COVID-19:Recovering at home is not easy

OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into 1) the symptoms and the disease process of healthcare professionals (HCPs) who tested positive for COVID-19 and were not hospitalized because of mild symptoms, 2) the impact on their psychological well-being and 3) the experiences with (after) care and infection prevention measures.DESIGN: Explorative mixed-methods study.METHOD: The municipal public health services of Groningen and Fryslân invited all HCPs aged above 18 years who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 18th and April 3rd 2020 to fill out an online questionnaire (n = 109), on average one month after diagnosis. 18 HCPs participated in telephone interviews.RESULTS: Almost all HCPs mentioned fatigue as a long-term symptom, less frequently mentioned were, among other things, feeling physically weak and having a cold. Nearly half of them did not have a fever, two-thirds experienced stress. HCPs with comorbidity had more symptoms. The interviews showed that stress in particular occurred in families with children and because of uncertainty about the duration of infectiousness, with lack of good (after)care. Respondents experienced many negative reactions of people in their environment that felt stigmatizing. The isolation at home was considered bearable.CONCLUSION: A COVID-19 infection has a significant impact on physical and mental health, even in HCPs with mild symptoms. Persistent fatigue in particular hinders patients' functioning. The absence of fever in almost half of the respondents is remarkable, as well as the negative impact on psychological well-being. HCPs are also dissatisfied with after-care. Infection prevention measures were relatively well-adhered too.</p

Eerste covid-19-patiënten in Noord-Nederland

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate how patients experience the information, the source investigation and contact tracing and the measures in isolation at the start of a pandemic. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews was conducted as part of a larger exploratory mixed-methods study on COVID-19 patient experiences. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 people from Friesland and Groningen who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 9 March and 3 April 2020, recruited via maximum variation sampling. Thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: The following themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Information: Conflicting information by different advisors led to a lack of clarity. Patients admitted to hospital usually felt uninformed about the rules of home isolation after discharge. 2) Investigation into the source of infection: For most it was unclear whether and how this investigation took place. Some expected feedback on their suggestions. 3) Informing contacts: Not everyone felt able to inform the right contacts. Some felt stigmatized. 4) Living with the measures in home isolation: The recommended living rules were often not fully applied. Some patients felt insufficiently supported. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that not all COVID-19 patients felt well cared for at the start of the outbreak. Scaling down monitoring by the public health service can mean that questions about source and contact investigation and isolation remain unanswered or are answered by others. This leads to conflicting information and non-compliance with measures. The supervision of patients in isolation should be better guarded

Experience of first COVID-19 patients in Northern part of the Netherlands:Information provision, source investigation, contact tracing and home isolation

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate how patients experience the information, the source investigation and contact tracing and the measures in isolation at the start of a pandemic. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews was conducted as part of a larger exploratory mixed-methods study on COVID-19 patient experiences. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 people from Friesland and Groningen who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 9 March and 3 April 2020, recruited via maximum variation sampling. Thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: The following themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Information: Conflicting information by different advisors led to a lack of clarity. Patients admitted to hospital usually felt uninformed about the rules of home isolation after discharge. 2) Investigation into the source of infection: For most it was unclear whether and how this investigation took place. Some expected feedback on their suggestions. 3) Informing contacts: Not everyone felt able to inform the right contacts. Some felt stigmatized. 4) Living with the measures in home isolation: The recommended living rules were often not fully applied. Some patients felt insufficiently supported. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that not all COVID-19 patients felt well cared for at the start of the outbreak. Scaling down monitoring by the public health service can mean that questions about source and contact investigation and isolation remain unanswered or are answered by others. This leads to conflicting information and non-compliance with measures. The supervision of patients in isolation should be better guarded.</p