Dataset Information

A retrospective cohort study of risk factors and outcomes in older patients admitted to an inner-city geriatric unit in London during first peak of COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Compared to younger patients, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical presentation in older people can be more heterogeneous and fatal. We aim to describe a cohort of older adults admitted in an inner-city London hospital during the first peak of the pandemic.

Methods

A retrospective observational study that enrolled older adults consecutively admitted into two geriatric wards with suspected or confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We collected socio-demographic data, comorbidities, symptoms at presentation and/or during admission, biochemical and radiological data and outcomes at 28 days.

Results

One hundred twenty-four patients were included, and 75% were > 80 years old. 19.5% of COVID-19 cases were judged to be hospital-acquired. More than half presented or developed typical symptoms, respiratory failure or fatigue. 46.8% were diagnosed with delirium, 24.2% with falls and dysphagia was present in 13.7%. The mortality rate was 29.8% and was higher among males, those > 80 years, patients with a higher grade of frailty, a history of dementia or chronic kidney disease, as well as those diagnosed with respiratory failure, acute kidney injury or hypernatremia. Independent predictors of mortality were male sex, age > 80 years, respiratory failure and hypernatremia.

Conclusion

We have described a cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first UK peak of the global pandemic. We found that these patients had significant frailty with multiple comorbidities. There was a high mortality and increased dependency and greater social care need in survivors.

SUBMITTER: Maniero C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8258277 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives(1) To report maternal and newborn outcomes of pregnant women in areas of social deprivation in inner city London. (2) To compare the effect of caseload midwifery with standard care on maternal and newborn outcomes in this cohort of women.DesignRetrospective observational cohort study.SettingFour council wards (electoral districts) in inner city London, where over 90% of residents are in the two most deprived quintiles of the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (2019) and the population is ethnically diverse.ParticipantsAll women booked for antenatal care under Guys and St Thomas' National Health Service Foundation Trust after 11 July 2018 (when the Lambeth Early Action Partnership (LEAP*) caseload midwifery team was implemented) until data collection 18 June 2020. This included 523 pregnancies in the LEAP area, of which 230 were allocated to caseload midwifery, and 8430 pregnancies from other areas.Main outcome measuresTo explore if targeted caseload midwifery (known to reduce preterm birth) will improve important measurable outcomes (preterm birth, mode of birth and newborn outcomes).ResultsThere was a significant reduction in preterm birth rate in women allocated to caseload midwifery, when compared with those who received traditional midwifery care (5.1% vs 11.2%; risk ratio: 0.41; p=0.02; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86; number needed to treat: 11.9). Caesarean section births were significantly reduced in women allocated to caseload midwifery care, when compared with traditional midwifery care (24.3% vs 38.0%; risk ratio: 0.64: p=0.01; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.90; number needed to treat: 7.4) including emergency caesarean deliveries (15.2% vs 22.5%; risk ratio: 0.59; p=0.03; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94; number needed to treat: 10) without increase in neonatal unit admission or stillbirth.ConclusionThis study shows that a model of caseload midwifery care implemented in an inner city deprived community improves outcome by significantly reducing preterm birth and birth by caesarean section when compared with traditional care. This data trend suggests that when applied to targeted groups (women in higher IMD quintile and women of diverse ethnicity) that the impact of intervention is greater.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospital for older adults admitted as an emergency.Search strategyWe searched the EPOC Register, Cochrane's Controlled Trials Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AARP Ageline, and handsearched high yield journals.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of comprehensive geriatric assessment (whether by mobile teams or in designated wards) compared with usual care. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process used to determine the medical, psychological, and functional capabilities of a frail elderly person to develop a coordinated and integrated plan for treatment and long term follow-up.Data collection and analysisThree independent reviewers assessed eligibility and trial quality and extracted published data. Two additional reviewers moderated.ResultsTwenty two trials evaluating 10,315 participants in six countries were identified. For the primary outcome "living at home," patients who underwent comprehensive geriatric assessment were more likely to be alive and in their own homes at the end of scheduled follow-up (odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.28; P = 0.003; number needed to treat 33) at a median follow-up of 12 months versus 1.25 (1.11 to 1.42; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 17) at a median follow-up of six months) compared with patients who received general medical care. In addition, patients were less likely to be living in residential care (0.78, 0.69 to 0.88; P < 0.001). Subgroup interaction suggested differences between the subgroups "wards" and "teams" in favour of wards. Patients were also less likely to die or experience deterioration (0.76, 0.64 to 0.90; P = 0.001) and were more likely to experience improved cognition (standardised mean difference 0.08, 0.01 to 0.15; P = 0.02) in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group.ConclusionsComprehensive geriatric assessment increases patients' likelihood of being alive and in their own homes after an emergency admission to hospital. This seems to be especially true for trials of wards designated for comprehensive geriatric assessment and is associated with a potential cost reduction compared with general medical care.

Project description:Older multimorbid frail subjects have been severely involved in the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the clinical features and outcomes of patients admitted in different phases of the outbreak in a COVID-19 hospital hub, with a particular focus on age, multimorbidity, and functional dependency. The clinical records of 1264 patients with clinical and radiological features compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted in February-June, 2020, were analyzed, retrieving demographical, clinical, laboratory data, and outcomes. All variables were compared after stratification by the period of admission (first phase: rising slope of pandemic wave; second phase: plateau and falling slope), age, results of the first reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), multimorbidity (≥2 chronic diseases), and presence of disability. Factors independently associated with hospital mortality were determined by multivariate forward-selection logistic regression. Patients admitted during the second phase were older, more frequently multimorbid, disabled, and of female gender. However, on admission they exhibited milder respiratory impairment (PaO2/FiO2 268, IQR 174-361, vs. 238, IQR 126-327 mmHg, p < 0.001) and lower mortality (22% vs. 27%, p < 0.001). Age, respiratory exchanges, positive RT-PCR test, number of chronic diseases (odds ratio (OR) 1.166, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.036-1.313, p = 0.011), and disability (OR 1.927, 95% CI 1.027-3.618, p = 0.022) were positively associated with mortality, while admission during the second phase exhibited an inverse association (OR 0.427, 95% CI 0.260-0.700, p = 0.001). In conclusion, older multimorbid patients were mainly hospitalized during the second phase of the pandemic wave. The prognosis was strongly influenced by the COVID-19 phenotype and period of admission, not just by age, multimorbidity, and disability.

Project description:Introduction Older adults are clinically heterogeneous and are at increased risk of adverse outcomes during hospitalisation due to the presence of multiple comorbid conditions and reduced homoeostatic reserves. Acute geriatric units (AGUs) are units designed with their own physical location and structure, which provide care to older adults during the acute phase of illness and are underpinned by an interdisciplinary comprehensive geriatric assessment model of care. This review aims to update and synthesise the totality of evidence related to the effectiveness of AGU care on clinical and process outcomes among older adults admitted to hospital with acute medical complaints. Design Updated systematic review and meta-analysis Methods and analysis MEDLINE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library and Embase electronic databases will be systematically searched from 2008 to February 2021. Trials with a randomised design that deliver an AGU intervention to older adults admitted to hospital for acute medical complaints will be included. The primary outcome measure will be functional decline at discharge from hospital and at follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include length of stay, cost of index admission, incidence of unscheduled hospital readmission, living at home (the inverse of death or institutionalisation combined; used to describe someone who is in their own home at follow‐up), mortality, cognitive function and patient satisfaction with index admission. Title and abstract screening of studies for full-text extraction will be conducted independently by two authors. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included trials. The quality of evidence for outcomes reported will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. A pooled meta-analysis will be conducted using Review Manager, depending on the uniformity of the data. Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required as all data collected will be secondary data and will be analysed anonymously. The authors will present the findings of the review to a patient and public involvement stakeholder panel of older adults that has been established at the Ageing Research Centre in the University of Limerick. This will enable the views and opinions of older adults to be integrated into the discussion section of the paper. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021237633.