Background
Even before the US upswing of the current COVID pandemic, the number of sickle cell disease (SCD) patients coming to hospitals and EDs appeared to fall drastically. This happened despite SCD patients having often been heavy utilizers of the ED and hospital for their iconic vaso-occlusive crises (VOC). Though ambulatory SCD clinics quick converted largely to telehealth in order to comply with stay-at-home orders designed to suppress person-to-person transmission, some SCD patients appeared to avoid care, delay care, or refuse doctors' invitations for care. Presumably patients did so out of COVID fears, but this has not been confirmed in the literature. Further, whether these patients had COVID symptoms but stayed at home has not been studied. As part of quality improvement (QI) to conduct COVID surveillance in an adult sickle cell program, we sought to explain and predict SCD health care utilization patterns we were observing, as well as to determine urgent physical and mental health needs of patients who appeared to be avoiding care.
Methods
Fifteen staff in the Adult Sickle Cell Medical Home at Virginia Commonwealth University, a large urban academic medical center, conducted a telephone survey ("wellness check"was used when we talked to patients) of all known adults with SCD over 19 days in 2020. A staff member confirmed the patient had SCD, asked permission to proceed, then asked about symptoms consistent with COVID-19. At the end of the telephone survey, respondents wer invited to complete an email survey of sickle cell and COVID-19 utilization attitudes (19-33 items, depending on the response pattern, either drawn from the National Health Interview Survey, from the Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement quality of care survey, or drafted by the authors), the Sickle Cell Stress Survey-Adult (SCSS-A, a 10-item previously validated survey), and anxiety and depression (PHQ9 of the PRIME-MD).
Results
Of 622 adults approached by phone call, 353 responded to the following yes/no screening questions regarding the prior 14 days: fever over 100 F 0/353 (0.00%); cough 3/353(0.01%); difficulty breathing 0/353(0.00%); unexplained shortness of breath 2/353(0.01%); sore throat 2/353 (0.01%); unexplained muscle soreness 2/353(0.01%);contact with anyone who tested positive for COVID-19 2/353(0.01%); testing for COVID 19 6/353(0.02%). For QI purposes, we set a threshold of three or more COVID-associated symptoms or the presence of fever as criteria requiring intense telephone or in-person staff monitoring for the following week. Only three patients met criteria. A total of 219/353 had email surveys sent. Of 63 patients (28.8%) who returned email surveys by June 10, 2020, 35.9% had already managed a "pain attack" at home 4 or more times in the prior 12 months, and 45.5% of these said their bad ER experiences were very or somewhat important in that decision. In the prior 14 days, although 30/64 reported a crisis for at least one day, only 4/64 had visited the Emergency Department for pain. On a 0-10 scale, 21/61 patients endorsed "0" for worry that they would be COVID-infected by going for medical care (weighted mean 3.9), but 18/59 endorsed "10" for worry they were more at risk of COVID because of SCD (weighted mean 6.31), and 22/60 endorsed "10" for worry they would fare worse than others if COVID infected (weighted mean 6.97). Many patients forwent "needed" care (16/62) or delayed "needed" care by at least a day (36/61). Eleven patients met criteria for moderately severe to severe depression on the PHQ-9, and 28/63 somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement "death is always on the back of my mind" on the SCSS-A.
Conclusions
In adolescents and adults with SCD, many were already reticent to come to the ED for pain, but a significant portion reported delays or avoidance of needed care during the early stages of the US COVID pandemic, and few reported using the ED despite over half reporting at least one crisis day in 14. Patients nonetheless reported very few COVID-associated symptoms. Fears of COVID infection/susceptibility may limit visits for needed sickle cell care among adults.
Acknowledgements: Mica Ferlis RN, FNP, Caitlin McManus, RN, FNP, Emily Sushko, RN, FNP, Justin West, RN, Kate Osborne, RN, Stefani Vaughan-Sams, Marla Brannon, BS, Nakeiya Williams, BS
Disclosures
Smith: GlycoMimetics, Inc.: Consultancy; Emmaeus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Investigator, Research Funding; Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire, Inc.: Other: Investigator, Research Funding; NHLBI: Research Funding; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Other: Investigator, Research Funding; Health Resources and Services Administration: Other: Investigator, Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Investigator; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ironwood: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Imara: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding.
Which COVID policies are most effective? A Bayesian analysis of COVID-19 by jurisdiction
