scholarly journals A safe protocol to identify low-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia for outpatient management

Author(s):  
Francisco Javier Teigell Muñoz ◽  
Elena García-Guijarro ◽  
Paula García-Domingo ◽  
Guadalupe Pérez-Nieto ◽  
Fernando Roque Rojas ◽  
...  
2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 606-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda S. Elting ◽  
Charles Lu ◽  
Carmelita P. Escalante ◽  
Sharon H. Giordano ◽  
Jonathan C. Trent ◽  
...  

Purpose We retrospectively compared the outcomes and costs of outpatient and inpatient management of low-risk outpatients who presented to an emergency department with febrile neutropenia (FN). Patients and Methods A single episode of FN was randomly chosen from each of 712 consecutive, low-risk solid tumor outpatients who had been treated prospectively on a clinical pathway (1997-2003). Their medical records were reviewed retrospectively for overall success (resolution of all signs and symptoms of infection without modification of antibiotics, major medical complications, or intensive care unit admission) and nine secondary outcomes. Outcomes were assessed by physician investigators who were blinded to management strategy. Outcomes and costs (payer's perspective) in 529 low-risk outpatients were compared with 123 low-risk patients who were psychosocially ineligible for outpatient management (no access to caregiver, telephone, or transportation; residence > 30 minutes from treating center; poor compliance with previous outpatient therapy) using univariate statistical tests. Results Overall success was 80% among low-risk outpatients and 79% among low-risk inpatients. Response to initial antibiotics was 81% among outpatients and 80% among inpatients (P = .94); 21% of those initially treated as outpatients subsequently required hospitalization. All patients ultimately responded to antibiotics; there were no deaths. Serious complications were rare (1%) and equally frequent between the groups. The mean cost of therapy among inpatients was double that of outpatients ($15,231 v $7,772; P < .001). Conclusion Outpatient management of low-risk patients with FN is as safe and effective as inpatient management of low-risk patients and is significantly less costly.


2014 ◽  
Vol 146 (5) ◽  
pp. S-555
Author(s):  
Zia Mustafa ◽  
Elaine Clark ◽  
Neil Campbell ◽  
Allan Cameron ◽  
Adrian J. Stanley

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Johnston ◽  
Iain A. Murray ◽  
Michael Schultz ◽  
Peter McLeod ◽  
Nathan O’Donnell ◽  
...  

Objective.To determine if preendoscopy Rockall score (PERS) enables safe outpatient management of New Zealanders with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH).Methods.Retrospective analysis of adults with UGIH over 59 consecutive months. PERS, diagnosis, demographics, need for endoscopic therapy, transfusion or surgery and 30-day mortality and 14-day rebleeding rate, and sensitivity and specificity of PERS for enabling safe discharge preendoscopy were calculated.Results.424 admissions with UGIH. Median age was 74.3 years (range 19–93 years), with 55.1% being males. 30-day mortality was 4.6% and 14-day rebleeding rate was 6.0%. Intervention was required in 181 (46.6%): blood transfusion (147 : 37.9%), endoscopic intervention (75 : 19.3%), and surgery (8 : 2.1%). 42 (10.8%) had PERS = 0 with intervention required in 15 (35.7%). Females more frequently required intervention, OR 1.73 (CI: 1.12–2.69). PERS did not predict intervention but did predict 30-day mortality: each point increase equated to an increase in mortality of OR 1.46 (CI: 1.11–1.92). Taking NSAIDs/aspirin reduced 30-day mortality, OR 0.22 (CI: 0.08–0.60).Conclusion.PERS identifies 10.8% of those with UGIH as low risk but 35.7% required intervention or died. It has a limited role in assessing these patients and should not be used to identify those suitable for outpatient endoscopy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R Vinson ◽  
Dayna J Isaacs ◽  
Elizabeth J Johnson

Abstract Background For patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed in the primary care setting, transfer to a higher level of care, like the emergency department, has long been the convention. Evidence is growing that outpatient management, that is, care without hospitalization, is safe, effective, and feasible for selected low-risk patients with acute PE. Whether outpatient care can be provided entirely in the primary care setting has not been well-studied. We report a case of outpatient management of a low-risk patient with acute PE without emergency department transfer. Case summary A 74-year-old woman with a history of recent surgery and immobilization presented to a primary care physician with 10 days of mild, non-exertional pleuritic chest pain. Her D-dimer concentration was elevated. Computed tomography pulmonary angiography identified a lobar embolus without right ventricular dysfunction. She declined emergency department transfer but was classified as low risk (class II) on the PE Severity Index and met the criteria of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for outpatient care. Her physician provided comprehensive clinic-based PE management, discharging her to home with education, anticoagulation, and close follow-up. She completed her 3-month treatment course without complication. Discussion This case describes patient-centred, comprehensive, outpatient PE management in the primary care setting for a woman meeting explicit ESC outpatient criteria. This case illustrates the elements of care that clinics can put in place to facilitate PE management without having to transfer eligible low-risk patients to a higher level of care.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1944-1955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Schwarz ◽  
Elizabeth C. Ward ◽  
Petrea Cornwell ◽  
Anne Coccetti ◽  
Pamela D'Netto ◽  
...  

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine (a) the agreement between allied health assistants (AHAs) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) when completing dysphagia screening for low-risk referrals and at-risk patients under a delegation model and (b) the operational impact of this delegation model. Method All AHAs worked in the adult acute inpatient settings across three hospitals and completed training and competency evaluation prior to conducting independent screening. Screening (pass/fail) was based on results from pre-screening exclusionary questions in combination with a water swallow test and the Eating Assessment Tool. To examine the agreement of AHAs' decision making with SLPs, AHAs ( n = 7) and SLPs ( n = 8) conducted an independent, simultaneous dysphagia screening on 51 adult inpatients classified as low-risk/at-risk referrals. To examine operational impact, AHAs independently completed screening on 48 low-risk/at-risk patients, with subsequent clinical swallow evaluation conducted by an SLP with patients who failed screening. Results Exact agreement between AHAs and SLPs on overall pass/fail screening criteria for the first 51 patients was 100%. Exact agreement for the two tools was 100% for the Eating Assessment Tool and 96% for the water swallow test. In the operational impact phase ( n = 48), 58% of patients failed AHA screening, with only 10% false positives on subjective SLP assessment and nil identified false negatives. Conclusion AHAs demonstrated the ability to reliably conduct dysphagia screening on a cohort of low-risk patients, with a low rate of false negatives. Data support high level of agreement and positive operational impact of using trained AHAs to perform dysphagia screening in low-risk patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document