Dataset Information

Influence of socioeconomic deprivation on interventions and outcomes for patients admitted with COVID-19 to critical care units in Scotland: A national cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to significant respiratory failure with between 14% and 18% of hospitalised patients requiring critical care admission. This study describes the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on 30-day survival following critical care admission for COVID-19, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care capacity in Scotland.

Methods

This cohort study used linked national hospital records including ICU, virology testing and national death records to identify and describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to critical care units in Scotland. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the impact of deprivation on 30-day mortality. Critical care capacity was described by reporting the percentage of baseline ICU bed utilisation required.

Findings

There were 735 patients with COVID-19 admitted to critical care units across Scotland from 1/3/2020 to 20/6/2020. There was a higher proportion of patients from more deprived areas, with 183 admissions (24.9%) from the most deprived quintile and 100 (13.6%) from the least deprived quintile. Overall, 30-day mortality was 34.8%. After adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity, mortality was significantly higher in patients from the most deprived quintile (OR 1.97, 95%CI 1.13, 3.41, p=0.016). ICUs serving populations with higher levels of deprivation spent a greater amount of time over their baseline ICU bed capacity.

Interpretation

Patients with COVID-19 living in areas with greatest socioeconomic deprivation had a higher frequency of critical care admission and a higher adjusted 30-day mortality. ICUs in health boards with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation had both higher peak occupancy and longer duration of occupancy over normal maximum capacity.

Funding

None.

SUBMITTER: Lone NI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7834626 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Chronic critical illness (CCI) is a relevant clinical, social and financial health issue. The aim of this study was to compare the mental outcomes (symptoms of anxiety and depression) and quality of life outcomes of the family members of patients with CCI from different socioeconomic backgrounds who were admitted to one of the intensive care units (ICUs) in two Brazilian hospitals, one private and one public. It is a prospective study involving a public hospital that serves a low-income population and a tertiary private hospital that serves a high-income population. Family members of patients with CCI answered the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and The World Health Organization Quality of Life-WHOQOL-bref questionnaires. They responded to the European Quality of life Five Dimension three Level (EuroQol-5D-3L) and the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) questionnaires on behalf of the patients at three time points: during the ICU stay, 30 and 90 days after the patient was discharged. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the main predictors of a binary outcome regarding symptoms of anxiety and depression. We enrolled 186 patients with CCI. Many patients from public hospitals who were independent became dependent for their ADLs at 90 days (41.7% versus 14.3%, p = 0.03). At 30 days, family members from public hospital had worse impact on all domains of WHOQOL-bref compared with families from private hospital. At 90-days, the difference persists in the physical domain, worse for families from public hospital (p = 0.006). The symptoms of depression at 30-days (p = 0.008) and at 90-days (p = 0.013) were worse in the public hospital. CCIs affected quality of life and the emotional condition of family members, especially in families with fewer resources when the patients became more dependent. Family members with higher education were more likely to experience depression, while depression was associated with cohabiting with the patient in low-income families.

Project description:BackgroundSocioeconomic deprivation is known to be associated with worse outcomes in asthma, but there is a lack of population-based evidence of its impact across all stages of patient care. We investigated the association of socioeconomic deprivation with asthma-related care and outcomes across primary and secondary care and with asthma-related death in Wales.Methods and findingsWe constructed a national cohort, identified from 76% (2.4 million) of the Welsh population, of continuously treated asthma patients between 2013 and 2017 using anonymised, person-level, linked, routinely collected primary and secondary care data in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. We investigated the association between asthma-related health service utilisation, prescribing, and deaths with the 2011 Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) and its domains. We studied 106,926 patients (534,630 person-years), 56.3% were female, with mean age of 47.5 years (SD = 20.3). Compared to the least deprived patients, the most deprived patients had slightly fewer total asthma-related primary care consultations per patient (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, p-value < 0.001), slightly fewer routine asthma reviews (IRR = 0.98, 0.97-0.99, p-value < 0.001), lower controller-to-total asthma medication ratios (AMRs; 0.50 versus 0.56, p-value < 0.001), more asthma-related accident and emergency (A&E) attendances (IRR = 1.27, 1.10-1.46, p-value = 0.001), more asthma emergency admissions (IRR = 1.56, 1.39-1.76, p-value < 0.001), longer asthma-related hospital stay (IRR = 1.64, 1.39-1.94, p-value < 0.001), and were at higher risk of asthma-related death (risk ratio of deaths with any mention of asthma 1.56, 1.18-2.07, p-value = 0.002). Study limitations include the deprivation index being area based and the potential for residual confounders and mediators.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that the most deprived asthma patients in Wales had different prescribing patterns, more A&E attendances, more emergency hospital admissions, and substantially higher risk of death. Interventions specifically designed to improve treatment and outcomes for these disadvantaged groups are urgently needed.

Project description:BackgroundSocioeconomic conditions affect the dynamics of the Covid-19 pandemic. We analysed the association between area-level socioeconomic deprivation, proportion of non-nationals, and incidence of Covid-19 infections in Germany.MethodsUsing linked nationally representative data at the level of 401 German districts from three waves of infection (January-2020 to May-2021), we fitted Bayesian spatiotemporal models to assess the association between socioeconomic deprivation, and proportion of non-nationals with Covid-19 incidence, controlling for age, sex, vaccination coverage, settlement structure, and spatial and temporal effects. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% credible intervals (95% CrI). We further examined the deprivation domains (education, income, occupation), interactions between deprivation, sex and the proportion of non-nationals, and explored potential pathways from deprivation to Covid-19 incidence.FindingsCovid-19 incidence risk was 15% higher (RR=1·15, 95%-CrI=1·06-1·24) in areas classified with the highest deprivation quintile (Q5) compared to the least deprived areas (Q1). Medium-low (Q2), medium (Q3), and medium-high (Q4) deprived districts showed 6% (1·06, 1·00-1·12), 8% (1·08, 1·01-1·15), and 5% (1·05, 0·98-1·13) higher risk, respectively, compared to the least deprived. Districts with higher proportion of non-nationals showed higher incidence risk compared to districts with lowest proportion, but the association weakened across the three waves. During the first wave, an inverse association was observed with highest incidence risk in least deprived areas (Q1). Deprivation interacted with sex, but not with the proportion of non-nationals.InterpretationSocioeconomic deprivation, and proportion of non-nationals are independently associated with the incidence of Covid-19. Regional planning of non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination strategies would benefit from consideration of area-level deprivation and non-national residency.FundingThe study was funded by the German Ministry of Health (ZMV I 1 - 25 20 COR 410).

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Assess the impact of selective prohibition and seizure of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) supply on NPS use prevalence within psychiatric admissions and evaluate demographic characteristics of current NPS users. DESIGN:A 6-month retrospective cross-sectional analysis of discharge letters between 1 October 2015 and 31 March 2016. SETTING:General psychiatry inpatients and intensive home treatment team (IHTT) community patients at a psychiatric hospital in a Scottish city. PARTICIPANTS:All participants were between the ages of 18 and 65 years. After application of exclusion criteria, 473 discharge letters of general psychiatry patients were deemed suitable for analysis and 264 IHTT patient discharge letters were analysed. INTERVENTIONS:A nationwide temporary class drug order (TCDO) was placed on 10 April 2015 reclassifying methylphenidate-related compounds as class B substances. On 15 October 2015, local forfeiture orders were granted to trading standards permitting the seizure of NPS supplies. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome measure was to determine the prevalence of NPS use in two cohorts. Second, demographic features of patients and details regarding their psychiatric presentation were analysed. RESULTS:The prevalence of NPS use in general psychiatry and IHTT patients was 6.6% and 3.4%, respectively. Inpatients using NPS compared with non-users were more likely to be men (OR 2.92, 95%?CI 1.28 to 6.66, P=0.009), have a forensic history (OR 5.03, CI 2.39 to 10.59, P<0.001) and be detained under an Emergency Detention Certificate (OR 3.50, CI 1.56 to 7.82, P=0.004). NPS users were also more likely to be diagnosed under International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Version 10, F10-19 (OR 9.97, CI 4.62 to 21.49, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with previous work, psychiatric inpatient NPS use has fallen. NPS continue to be used by a demographic previously described resulting in presentations consistent with a drug-induced psychosis and at times requiring detention under the Mental Health Act. Further research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the recent prohibition of all NPS.