Acute Respiratory Infection Hubs: A Service Model with Potential to Optimise Infection Management.

Patients with acute respiratory infections (ARI)-including those with upper and lower respiratory infections from both bacterial and viral pathogens-are one of the most common reasons for acute deterioration, with large numbers of potentially avoidable hospital admissions. The acute respiratory infection hubs model was developed to improve healthcare access and quality of care for these patients. This article outlines the implementation of this model and its potential impacts in a number of areas. Firstly, by improving healthcare access for patients with respiratory infections by increasing the capacity for assessment in community and non-emergency department settings and also by providing flexible response to surges in demand and reducing primary and secondary care demand. Secondly, by optimising infection management (including the use of point-of-care diagnostics and standardised best practise guidance to improve appropriate antimicrobial usage) and reducing nosocomial transmission by cohorting those with suspected ARI away from those with non-infective presentations. Thirdly, by addressing healthcare inequalities; in areas of greatest deprivation, acute respiratory infection is strongly linked with increased emergency department attendance. Fourthly, by reducing the National Health Service's (NHS) carbon footprint. Finally, by providing a wonderful opportunity to gather community infection management data to enable large-scale evaluation and research.

NEWS2 and improving outcomes from sepsis.

The cause of deterioration is often unclear, so it is vitally important that we spot the sick and deteriorating patient from all causes. As a result, warning scores must cater for all conditions, and - where possible - be standardised across all healthcare settings. This article summarises the importance of an 'unblinkered' approach to acute illness assessment, comparing and examining the evidence for different historical scoring systems and looking at the early impact of national alignment to NEWS2 in patients admitted to hospital with suspected bacterial infections.

COVID-19 Oximetry @home: evaluation of patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has placed unprecedented demands on hospitals. A clinical service, COVID-19 Oximetry @home (CO@h) was launched in November 2020 to support remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients in the community. Remote monitoring through CO@h aims to identify early patient deterioration and provide timely escalation for cases of silent hypoxia, while reducing the burden on secondary care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective service evaluation of COVID-19 patients onboarded to CO@h from November 2020 to March 2021 in the North Hampshire (UK) community led service (a collaboration of 15 General Practitioner (GP) practices covering 230 000 people). We have compared outcomes for patients admitted to Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital who were CO@h patients (COVID-19 patients with home monitoring of oxygen saturation (SpO2; n=115), with non-CO@h patients (those directly admitted without being monitored by CO@h (n=633)). Crude and adjusted OR analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of CO@h on patient outcomes of 30-day mortality, Intensive care unit (ICU) admission and hospital length of stay greater than 3, 7, 14 and 28 days. RESULTS: Adjusted ORs for CO@h show an association with a reduction for several adverse patient outcome: 30-day hospital mortality (p<0.001, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47), hospital length of stay larger than 3 days (p<0.05, OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.00), 7 days (p<0.001, OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.54), 14 days (p<0.001, OR 0.22 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.41), and 28 days (p<0.05, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59). No significant reduction ICU admission was observed (p>0.05, OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.04). Within 30 days of hospital admission, there were no hospital readmissions for those on the CO@h service as opposed to 8.7% readmissions for those not on the service. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a significant association between CO@h and better patient outcomes; most notably a reduction in the odds of hospital lengths of stays longer than 7, 14 and 28 days and 30-day hospital mortality.

Feasibility and accuracy of the 40-steps desaturation test to determine outcomes in a cohort of patients presenting to hospital with and without COVID-19.

Desaturation on exercise has been suggested as a predictive feature for deterioration in COVID-19. The objective of this paper was to determine the feasibility and validity for the 40-steps desaturation test.A prospective observational cohort study was undertaken in patients assessed in hospital prior to discharge. One-hundred and fifty-two participants were screened between November 2020 and February 2021, and 64 were recruited to perform a 40-steps desaturation test. Patients who were able to perform the test were younger and less frail. Four patients were readmitted to hospital and one patient deteriorated within 30 days but no patient died.The majority of patients showed little change in saturations during the test, even with pre-existing respiratory pathology. Change in saturations, respiratory rate, heart rate and breathlessness were not predictive of death or readmission to hospital within 30 days. Of 13 patients who had a desaturation of 3% or more during exercise, none was readmitted to hospital within 30 days.Not enough patients with COVID-19 could be recruited to the study to provide evidence for the safety of the test in this patient group.The 40-steps desaturation test requires further evaluation to assess clinical utility.

Direct and indirect evidence of efficacy and safety of rapid exercise tests for exertional desaturation in Covid-19: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Even when resting pulse oximetry is normal in the patient with acute Covid-19, hypoxia can manifest on exertion. We summarise the literature on the performance of different rapid tests for exertional desaturation and draw on this evidence base to provide guidance in the context of acute Covid-19. MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS: 1. What exercise tests have been used to assess exertional hypoxia at home or in an ambulatory setting in the context of Covid-19 and to what extent have they been validated? 2. What exercise tests have been used to assess exertional hypoxia in other lung conditions, to what extent have they been validated and what is the applicability of these studies to acute Covid-19? METHOD: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE MEDLINE, Cochrane and PubMed using LitCovid, Scholar and Google databases were searched to September 2020. Studies where participants had Covid-19 or another lung disease and underwent any form of exercise test which was compared to a reference standard were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS 2. A protocol for the review was published on the Medrxiv database. RESULTS: Of 47 relevant papers, 15 were empirical studies, of which 11 described an attempt to validate one or more exercise desaturation tests in lung diseases other than Covid-19. In all but one of these, methodological quality was poor or impossible to fully assess. None had been designed as a formal validation study (most used simple tests of correlation). Only one validation study (comparing a 1-min sit-to-stand test [1MSTST] with reference to the 6-min walk test [6MWT] in 107 patients with interstitial lung disease) contained sufficient raw data for us to calculate the sensitivity (88%), specificity (81%) and positive and negative predictive value (79% and 89% respectively) of the 1MSTST. The other 4 empirical studies included two predictive studies on patients with Covid-19, and two on HIV-positive patients with suspected pneumocystis pneumonia. We found no studies on the 40-step walk test (a less demanding test that is widely used in clinical practice to assess Covid-19 patients). Heterogeneity of study design precluded meta-analysis. DISCUSSION: Exertional desaturation tests have not yet been validated in patients with (or suspected of having) Covid-19. A stronger evidence base exists for the diagnostic accuracy of the 1MSTST in chronic long-term pulmonary disease; the relative intensity of this test may raise safety concerns in remote consultations or unstable patients. The less strenuous 40-step walk test should be urgently evaluated.

"Bow-tie" optimal pathway discovery analysis of sepsis hospital admissions using the Hospital Episode Statistics database in England.

OBJECTIVE: The "Bow-tie" optimal pathway discovery analysis uses large clinical event datasets to map clinical pathways and to visualize risks (improvement opportunities) before, and outcomes after, a specific clinical event. This proof-of-concept study assesses the use of NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England as a potential clinical event dataset for this pathway discovery analysis approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A metaheuristic optimization algorithm was used to perform the "bow-tie" analysis on HES event log data for sepsis (ICD-10 A40/A41) in 2016. Analysis of hospital episodes across inpatient and outpatient departments was performed for the period 730 days before and 365 days after the index sepsis hospitalization event. RESULTS: HES data captured a sepsis event for 76 523 individuals (>13 years), relating to 580 000 coded events (across 220 sepsis and non-sepsis event classes). The "bow-tie" analysis identified several diagnoses that most frequently preceded hospitalization for sepsis, in line with the expectation that sepsis most frequently occurs in vulnerable populations. A diagnosis of pneumonia (5 290 patients) and urinary tract infections (UTIs; 2 057 patients) most often preceded the sepsis event, with recurrent UTIs acting as a potential indicative risk factor for sepsis. DISCUSSION: This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that a "bow-tie" pathway discovery analysis of the HES database can be undertaken and provides clinical insights that, with further study, could help improve the identification and management of sepsis. The algorithm can now be more widely applied to HES data to undertake targeted clinical pathway analysis across multiple healthcare conditions.

Asthma and COVID-19: review of evidence on risks and management considerations.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory illnesses typically present increased risks to people with asthma (PWA). However, data on the risks of COVID-19 to PWA have presented contradictory findings, with implications for asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risks and management considerations of COVID-19 in people with asthma (PWA). METHOD: We conducted a rapid literature review. We searched PubMed, medRxiv, LitCovid, TRIP, Google and Google Scholar for terms relating to asthma and COVID-19, and for systematic reviews related to specific management questions within our review, in April 2020. References were screened and data were extracted by one reviewer. RESULTS: We extracted data from 139 references. The evidence available is limited, with some sources suggesting an under-representation of PWA in hospitalised cases and others showing an increased risk of worse outcomes in PWA, which may be associated with disease severity. Consensus broadly holds that asthma medications should be continued as usual. Almost all aspects of asthma care will be disrupted during the pandemic due not only to limits in face-to-face care but also to the fact that many of the diagnostic tools used in asthma are considered aerosol-generating procedures. Self-management and remote interventions may be of benefit for asthma care during this time but have not been tested in this context. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on COVID-19 and asthma is limited and continuing to emerge. More research is needed on the possible associations between asthma and COVID-19 infection and severity, as well as on interventions to support asthma care in light of constraints and disruptions to healthcare systems. We found no evidence regarding health inequalities, and this urgently needs to be addressed in the literature as the burdens of asthma and of COVID-19 are not equally distributed across the population.