Dataset Information

[University emergency departments in the corona pandemic-Results from the ReCovER registry].

ABSTRACT:

Background

The current COVID-19 pandemic, despite the availability of rapid tests and the start of the vaccination campaign, continues to pose major challenges to emergency departments (ED). Structured collection of demographic, clinical, as well as treatment-related data provides the basis for establishing evidence-based processes and treatment concepts.

Aim of the work

To present the systematic collection of clinical parameters in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the Registry for COVID-19 in the Emergency Room (ReCovER) and descriptive presentation of the first 1000 patients.

Materials and methods

Data from patients with suspected COVID-19, regardless of evidence of SARS-CoV‑2 infection, are continuously entered into a web-based, anonymized registry in ED at six university hospitals.

Results

Between 19 May 2020 and 13 January 2021, 1000 patients were entered into the registry, of whom 594 patients (59.4%) were in the SARS-CoV‑2 positive group (PG) and 406 patients (40.6%) were in the negative group (NG). Patients of the PG had significantly fewer pre-existing conditions and a significantly longer latency between symptom onset and presentation to the ED (median 5 vs. 3 days), were more likely to suffer from cough, myalgia, fatigue, and loss of smell/taste and had significantly higher oxygen requirements than NG patients. The rate of severe disease progression was significantly higher in the PG, and persistent symptoms were more common after discharge (11.1 vs. 4.6%).

Conclusions

The multicenter collection of comprehensive clinical data on COVID-19 suspected cases in the ED allows analysis of aspects specific to the situation in Germany in particular. This is essential for a targeted review and adaptation of internationally published strategies.

SUBMITTER: Suarez V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8408818 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, German health care centres were restructured for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. This was accompanied by the suspension of the surgical programme. The aim of the survey was to determine the effects of COVID-19 on surgical care in non-university hospitals in Germany.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was based on an anonymous online survey, which was accessible from April 24th to May 10th, 2020 for surgeons of the Konvent der leitenden Krankenhauschirurgen (Convention of leading Hospital Surgeons) in Germany. The analysis comprised of 22.8% (n = 148/649) completed surveys.ResultsCommunication and cooperation with authorities, hospital administration and other departments were largely considered sufficient. In the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, 28.4% (n = 42/148) of the respondents complained about a short supply of protective equipment available for the hospital staff. 7.4% (n = 11/148) of the participants stated that emergency operations had to be postponed or rescheduled. A decreased quantity of emergency surgical procedures and a decreased number of surgical emergency patients treated in the emergency room was reported in 43.9% (n = 65/148) and 63.5% (n = 94/148), respectively. Consultation and treatment of oncological patients in the outpatient clinic was decreased in 54.1% (n = 80/148) of the surveyed hospitals. To increase the capacity for COVID-19 patients, a reduction of bed and operating room occupancy of 50.8 ± 19.3% and 54.2 ± 19.1% were reported, respectively. Therefore, 90.5% (n = 134/148) of all participants expected a loss of revenue of 28.2 ± 12.9% in 2020.ConclusionThe first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on surgical care in Germany. The reduction in the bed and the operating room capacity may have lead to considerable delays in urgent and semi-elective surgical interventions. In addition to the risk of worsening patient care, we anticipate severe financial damage to the clinics in 2020 and beyond. National and supranational planning is urgently needed to ensure the surgical care of patients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundThe onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by rapid increases in Emergency department (ED) patient visits. EDs required an appropriate transformation. The main challenges were: adapting capacity to respond to surges in the number of patient visits, protection of high risk (frontline) staff and the segregation of suspect-COVID-19 patients. To date, only a few studies have assessed the nation-wide response of EDs to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was designed to review the preparations of Dutch EDs during the initial phase of this public health crisis.MethodsThe study was designed as a nation-wide, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study of Dutch hospital organizations having one or more EDs. One respondent completed the questionnaire for each hospital. The questionnaire was conducted between the first and the second COVID-19 wave in the Netherlands. It contained close-ended and open-ended questions on changes in ED infrastructure, ED workforce adaptions and the role of emergency physicians (EPs) in each hospital crisis management team.ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 58 respondents. This represented 80% of the total number of EDs. All respondents had made preparations in anticipation of a COVID-19 patient surge. Treatment capacity was expanded in 70% of EDs, with a median increase of 49% (IQR 33-73%). Suspect-COVID-19 was segregated from non-COVID-19 patients in 89% of EDs. Alternative locations (such as outpatient departments) were more often used to assess non-COVID-19 patients, than for suspect-COVID-19 patients. Staff was expanded in 82% of EDs. This largely concerned nursing staff. A formal role for Emergency Physicians (EPs) in the hospital's crisis management team was reported by 94% of hospital organizations employing EPs.ConclusionAll Dutch EDs responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in a very short time span despite much uncertainty. Preparations predominantly concerned expansion of treatment capacity and segregation of COVID-19 ED care. EPs played a prominent role, both in direct COVID-19 care and in the hospital crises management team. It is vital for EDs to adapt to community needs swiftly. The ability of EDs to respond to the pandemic varied considerably.

Project description:IntroductionDuring the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, there were substantial changes in United States (U.S.) emergency department (ED) volumes and acuity of patient presentation compared to more recent years. Thus, the purpose of this study was to characterize the incidence of specific upper extremity (UE) injuries presenting to U.S. EDs during the COVID-19 pandemic and analyze trends across age groups and rates of hospital admission compared to years prior.MethodsThe National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database was queried to identify patients who presented to U.S. EDs for an UE orthopaedic injury between 2016 and 2020. Chi-square analysis and logistic regression were used to assess for differences in ED presentation volume and hospital admissions between pre-pandemic (2016 through 2019) and during-pandemic (2020) times.ResultsThese queries returned 285,583 cases, representing a total estimate of 10,452,166 injuries presenting to EDs across the U.S. The mean incidence of UE orthopaedic injuries was 640.2 (95% CI, 638.2-642.3) injuries per 100,000 person-years, with the greatest year to year decrease in incidence occurring between 2019 and 2020 (20.1%). The largest number of estimated admissions occurred in 2020, with a total 135,018 admissions (95% CI, 131,518-138,517), a 41.6% increase from the average number of admissions between 2016 and 2019.ConclusionThere was a 20.1% decrease in the incidence of UE orthopaedic injuries presenting to EDs after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic with a concomitant 41.2% increase in the number of hospital admissions from the ED in 2020 compared to recent pre-pandemic years. We speculate that at least some elective, semi-elective or urgent ambulatory surgeries were canceled or delayed due to the pandemic and were subsequently directed to the ED for admission. Regardless of the cause of increased UE orthopaedic admissions, policy planners and administrators should be aware of the additional stresses placed on already burdened ED and inpatient services.Level of evidenceLevel III - Retrospective Cohort Study.

Project description:The objective of this study was to determine the clinical profile of and diagnostic and therapeutic approach to patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Spanish Emergency Departments (EDs). Risk factors, adherence to clinical practice guidelines, and outcomes were also evaluated.Patients with VTE diagnosed in 53 Spanish EDs were prospectively and consecutively included. Demographic data, comorbidities, risk factors for VTE, index event characteristics, hemorrhagic risk, and mortality were evaluated. Adherence to clinical practice guidelines was assessed based on clinical probability scales, requests for determination of D-dimer, use of anticoagulant treatment before confirmation of diagnosis, and assessment of bleeding and prognostic risk. Recurrence, bleeding, and death during admission and at 30, 90, and 180 days after diagnosis in the EDs were recorded.From 549,840 ED visits made over a mean period of 40 days, 905 patients were diagnosed with VTE (incidence 1.6 diagnoses per 1000 visits). The final analysis included 801 patients, of whom 49.8% had pulmonary embolism. The most frequent risk factors for VTE were age (≥70 years), obesity, and new immobility. Clinical probability, prognosis, and bleeding risk scales were recorded in only 7.6%, 7.5%, and 1% of cases, respectively. D-dimer was determined in 87.2% of patients with a high clinical probability of VTE, and treatment was initiated before confirmation in only 35.9% of these patients. In patients with pulmonary embolism, 31.3% had a low risk of VTE. Overall, 98.7% of patients with pulmonary embolism and 50.2% of patients with deep venous thrombosis were admitted. During follow-up, total bleeding was more frequent than recurrences: the rates of any bleeding event were 4.4%, 3.9%, 5.3%, and 3.5% at admission and at 30 and 90, and 180 days, respectively; the rates of VTE recurrence were 2.3%, 1.3%, 1.7%, and 0.6%, respectively. Mortality rates were 3.4%, 3.1%, 4.1%, and 2.6% during hospitalization and at 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively.VTE had a substantial impact on Spanish EDs. The clinical presentation and risk profile for the development of VTE in patients diagnosed in the EDs was similar to that recorded in previous studies. During follow-up, bleeding (overall) was more frequent than recurrences. Adherence to clinical practice guidelines could improve significantly.