Dataset Information

Paediatric prehospital emergencies and restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Children are less vulnerable to serious forms of the COVID-19 disease. However, concerns have been raised about children being the second victims of the pandemic and its control measures. Therefore, we wanted to study if the pandemic, the infection control measures and their consequences to the society projected to paediatric prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) contacts.

Methods

We conducted a population-based cohort study concerning all children aged 0-15 years with EMS contacts in the Helsinki University Hospital area during 1 March 2020-31 May 2020 (study period) and equivalent periods in 2017-2019 (control periods). We analysed the demographic characteristics, time of EMS contact, reason for EMS contact, priority of the dispatch, reason for transportation, priority of transportation, if any consultations were made or additional units required, any medication or oxygen or fluids given, if intubation was performed, and whether paramedics took precautions when COVID-19 infection was suspected.

Results

The number of paediatric EMS contacts decreased by 30.4% from mean of 1794 contacts to 1369 (p=0.003). The EMS contacts were more often due to trauma (+23.7%, p<0.05), dispatched in the most urgent category (+139.9%, p=0.001), additional help and the mobile intensive care unit were more frequently requested (+43.3%, p=0.040 and+46.3%, p=0.049, respectively). However, EMS contacts resulted less often in ambulance transport (-21.1%, p<0.001). Alarmingly, there were four deaths during the study period compared with 0-2 during the control periods.

Conclusions

The number of EMS contacts decreased during the pandemic. Nevertheless, the children encountered by the EMS were more seriously ill than during the control periods.

SUBMITTER: Oulasvirta J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7607513 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective This study assesses the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the pattern of neurological emergencies reaching a tertiary care center. Materials and Methods This is a retrospective and single center study involving 295 patients with neurological emergencies mainly including acute stroke, status epilepticus (SE), and tubercular meningitis visiting emergency department (ED) from January 1 to April 30, 2020 and divided into pre- and during lockdown, the latter starting from March 25 onward. The primary outcome was number of neurological emergencies visiting ED per week in both periods. Secondary outcomes included disease severity at admission, need for mechanical ventilation (MV), delay in hospitalization, in-hospital mortality, and reasons for poor compliance to ongoing treatment multivariate binary logistic regression was used to find independent predictors of in-hospital mortality which included variables with p <0.1 on univariate analysis. Structural break in the time series analysis was done by using Chow test. Results There was 53.8% reduction in number of neurological emergencies visiting ED during lockdown (22.1 visits vs. 10.2 visits per week, p = 0.001), significantly affecting rural population ( p = 0.004). Presenting patients had comparatively severe illness with increased requirement of MV ( p < 0.001) and significant delay in hospitalization during lockdown ( p < 0.001). Poor compliance to ongoing therapy increased from 34.4% in pre-lockdown to 64.7% patients during lockdown ( p < 0.001), mostly due to nonavailability of drugs ( p < 0.001). Overall, 35 deaths were recorded, with 20 (8.2%) in pre-lockdown and 15 (29.4%) during lockdown ( p = 0.001). Lockdown, nonavailability of local health care, delay in hospitalization, severity at admission, and need for MV emerged as independent predictors of poor outcome in stroke and delay in hospitalization in SE. Conclusion COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown resulted in marked decline in non-COVID neurological emergencies reporting to ED, with more severe presentations and significant delay from onset of symptoms to hospitalization.

Project description:IntroductionDenmark and Sweden initially adopted different responses to the COVID-19 pandemic although the two countries share many characteristics. Denmark responded swiftly with many mandatory restrictions. In contrast, Sweden relied on voluntary restrictions and a more "relaxed" response during the first wave of the pandemic. However, increased rates of COVID-19 cases led to a new approach that involved many more mandatory restrictions, thus making Sweden's response similar to Denmark's in the second wave of the pandemic.AimThe aim was to investigate and compare the extent to which the populations in Denmark and Sweden considered the COVID-19 restrictions to be acceptable during the first two waves of the pandemic. The study also aimed to identify the characteristics of those who were least accepting of the restrictions in the two countries.Materials and methodsCross-sectional surveys were conducted in Denmark and Sweden in 2021. The study population was sampled from nationally representative web panels in the two countries, consisting of 2,619 individuals from Denmark and 2,633 from Sweden. The questionnaire captured key socio-demographic characteristics. Acceptability was operationalized based on a theoretical framework consisting of seven constructs and one overarching construct.ResultsThe respondents' age and gender patterns were similar in the two countries. The proportion of respondents in Denmark who agreed with the statements ("agree" alternative) that captured various acceptability constructs was generally higher for the first wave than the second wave of the pandemic. The opposite pattern was seen for Sweden. In Denmark, 66% in the first wave and 50% in the second wave were accepting of the restrictions. The corresponding figures for Sweden was 42% (first wave) and 47% (second wave). Low acceptance of the restrictions, defined as the 25% with the lowest total score on the seven acceptability statements, was associated with younger age, male gender and lower education levels.ConclusionRespondents in Sweden were more accepting of the restrictions in the second wave, when the country used many mandatory restrictions. In contrast, respondents in Denmark were more accepting of the restrictions in the first wave than in the second wave, implying an increased weariness to comply with the restrictions over time. There were considerable socio-demographic differences between those who expressed low acceptance of the restrictions and the others in both countries, suggesting the importance of tailoring communication about the pandemic to different segments of the population.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, visiting restrictions of different extents have been implemented. However, despite the long history of visiting restrictions in health care systems, little is known about their effects.ObjectivesThis review sought to explore the consequences of visitor restrictions in health care services during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA systematic, integrative review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, based on a systematic search in PubMed, CHINAL full plus, Web of Science, PsychInfo, Scopus and the Cochrane Library.ResultsA total of 17 scientific papers covering intensive care, pediatric care, general medical care, hospital care, palliative care and nursing home settings were included. Although appreciation for the technical solutions enabling remote meetings was reported, visiting restrictions had several consequences, mainly negative, for the patient's health, the health and wellbeing of family members and the provision of care. Among physical health consequences, reduced nutrition intake, decreased activities of daily living and increased physical pain and symptoms were reported. Among mental health consequences for the patient, loneliness, depressive symptoms, agitation, aggression, reduced cognitive ability and overall dissatisfaction were observed. For family members, worry, anxiety and uncertainty occurred, and they reported an increased need for information from care providers. Family members of neonatal intensive care unit patients reported less bonding with their child and family relation disturbances due to the restrictions. For care providers, visiting restrictions added the burdens of ethical dilemmas, learning new technical means to enable social interaction and an increased demand for communication with families and providing social support to both family members and patients.ConclusionsWhen implementing visiting restrictions in health care services, decision makers and nurses need to be aware of their potential negative effects and adapt the provision of care to compensate for such effects. Nurses in all sectors should be aware that visiting restrictions may affect patients, families, and health care services for longer than the actual pandemic. Since the level of evidence regarding effect from visiting restrictions is low, further studies is strongly needed.