How To Hospital: barriers to developing a patient ‘Hospital Survival Guide’ to support information transfer during ward-rounds on the patient journey from admission to hospital to discharge

Clinicians can enable patients to actively participate in their care but communication with patients is often poor and highly variable. The aim of this study was to explore patients’ understanding of their current illness while in hospital and using a codesign process to create prototype tools to facilitate better communication during ward rounds.A mixed-methods, multistep design with step 1: Application of a questionnaire addressing domains of care in the acute medical unit; step 2: Development of communication aids that were codesigned with active help of patients, students and a specialist in user centric design to address patient needs and step 3: Evaluation of tools with patients in four Plan–Do–Study–Act cycles.In the initial survey of 30 patients 12 (40%) patients did not know what their diagnosis was and 5 (17%) did not know the results of recent key tests. 20 (67%) patients felt that staff communication and coordination could be improved.An intervention was prototyped with four variations: (1) An A6 ward-round summary sheet completed by doctors during ward rounds. The system worked well but was highly person dependent. (2) An A4 patient-owned diary (‘How to Hospital’) that contained information about key processes in hospital and space to document conversations from rounds and prompts for questions. 10 patients read the diary and commented favourably but did not complete any pages. (3) ‘Diary-cards’: a basic set of information cards was given to patients on admission to hospital. (4) Patient specific ‘diary-cards’ were completed by clinicians—10 forms were piloted during rounds and improved subsequent day information retention of diagnosis to 80%.Our study identified interventions that were feasible but remained person-dependent. The patients’ ownership of information in relation to their care might facilitate retention and satisfaction but the optimal format for these interventions for enhancing communication remains unclear.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence following the first pandemic wave in UK healthcare workers in a large NHS Foundation Trust

Background: We aimed to measure SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in a cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs) during the first UK wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, explore risk factors associated with infection, and investigate the impact of antibody titres on assay sensitivity. Methods: HCWs at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust were prospectively enrolled and sampled at two time points. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were tested using an in-house assay for IgG and IgA reactivity against Spike and Nucleoprotein (sensitivity 99·47%, specificity 99·56%). Data were analysed using three statistical models: a seroprevalence model, an antibody kinetics model, and a heterogeneous sensitivity model. Results: As of 12th June 2020, 24·4% (n=311/1275) of HCWs were seropositive. Of these, 39·2% (n=122/311) were asymptomatic. The highest adjusted seroprevalence was measured in HCWs on the Acute Medical Unit (41·1%, 95% CrI 30·0–52·9) and in Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists (39·2%, 95% CrI 24·4–56·5). Older age groups showed overall higher median antibody titres. Further modelling suggests that, for a serological assay with an overall sensitivity of 80%, antibody titres may be markedly affected by differences in age, with sensitivity estimates of 89% in those over 60 years but 61% in those ≤30 years. Conclusions: HCWs in acute medical units working closely with COVID-19 patients were at highest risk of infection, though whether these are infections acquired from patients or other staff is unknown. Current serological assays may underestimate seroprevalence in younger age groups if validated using sera from older and/or more symptomatic individuals.

Sort and Sieve: Pre-Triage Screening of Patients with Suspected COVID-19 in the Emergency Department

Introduction. To reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission, suspected COVID-19 patients entering the Emergency Department (ED) were assigned to a high-risk (ED) or low-risk (acute medical unit, AMU) area based on symptoms, travel and contact history. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of our pre-triage screening method and to analyse the characteristics of initially undetected COVID-19 patients. Methods. This was a retrospective, observational, single centre study. Patients ≥ 18 years visiting the AMU-ED between 17 March and 17 April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was the (correct) number of COVID-19 patients assigned to the AMU or ED. Results. In total, 1287 patients visited the AMU-ED: 525 (40.8%) AMU, 762 (59.2%) ED. Within the ED group, 304 (64.3%) of 473 tested patients were COVID-19 positive, compared to 13 (46.4%) of 28 tested patients in the AMU group. Our pre-triage screening accuracy was 63.7%. Of the 13 COVID-19 patients who were initially assigned to the AMU, all patients were ≥65 years of age and the majority presented with gastro-intestinal or non-specific symptoms. Conclusion. Older COVID-19 patients presenting with non-specific symptoms were more likely to remain undetected. ED screening protocols should therefore also include non-specific symptoms, particularly in older patients.

A rare case of COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia (VITT) involving the veno-splanchnic and pulmonary arterial circulation, from a UK district general hospital

A 47-year-old woman presented with a headache to the acute medical unit, 10 days after receiving AstraZeneca vaccination for COVID-19. Brain imaging was normal, but her blood tests showed a remarkably low platelet count, mildly deranged liver function tests and a high D-dimer. Further within her hospital admission, she developed right-sided abdominal pain and chest pain, and subsequent cross-sectional imaging confirmed a small segmental pulmonary embolism, and an acute portal vein thrombosis extending to the splenic and superior mesenteric veins. On the basis of her investigations, she was diagnosed as a case of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia and was treated with intravenous immunoglobulins. In a time where there is a strategic goal to vaccinate the global population from COVID-19 to inhibit the spread of infection and reduce hospitalisation, this particular clinical scenario emphasises the need of all clinicians to remain vigilant for rare complications of the COVID-19 vaccination.

Evaluating discharges and readmissions using a COVID Virtual Ward model: a retrospective data study assessing patient outcomes and the likely staffing commitment

Background: COVID-19 has placed a catastrophic burden on acute hospitals. In an attempt to reduce admissions and enable safe early discharge, a COVID virtual ward (CVW) care pathway has been supported by NHS England. This includes discharging people who meet objective criteria based on acuity scores and oxygen saturations, with pulse oximeters and daily phone calls for up to 14 days. Observational studies have reported the safety of this system, but without describing the outcomes from usual care. Methods: A retrospective study using routinely collected health data from all adults with a confirmed positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) swab result between 1st June 2020 and 31st Jan 2021 who attended the Emergency Department or Acute Medical Unit at QEHB, which does not have a CVW service. Criteria for CVW were applied using data from the first 24 hours of presentation to hospital and subsequent health outcomes were included for 28 days, including re-presentation, re-admission, ITU escalation and death. Results were compared to reported studies based in secondary care. Results: During the study period, 26,127 patients presented to QEHB hospital. 2301 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab. Of these, 1730 (75.2%) did not meet the criteria for the CVW and 571 (24.8%) did. Of the 571, 325 (56.9%) were discharged home within 24 hours and 246 (43.1%) were admitted for 24 hours or longer. Those admitted were older, with increased co-morbidities, 80.9% required hospital-supported acute therapies after the first 24 hours and 10.6% died. Of the 325 discharged, 44 were readmitted (13.5%), 30 (9.2%) with COVID-related symptoms, 5 (1.5%) required ITU and 1 patient (0.3%) died. These results were comparable to published studies with a CVW service. Discussion: In the current study, discharging patients without a CVW did not confer a greater risk of re-presentation, re-admission, ITU escalation or death. The majority of patients who remained in hospital despite meeting the CVW criteria did so for the provision of treatments or acute assessments. It remains uncertain whether a CVW delivers improvements in hard outcomes, and further research is needed.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence following the first pandemic wave in UK healthcare workers in a large NHS Foundation Trust

Background: We aimed to measure SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in a cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs) during the first UK wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, explore risk factors associated with infection, and investigate the impact of antibody titres on assay sensitivity. Methods: HCWs at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (STH) were prospectively enrolled and sampled at two time points. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were tested using an in-house assay for IgG and IgA reactivity against Spike and Nucleoprotein (sensitivity 99.47%, specificity 99.56%). Data were analysed using three statistical models: a seroprevalence model, an antibody kinetics model, and a heterogeneous sensitivity model. Findings: As of 12th June 2020, 24.4% (n=311/1275) HCWs were seropositive. Of these, 39.2% (n=122/311) were asymptomatic. The highest adjusted seroprevalence was measured in HCWs on the Acute Medical Unit (41.1%, 95% CrI 30.0-52.9) and in Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists (39.2%, 95% CrI 24.4-56.5). Older age groups showed overall higher median antibody titres. Further modelling suggests that, for a serological assay with an overall sensitivity of 80%, antibody titres may be markedly affected by differences in age, with sensitivity estimates of 89% in those over 60 years but 61% in those ≤30 years. Interpretation: HCWs in acute medical units working closely with COVID-19 patients were at highest risk of infection, though whether these are infections acquired from patients or other staff is unknown. Current serological assays may underestimate seroprevalence in younger age groups if validated using sera from older and/or more symptomatic individuals.

Performance of prognostic scoring systems in patients with COVID-19 interstitial pneumonia in Acute Medical Unit

Background: The early detection of COVID-19 patients with interstitial pneumonia at high risk of dismal outcome is necessary to deliver proper care and optimize management of limited resources. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyse the performance of pre-existing scores in predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU transfer at admission in an Acute Medical Unit. Methods: 106 consecutive patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 interstitial pneumoni admitted to Acute Medical Unit were enrolled. The performances of NEWS, SIRS, RAPS, REMS, qSOFA, APACHE II, CURB-65 and PSI were analysed by the Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic (AUROCs) and standard indices of accuracy. Results: Considering in-hospital mortality PSI and APACHE II had the higher AUROCs, 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.91) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.71-0.88), followed by REMS, 0.77 (95% CI 0.67-0.86), and CURB-65, 0.73 (95% CI 0.63-0.82), whereas the AUROCs of the other scores were < 0.7. PSI and APACHE II had good sensitivity (0.92 and 0.97), negative predictive value (0.96 and 0.97) and negative likelihood ratio (0.1 and 0.1), accurately identifying patients at low risk to die. However, the low specificity (0.70 and 0.47) and positive likelihood ratio (3.1 and 1.8) could limit their usefulness in predicting in-hospital mortality. Considering ICU admissions all the scores, except NEWS, SIRS and qSOFA, showed a worse performance. Conclusions: PSI and APACHE II showed good prognostic results in predicting in-hospital mortality but no pre- existing score validated for acute care settings was totally satisfactory to predict adverse outcomes in COVID-19 interstitial pneumonia after admission to Acute Medical Unit. The application setting and selected outcome criteria should always be considered to evaluate and compare scoring systems’ performance analysis.