Association of smoking status with hospitalisation for COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viruses a year previous: a case-control study at a single UK National Health Service trust

Background: It is unclear whether smoking increases the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation. We first examined the association of smoking status with hospitalisation for COVID-19 compared with hospitalisation for other respiratory viral infections a year previous. Second, we examined the concordance between smoking status recorded on the electronic health record (EHR) and the contemporaneous medical notes. Methods: This case-control study enrolled adult patients (446 cases and 211 controls) at a single National Health Service trust in London, UK. The outcome variable was type of hospitalisation (COVID-19 vs. another respiratory virus a year previous). The exposure variable was smoking status (never/former/current smoker). Logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic position and comorbidities were performed. The study protocol and analyses were pre-registered in April 2020 on the Open Science Framework. Results: Current smokers had lower odds of being hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viruses a year previous (ORadj=0.55, 95% CI=0.31-0.96, p=.04). There was no significant association among former smokers (ORadj=1.08, 95% CI=0.72-1.65, p=.70). Smoking status recorded on the EHR (compared with the contemporaneous medical notes) was incorrectly recorded for 168 (79.6%) controls (χ2(3)=256.5, p=<0.001) and 60 cases (13.5%) (χ2(3)=34.2, p=<0.001). Conclusions: In a single UK hospital trust, current smokers had reduced odds of being hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viruses a year previous, although it is unclear whether this association is causal. Targeted post-discharge recording of smoking status may account for the greater EHR-medical notes concordance observed in cases compared with controls.

Evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptability of the long-acting oral antipsychotic penfluridol: Illustrative case series

Aim: In this study, we sought to determine clinical outcomes at 1 year for patients prescribed penfluridol in an inner London National Health Service Trust. Using noninterventional data, we describe the use, effectiveness and safety of this treatment modality. Results: We retrospectively followed up 17 patients prescribed penfluridol as part of routine clinical practice. All patients took penfluridol once weekly. Of these patients, 12 (70.6%) were considered treatment resistant. The average duration of illness for this cohort was 10 years (SD = 6.7). At 1 year, nine (53%) patients remained on treatment. Median survival time was not reached at 1-year follow-up; mean time on penfluridol was 251 days (95% confidence interval (CI), 184–318). The mean number of admissions to hospital in the year following penfluridol initiation was 0.6 compared with 0.8, 1 year before initiation ( p = 0.465). The median number of bed days 1 year before penfluridol initiation was 24, whereas in the year following penfluridol initiation, it was 0 ( p = 0.514). Clinical Implications: Although penfluridol is unlicensed in the United Kingdom, limited data suggest that this long-acting oral therapy has the potential to be used safely and effectively for the treatment of psychotic disorders. However, more data are required to establish the place of penfluridol and other potential long-acting oral antipsychotic formulations in the treatment of psychotic disorders.

Association of smoking status with hospitalisation for COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viruses a year previous: a case-control study at a single UK National Health Service trust

Background: It is unclear whether smoking increases the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation. We first examined the association of smoking status with hospitalisation for COVID-19 compared with hospitalisation for other respiratory viral infections a year previous. Second, we examined the concordance between smoking status recorded on the electronic health record (EHR) and the contemporaneous medical notes. Methods: This case-control study enrolled adult patients (446 cases and 211 controls) at a single National Health Service trust in London, UK. The outcome variable was type of hospitalisation (COVID-19 vs. another respiratory virus a year previous). The exposure variable was smoking status (never/former/current smoker). Logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic position and comorbidities were performed. The study protocol and analyses were pre-registered in April 2020 on the Open Science Framework. Results: Current smokers had lower odds of being hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viruses a year previous (ORadj=0.55, 95% CI=0.31-0.96, p=.04). There was no significant association among former smokers (ORadj=1.08, 95% CI=0.72-1.65, p=.70). Smoking status recorded on the EHR (compared with the contemporaneous medical notes) was incorrectly recorded for 168 (79.6%) controls (χ2(3)=256.5, p=<0.001) and 60 cases (13.5%) (χ2(3)=34.2, p=<0.001). Conclusions: In a single UK hospital trust, current smokers had reduced odds of being hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viruses a year previous, although it is unclear whether this association is causal. Targeted post-discharge recording of smoking status may account for the greater EHR-medical notes concordance observed in cases compared with controls.

Specialist pneumonia intervention nurse service improves pneumonia care and outcome

BackgroundA specialist pneumonia intervention nursing (SPIN) service was set up across a single National Health Service Trust in an effort to improve clinical outcomes. A quality improvement evaluation was performed to assess the outcomes associated with implementing the service before (2011–2013) and after (2014–2016) service implementation.ResultsThe SPIN service reviewed 38% of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) admissions in 2014–2016. 82% of these admissions received antibiotic treatment in <4 hours (68.5% in the national audit). Compared with the pre-SPIN period, there was a significant reduction in both 30-day (OR=0.77 (0.70–0.85), p<0.0001) and in-hospital (OR=0.66 (0.60–0.73), p<0.0001) mortality after service implementation, with a review by the service showing the largest independent 30-day mortality benefit (HR=0.60 (0.53–0.67), p<0.0001). There was no change in length of stay (median 6 days).ConclusionImplementation of a SPIN service improved adherence to BTS guidelines and achieved significant reductions in CAP-associated mortality. This enhanced model of care is low cost, highly effective and readily adoptable in secondary care.

Electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems can be well-tolerated by health workers: Findings of a qualitative study

Background: Electronic hand hygiene monitoring overcomes limitations associated with manual audit but acceptability to health workers varies and may depend on culture of the ward and the nature of the system. Objectives: Evaluate the acceptability of a new fifth type electronic monitoring system to frontline health workers in a National Health Service trust in the UK. Methods: Qualitative interviews with 11 informants following 12 months experience using an electronic monitoring system. Results: Informants recognised the importance of hand hygiene and embraced technology to improve adherence. Barriers to hand hygiene adherence included heavy workload, dealing with emergencies and ergonomic factors related to placement of alcohol dispensers. Opinions about the validity of the automated readings were conflicting. Some health workers thought they were accurate. Others reported problems associated with differences in the intelligence of the system and their own clinical decisions. Opinions about feedback were diverse. Some health workers thought the system increased personal accountability for hand hygiene. Others ignored feedback on suboptimal performance or ignored the data altogether. It was hard for health workers to understand why the system registered some instances of poor performance because feedback did not allow omissions in hand hygiene to be related to the context of care. Conclusion: Electronic monitoring can be very well tolerated despite some limitations. Further research needs to explore different reactions to feedback and how often clinical emergencies arise. Electronic and manual audit have complementary strengths.

Thyroid Function Before, During and After COVID-19

Context: The effects of COVID-19 on the thyroid axis remain uncertain. Recent evidence has been conflicting, with both thyrotoxicosis and suppression of thyroid function reported. Objective: We aimed to detail the acute effects of COVID-19 on thyroid function and determine if these effects persisted upon recovery from COVID-19. Design: Cohort observational study. Participants and Setting: Adult patients admitted to Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, UK with suspected COVID-19 between March 9 to April 22, 2020 were included, excluding those with pre-existing thyroid disease and those missing either free thyroxine (FT4) or TSH measurements. Of 456 patients, 334 had COVID-19 and 122 did not. Main Outcome Measures: TSH and FT4 measurements at admission, and where available, those taken in 2019 and at COVID-19 follow-up. Results: Most patients (86·6%) presenting with COVID-19 were euthyroid, with none presenting with overt thyrotoxicosis. Patients with COVID-19 had a lower admission TSH and FT4 compared to those without COVID-19. In the COVID-19 patients with matching baseline thyroid function tests from 2019 (n=185 for TSH and 104 for FT4), both TSH and FT4 were reduced at admission compared to baseline. In a complete cases analysis of COVID-19 patients with TSH measurements at follow-up, admission and baseline (n=55), TSH was seen to recover to baseline at follow-up. Conclusions: Most patients with COVID-19 present with euthyroidism. We observed mild reductions in TSH and FT4 in keeping with a non-thyroidal illness syndrome. Furthermore, in survivors of COVID-19, thyroid function tests at follow-up returned to baseline.

The Barts Health NHS Trust COVID-19 cohort: characteristics, outcomes and risk scoring of patients in East London

BACKGROUND: Barts Health National Health Service Trust (BHNHST) serves a diverse population of 2.5 million people in London, UK. We undertook a health services assessment of factors used to evaluate the risk of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection.METHODS: Patients with confirmed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results admitted between 1 March and 1 August 2020 were included, alongwith clinician‐diagnosed suspected cases. Prognostic factors from the 4C Mortality score and 4C Deterioration scores were extracted from electronic health records and logistic regression was used to quantify the strength of association with 28‐day mortality and clinical deterioration using national death registry linkage.RESULTS: Of 2783 patients, 1621 had a confirmed diagnosis, of whom 61% were male and 54% were from Black and Minority Ethnic groups; 26% died within 28 days of admission. Mortality was strongly associated with older age. The 4C mortality score had good stratification of risk with a calibration slope of 1.14 (95% CI 1.01–1.27). It may have under‐estimated mortality risk in those with a high respiratory rate or requiring oxygen.CONCLUSION: Patients in this diverse patient cohort had similar mortality associated with prognostic factors to the 4C score derivation sample, but survival might be poorer in those with respiratory failure.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 in East London: a retrospective cohort analysis

BackgroundDescriptions of clinical characteristics of patients hospitalised withCOVID-19, their clinical course and short-term inpatient and outpatient outcomes in deprived urban populations in the UK are still relatively sparse. We describe the epidemiology, clinical course, experience of non-invasive ventilation and intensive care, mortality and short-term sequelae of patients admitted to two large District General Hospitals across a large East London National Health Service Trust during the first wave of the pandemic.MethodsA retrospective analysis was carried out on a cohort of 1946 patients with a clinical or laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19, including descriptive statistics and survival analysis. A more detailed analysis was undertaken of a subset of patients admitted across three respiratory units in the trust.ResultsIncreasing age, male sex and Asian ethnicity were associated with worse outcomes. Increasing severity of chest X-ray abnormalities trended with mortality. Radiological changes persisted in over 50% of cases at early follow-up (6 weeks). Ongoing symptoms including hair loss, memory impairment, breathlessness, cough and fatigue were reported in 70% of survivors, with 39% of patients unable to return to work due to ongoing symptoms.ConclusionsUnderstanding the acute clinical features, course of illness and outcomes of COVID-19 will be crucial in understanding the effect of differences in risk, as well as the effectiveness of new interventions and vaccination between the successive waves of the pandemic.

Using a comprehensive audit to identify local context prior to care bundle design and implementation for inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in colorectal surgery

BackgroundThe first step in bundle design or implementation is to identify the problem being addressed. Several validated approaches are recommended to facilitate this. These include using systematic reviews, adverse event triggers and risk assessment tools. However, these methods do not fully take the local context into account, which will limit the effectiveness of the bundle.AimThis study explores the potential benefit of using a comprehensive audit to identify an organisation’s local context prior to designing and implementing a care bundle.MethodA comprehensive audit comprising observations of four patient journeys, interviews with 21 staff and clinical data was carried out at one large National Health Service trust in England. A patient warming care bundle was used as the exemplar.FindingsEach of the three data collection methods identified specific local practices which would be addressed within the planning and implementation stages of a care bundle. These practices would not have been identified through other recommended methods.ConclusionA comprehensive audit, comprising observations, interviews and clinical data is a successful method to identify local contextual issues prior to care bundle implementation.

The association of smoking status with hospitalisation for COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viruses a year previous: A case-control study at a single UK National Health Service trust

BackgroundIt is unclear whether smoking increases the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation. We aimed to i) examine the association of smoking status with hospitalisation for COVID-19 compared with hospitalisation for other respiratory virus infections a year previous; ii) compare current smoking in cases with age- and sex-matched London prevalence; and iii) examine concordance between smoking status recorded on the electronic health record (EHR) and the medical notes.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study enrolled adult patients (446 cases and 211 controls) at a single National Health Service trust in London, UK. London smoking prevalence was obtained from the representative Annual Population Survey. The outcome variable was type of hospitalisation (COVID-19 vs. another respiratory virus). The exposure variable was smoking status (never/former/current smoker). Logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic position and comorbidities were performed. The study protocol and analyses were pre-registered on the Open Science Framework.FindingsPatients hospitalised with COVID-19 had lower odds of being current smokers than patients admitted with other respiratory viruses (ORadj=0.55, 95% CI=0.31-0.96, p=.04). Odds were equivocal for former smokers (ORadj=1.08, 95% CI=0.72-1.65, p=.70). Current smoking in cases was significantly lower than expected from London prevalence (9.4% vs. 12.9%, p=.02). Smoking status recorded on the EHR deviated significantly from that recorded within the medical notes (χ2(3)=226.7, p<.001).InterpretationIn a single hospital trust in the UK, patients hospitalised with COVID-19 had reduced odds of being current smokers compared with patients admitted with other respiratory viruses a year previous.FundingUK BBSRC, Cancer Research UK, UKPRP.