (OR 4.02), but not in the second (OR 1.61) and third wave (OR 2.59, p-value interaction-term 0.028). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, delirium was not associated with in-hospital mortality in all waves. CONCLUSION: Delirium prevalence declined in the third wave, which might be the result of vaccination and improved treatment strategies. Risk factors for delirium remained consistent across waves, although some attenuation was seen in the second wave.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the continuity of care for at-risk patients in Swiss primary care settings: A mixed-methods study.

Continuity of care is important for the health of aging individuals with comorbidities. When initial coronavirus mitigation campaigns involved messaging such as "Stay at home-stay safe," and banned provision of non-urgent care, at-risk patients depending upon regular consultations with general practitioners (GPs) faced confusion about the possibility of seeking non-COVID-19 related healthcare. We employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, consisting of a quantitative component followed by a qualitative component, to understand at-risk patients' health services use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland. Quantitatively, we used electronic medical records data from 272 GPs and 266,796 patients. Based on pre-pandemic data, we predicted weekly consultation counts as well as weekly measurement counts (blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) per 100 patients that would be expected in 2020 in absence of a pandemic and compared those to actual observed values. Qualitatively, we conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with 24 GPs (∼45 min) and 37 interviews with at-risk patients (∼35 min). Quantitative results demonstrate a significant decrease in consultation and measurement counts during the first shutdown period, with consultation counts quickly returning to normal and moving within expected values for the rest of 2020. Qualitative data contextualize these findings with GPs describing constantly implementing material, administrative, and communication changes. GPs reported communication gaps with the authorities and noted a lack of clear guidelines delineating how to define "at-risk patients" and what cases were "urgent" to treat during shutdowns. Patient interviews show that patient-level factors, such as fear of contracting coronavirus, perceptions that GPs were overburdened, and a sense of solidarity, influenced patients' decisions to consult less at the beginning of the pandemic. Findings demonstrate communication gaps during pandemic periods and provide valuable lessons for future pandemic preparedness, particularly the need for contingency plans for the overall healthcare system instead of plans focusing only on the infectious agent itself.