Dataset Information

Healthcare-associated COVID-19 in England: A national data linkage study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Nosocomial transmission was an important aspect of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks. Healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in single and multi-site hospital-based studies in England, but not nationally.

Methods

Admission records for all hospitals in England were linked to SARS-CoV-2 national test data for the period 01/03/2020 to 31/08/2020. Case definitions were: community-onset community-acquired, first positive test <14 days pre-admission, up to day 2 of admission; hospital-onset indeterminate healthcare-associated, first positive on day 3-7; hospital-onset probable healthcare-associated, first positive on day 8-14; hospital-onset definite healthcare-associated, first positive from day 15 of admission until discharge; community-onset possible healthcare-associated, first positive test ≤14 days post-discharge.

Results

One-third (34.4%, 100,859/293,204) of all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were linked to a hospital record. Hospital-onset probable and definite cases represented 5.3% (15,564/293,204) of all laboratory-confirmed cases and 15.4% (15,564/100,859) of laboratory-confirmed cases among hospital patients. Community-onset community-acquired and community-onset possible healthcare-associated cases represented 86.5% (253,582/293,204) and 5.1% (14,913/293,204) of all laboratory-confirmed cases, respectively.

Conclusions

Up to 1 in 6 SARS-CoV-2 infections among hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in England during the first 6 months of the pandemic could be attributed to nosocomial transmission, but these represent less than 1% of the estimated 3 million COVID-19 cases in this period.

SUBMITTER: Bhattacharya A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8404398 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecently, studies have examined the underlying patient and practice factors for missed appointments, but less is known about the impact on patient health. People with one or more long-term conditions who fail to attend appointments may be at risk of premature death. This is the first study to examine the effect of missed primary healthcare appointments on all-cause mortality in those with long-term mental and physical health conditions.MethodsWe used a large, nationwide retrospective cohort (n = 824,374) extracted from routinely collected general practice data across Scotland over a 3-year period from September 2013 until September 2016. This data encompasses appointment history for approximately 15% of the Scottish population, and was linked to Scottish deaths records for patients who had died within a 16-month follow-up period. We generated appointment attendance history, number of long-term conditions and prescriptions data for patients. These factors were used in negative binomial and Cox's proportional hazards modelling to examine the risk of missing appointments and all-cause mortality.ResultsPatients with a greater number of long-term conditions had an increased risk of missing general practice appointments despite controlling for number of appointments made, particularly among patients with mental health conditions. These patients were at significantly greater risk of all-cause mortality, and showed a dose-based response with increasing number of missed appointments. Patients with long-term mental health conditions who missed more than two appointments per year had a greater than 8-fold increase in risk of all-cause mortality compared with those who missed no appointments. These patients died prematurely, commonly from non-natural external factors such as suicide.ConclusionsMissed appointments represent a significant risk marker for all-cause mortality, particularly in patients with mental health conditions. For these patients, existing primary healthcare appointment systems are ineffective. Future interventions should be developed with a particular focus on increasing attendance by these patients.

Project description:BackgroundThis study explores regional variations in COVID-19 hospitalization rates, in-hospital mortality, and acute kidney injury (AKI) in England. We investigated the influence of population demographic characteristics, viral strain changes, and therapeutic advances on clinical outcomes.MethodsUsing hospital episode statistics, we conducted a retrospective cohort study with 749,844 admissions in 337,029 adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection (March 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021). Multivariable logistic regression identified factors predicting AKI and mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients.ResultsLondon had the highest number of COVID-19 admissions (131,338, 18%), followed by the North-west region (122,683, 16%). The North-west had the highest population incidence of COVID-19 hospital admissions (21,167 per million population, pmp), while the South-west had the lowest (9,292 admissions pmp). Patients in London were relatively younger (67.0 ± 17.7 years) than those in the East of England (72.2 ± 16.8 years). The shortest length of stay was in the North-east (12.2 ± 14.9 days), while the longest was in the North-west (15.2 ± 17.9 days). All eight regions had higher odds of death compared to London, ranging from OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.00, 1.07) in the South-west to OR 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the North-west. Older age, Asian ethnicity, emergency admission, transfers from other hospitals, AKI presence, ITU admission, social deprivation, and comorbidity were associated with higher odds of death. AKI incidence was 30.3%, and all regions had lower odds of developing AKI compared to London. Increasing age, mixed and black ethnicity, emergency admission, transfers from other providers, ITU care, and different levels of comorbidity were associated with higher odds of developing AKI.ConclusionsLondon exhibited higher hospital admission numbers and AKI incidence, but lower odds of death compared to other regions in England.Trial registrationRegistered on National Library of Medicine website ( www.Clinicaltrialsgov ) with registration number NCT04579562 on 8/10/2020.

Project description:BackgroundHypoxaemia is an important predictor of severity in individuals with COVID-19 and can present without symptoms. The COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h) programme was implemented across England in November, 2020, providing pulse oximeters to higher-risk people with COVID-19 to enable early detection of deterioration and the need for escalation of care. We aimed to describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of individuals enrolled onto the programme and to assess whether there were any inequalities in enrolment.MethodsThis retrospective observational study was based on data from a cohort of people resident in England recorded as having a positive COVID-19 test between Oct 1, 2020, and May 3, 2021. The proportion of participants enrolled onto the CO@h programmes in the 7 days before and 28 days after a positive COVID-19 test was calculated for each clinical commissioning group (CCG) in England. Two-level hierarchical multivariable logistic regression with random intercepts for each CCG was run to identify factors predictive of being enrolled onto the CO@h programme.FindingsCO@h programme sites were reported by NHS England as becoming operational between Nov 21 and Dec 31, 2020. 1 227 405 people resident in 72 CCGs had a positive COVID-19 test between the date of programme implementation and May 3, 2021, of whom 19 932 (1·6%) were enrolled onto the CO@h programme. Of those enrolled, 14 441 (72·5%) were aged 50 years or older or were identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (ie, having a high-risk medical condition). Higher odds of enrolment onto the CO@h programme were found in older individuals (adjusted odds ratio 2·21 [95% CI 2·19-2·23], p<0·001, for those aged 50-64 years; 3·48 [3·33-3·63], p<0·001, for those aged 65-79 years; and 2·50 [2·34-2·68], p<0·001, for those aged ≥80 years), in individuals of non-White ethnicity (1·35 [1·28-1·43], p<0·001, for Asian individuals; 1·13 [1·04-1·22], p=0·005, for Black individuals; and 1·17 [1·03-1·32], p=0·015, for those of mixed ethnicity), in those who were overweight (1·31 [1·26-1·37], p<0·001) or obese (1·69 [1·63-1·77], p<0·001), or in those identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (1·58 [1·51-1·65], p<0·001), and lower odds were reported in those from the least socioeconomically deprived areas compared with those from the most socioeconomically deprived areas (0·75 [0·69-0·81]; p<0·001).InterpretationNationally, uptake of the CO@h programme was low, with clinical judgment used to determine eligibility. Preferential enrolment onto the pulse oximetry monitoring programme was observed in people known to be at the highest risk of developing severe COVID-19.FundingNHS England, National Institute for Health Research, and The Wellcome Trust.