Dataset Information

Filiere ambulatoire COVID-19 aux urgences : retour d’experience et perspectives? Emergency COVID-19 ambulatory care: Experience and perspectives

ABSTRACT:

But de l’étude

Le SARS-CoV2 a causé une pandémie en 2020. Nous décrivons la création d’une filière ambulatoire COVID-19 au sein du service d’accueil des urgences (SAU).

Matériel et méthodes

Les patients couchés ou avec signes de gravité étaient pris en charge dans une filière dédiée dans le SAU. Les autres patients suspects de COVID-19 étaient pris en charge dans une filière sous tente, tenue par des médecins et chirurgiens non urgentistes. Des dossiers papier étaient utilisés. Les indications de prélèvement ont suivi les recommandations nationales [Haut Conseil de la santé Publique], ciblées à l’époque sur les patients avec des facteurs de risque de formes graves, les patients à hospitaliser, le personnel soignant et les premiers cas d’investigation de clusters.

Résultats

Du 16 mars au 7 mai 2020, 57 praticiens non urgentistes de 17 spécialités différentes ont assuré 224 vacations de 5 h. Sur cette période, 2039 consultations au SAU étaient en lien avec la COVID-19, dont 1542 ont eu lieu dans la filière ambulatoire sous tente. Au final 1819 (93 %) consultations ont abouti à un retour au domicile, 114 (6 %) à une hospitalisation en secteur conventionnel, et 23 (1 %) à une hospitalisation en réanimation.

Conclusion

La création de filières dédiées du fait du risque de transmission croisée, et l’afflux de nombreux patients en un court laps de temps, nécessitent des renforts de personnel soignant. L’intégration de ces renforts est d’autant plus facile qu’une procédure précise est établie et qu’ils bénéficient d’une formation et d’un accompagnement initiaux. Le respect de l’organisation en filière permet de répondre efficacement à l’ensemble des demandes de soins.

SUBMITTER: Nielly H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7833715 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDelaying critical care for treatable conditions owing to fear of contracting COVID-19 in the emergency department (ED) is associated with avoidable morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo assess and quantify how people decided whether to present to the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic for care unrelated to COVID-19 using conjoint analysis, a form of trade-off analysis that examines how individuals make complex decisions.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional survey study was conducted using a nationwide sample from June 1, 2020, during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Included participants were adults aged 18 years or older in the US who self-reported that they had not tested positive for COVID-19. Data were analyzed from July 2020 through May 2021.ExposuresParticipants completed a self-administered online survey.Main outcomes and measuresUsing a choice-based conjoint analysis survey, the relative importance was assessed for the following attributes for individuals in deciding whether to seek ED care for symptoms consistent with myocardial infarction or appendicitis: reduction in chance of dying because of ED treatment, crowdedness of ED with other patients, and chance of contracting COVID-19 in the ED. We also performed latent class analyses using conjoint data to identify distinct segments of the respondent population with similar choice patterns. Logistic regression was then used to explore whether patient sociodemographics and political affiliations were factors associated with decision-making.ResultsAmong 1981 individuals invited to participate, 933 respondents (47.1%) completed the survey; participants' mean (SD) age was 40.1 (13.0) years, and 491 (52.6%) were women. In latent class analyses, 158 individuals (16.9%) with symptoms of myocardial infarction and 238 individuals (25.5%) with symptoms of appendicitis prioritized avoidance of COVID-19 exposure in the ED (ie, chance of contracting COVID-19 in the ED or crowdedness of ED with other patients) over seeking appropriate care for symptoms. Having a usual source of care was a factor associated with lower odds of prioritizing avoidance of COVID-19 exposure (myocardial infarction scenario: adjusted odds ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.32-0.76]; P = .001; appendicitis scenario: adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.40-0.82]; P = .003), but most sociodemographic factors and political affiliations were not factors associated with decision-making.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that up to one-quarter of individuals were willing to forgo potentially life-saving ED care to avoid exposure to COVID-19. These findings suggest that health care systems and public health organizations should develop effective communications for patients and the community at large that reassure and encourage timely health care for critical needs during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and other scenarios.

Project description:Introduction Depuis mars 2021, plusieurs publications ont rapporté des manifestations cutanées associées à l’infection COVID-19. Bien que non spécifiques, ces manifestations ont été massivement relayées par les revues scientifiques, les médias et les réseaux sociaux. L’objectif de ce travail était de déterminer si la prévalence et les caractéristiques de ces manifestations peu spécifiques avaient varié pour la même période entre 2019 et 2020. Matériel et méthodes Étude comparative rétrospective sur la prévalence de ces manifestations dermatologiques vues aux urgences dermatologiques du 01 mars au 30 avril 2020 en comparaison avec la même période de l’année 2019. Les manifestations incluses étaient : les urticaires, les pityriasis rosé de Gibert, les exanthèmes maculopapuleux, les rashs vésiculeux, les syndromes main-pied-bouche, les dysidroses atypiques et les pseudo-engelures. Les manifestations induites par les médicaments ont été exclues. Les tests statistiques utilisés étaient le test du Chi2 ou le test de Fisher. Résultats Entre mars et avril 2020, 877 observations ont été enregistrées vs 2874 au cours de la même période en 2019. L’âge moyen était de 41,6 ans (DS = 16,5) vs 40,8 (DS = 16,2) respectivement en 2020 et 2019. Le sex-ratio était de 0,33 en 2020 et 0,25 en 2019. La plupart des manifestations cutanées du COVID-19 étaient similaires à une atteinte cutanée survenant dans les infections virales courantes. Aucune augmentation de la prévalence des visites « non programmées » pour manifestations cutanées associées au COVID-19 chez les patients pris en charge au service de dermatologie n’a été notée : 8 % en 2019 et 7 % en 2020, p = 0,25. La prévalence des engelures était plus importante en mars/avril 2020 vs 2019. Discussion La plupart des séries publiées de signes cutanés associés au COVID-19 n’ont pas confirmé la présence directe du virus. L’association des lésions d’engelure au COVID-19 est controversée. Nous n’avons pas observé d’augmentation de la prévalence des tableaux d’éruptions cutanées décrites comme associés au COVID-19 en dehors des engelures.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread changes to healthcare, but few studies focus on ambulatory care during the early phase of the pandemic. We characterize veterans' ambulatory care experience, specifically access and satisfaction, early in the pandemic.MethodsWe employed a semi-structured telephone interview to capture quantitative and qualitative data from patients scheduled with a primary care provider between March 1 - June 30, 2020. Forty veterans were randomly identified at a single large urban Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center. The interview guide utilized 56 closed and open-ended questions to characterize veterans' perceptions of access to and satisfaction with their primary care experience at VHA and non-VHA primary care sources. We also explored the context of veterans' daily lives during the pandemic. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics and verbatim quotes using a matrix analysis.ResultsVeterans reported completing more appointments (mean 2.6 (SD 2.2)) than scheduled (mean 2.3 (SD 2.2)) mostly due to same-day or urgent visits, with a shift to telephone (mean 2.1 (SD 2.2)) and video (mean 1.5 (SD 0.6)). Among those who reported decreased access to care early in the pandemic (n = 27 (67%)), 15 (56%) cited administrative barriers ("The phone would hang up on me") and 9 (33%) reported a lack of provider availability ("They are not reaching out like they used to"). While most veterans (n = 31 (78%)) were highly satisfied with their VHA care (mean score 8.6 (SD 2.0 on a 0-10 scale), 9 (23%) reported a decrease in satisfaction since the pandemic. The six (15%) veterans who utilized non-VHA providers during the period of interest reported, on average, higher satisfaction ratings (mean 9.5 (SD 1.2)). Many veterans reported psychosocial effects such as the worsening of mental health (n = 6 (15%)), anxiety concerning the virus (n = 12 (30%)), and social isolation (n = 8 (20%), "I stay inside and away from people").ConclusionsWhile the number of encounters reported suggest adequate access and satisfaction, the comments regarding barriers to care suggest that enhanced approaches may be warranted to improve and sustain veteran perceptions of adequate access to and satisfaction with primary care during times of crisis.

Project description:Introduction Les données d’efficacité et de sécurité des vaccins contre la COVID-19 sont rassurantes. Cependant, des effets secondaires cutanés sont souvent rapportés, en particulier des réactions locales au site d’injection. Des effets indésirables cutanés plus rares peuvent également se produire, ce qui peut remettre en question la poursuite de la vaccination. L’objectif de cette étude était de décrire les caractéristiques cliniques et histologiques des effets secondaires cutanés aux vaccins contre la COVID-19 dans un centre parisien (hôpital Cochin, AP–HP, Paris), en excluant les réactions locales au site d’injection, ainsi que les éventuelles récidives après la deuxième dose. Matériel et méthodes Huit patients, âgés de 44 à 80 ans, sans antécédent connu d’infection à SARS-CoV-2 ont été inclus. Des réactions cutanées ont été observées entre 3 et 12 jours après la première dose chez 5, 1 et 2 patients qui ont respectivement reçu le vaccin Pfizer, Moderna et Oxford–AstraZeneca contre la COVID-19. Nous avons observé 2 éruptions morbilliformes, un érythème cutané diffus, une pustulose exanthématique aiguë généralisée, un érythème pigmenté fixe, une plaque œdématiée localisée, des engelures et un livedo racemosa. L’analyse histologique était non spécifique le plus souvent, montrant une spongiose et une dermite de l’interface compatibles avec une réaction médicamenteuse, et dans un cas des caractéristiques compatibles avec des engelures. Les symptômes ont disparu entre 8 et 30 jours, sous dermocorticoïdes chez 50 % des patients ou sans traitement spécifique chez les autres. Deux patients ont récidivé leurs symptômes après la deuxième dose, sans caractère de gravité. Une revue de la littérature a été réalisée et montre des cas similaires de récidive après la deuxième dose de vaccin. Discussion Les réactions cutanées secondaires au vaccin contre la COVID-19 sont polymorphes, mais ressemblent à celles décrites après l’infection à SARS-CoV-2, suggérant une réaction immuno-médiée commune contre la protéine Spike. Les praticiens doivent être sensibilisés à ces manifestations cutanées qui ne contre indiquent pas, le plus souvent, la poursuite de la vaccination.

Project description:ObjectiveAlthough 911 calls for acute shortness of breath are common, the role of emergency medical services (EMS) in acute asthma care is unclear. We sought to characterize the demographics, course, and outcomes of adult emergency department (ED) patients with asthma in the United States receiving initial EMS care.MethodsWe analyzed data from the 2016-2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). We included patients aged ≥18 years with an ED visit diagnosis of asthma, stratifying the cases according to initial EMS care. Accounting for the survey design of NHAMCS, we generated nationalized estimates of the number of EMS and non-EMS asthma visits. Using logistic regression, we determined the associations between initial EMS care and patient demographics (age, sex, race, and insurance type), ED course (initial vital signs, triage category, testing, medications), and outcomes (hospital admission, ED length of stay).ResultsOf 435 million adult ED visits during 2016-2019, there were ≈5.3 million related to asthma (1.3 million annually, 1.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1%-1.4%). A total of 602,569 (150,642 annually, 11.3%; 95% CI, 8.6%-14.8%) ED patients with asthma received initial EMS care. Compared with non-EMS asthma patients, EMS asthma patients were more likely to present with an "urgent" ED triage category (odds ratio [OR], 22.2; 95% CI, 6.6-74.9) and to undergo laboratory (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.41-5.46) or imaging tests (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.21-4.83). ED patients with asthma receiving initial EMS care were almost 3 times more likely to be admitted to the hospital (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.27-6.25). There were no differences in demographics, ED use of β-agonists or corticosteroids, or ED length of stay between EMS and non-EMS asthma patients.ConclusionsApproximately 1 in 10 adult ED patients with asthma receive initial care by EMS. EMS asthma patients present to the ED with higher acuity, undergo more diagnostic testing in the ED, and are more likely to be admitted. Although limited in information regarding the prehospital course, these findings highlight the more severe illness of asthma patients transported by EMS and underscore the importance of EMS in emergency asthma care.

Project description:BackgroundThere are limited data on the effectiveness of the vaccines against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) currently authorized in the United States with respect to hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or ambulatory care in an emergency department or urgent care clinic.MethodsWe conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19-like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients' vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation.ResultsThe effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 85 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit.ConclusionsCovid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).