Characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving Hospital at Home Services in the South West of Sydney

Background: Hospital at home (HaH) provides acute or subacute care in a patient’s home, that normally would require a hospital stay. HaH has consistently been shown to improve patient outcomes and reduce health care costs. The characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving HaH care across the South Western Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD) has not been well described. This project aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of HaH services across the SWSLHD. Methods: The characteristics of patients referred to HaH between January 2017 and December 2019, the indications for HaH, and representation rates to hospital emergency department (ED) will be presented. Results: Between January 2017 and December 2019 there was 7118 referrals to the local health district’s (LHD) HaH services, among 6083 patients (3094 females, 51%), median age 56 years (Interquartile range (IQR), 40–69). The majority of indications for HaH were for intravenous venous (IV) medications (78%, n = 5552), followed by post-operative drain management (11%, n = 789), rehab in the home (RiTH) (5%, n = 334), bridging anticoagulant therapy (4%, n = 261), and intraperitoneal medications (1%, n = 100). The requirement for presentation to an ED for care, while receiving HaH only occurred on 172 (2%) of occasions. The average length of HaH treatment was 7-days (IQR 4–16). Rates of presentation to ED for HaH patients have decreased since 2017, 3.4% (95% CI 2.7–4.2%), 2018 2.1% (95% CI 1.5–2.8%), and 2019 1.8% (95% CI 1.3–2.4%), p-value for trend < 0.001. Conclusion: Hospital at Home is well established, diverse, and safe clinical service to shorten, or avoid hospitalisation, for many patients. Importantly, avoidance of hospitalisation can avoid many risks that are associated with being cared for in the hospital setting

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses. Background: With a growing body of literature reporting the positive serology for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers, it remains unclear whether staff at the point of direct patient care are more prone to developing and transmitting the virus. Given nurses make up the majority of the global health workforce, outbreaks among these workers could severely undermine a health system’s capability to manage the pandemic. We aimed to summarise and report the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses globally. Design: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Methods: This systematic review was developed, undertaken and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. We searched the electronic medical literature databases: MEDLINE; CINAHL; and EMBASE for studies reporting the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nursing staff. Studies that reported nursing specific data were included in this review. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for studies reporting prevalence data. Studies were stratified according to the World Health Organisation region classifications, and results were presented using forest plots and summary prevalence and variance was estimated using a random effects model. Results: Our electronic search identified 1687 potential studies, of which 1148 were screened for eligibility after duplicates were removed, and 51 of the studies were included in our meta-analysis. The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses was estimated to be 8.1% (95% CI 6.9%–9.4%) among the 60,571 participants included in the studies. Seropositivity was highest in the African region (48.2%, 95% CI 39.2%–57.3%), followed by the European region (10.3%, 95% CI 8.0%–12.5%), the Region of the Americas (8.4%, 95% CI 6.0%–10.7%), the South-East Asia region (3.0%, 95% CI 0.00%–6.5%) and the Western Pacific region (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0%–1.0%). Pooled estimates were unable to be calculated in the Eastern Mediterranean region due to insufficient studies. Conclusion: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses is comparable to other healthcare workers, and possibly similar to the general population. Early adoption and adherence to personal protective equipment and social distancing measures could explain these similarities, meaning the majority of staff contracted the virus through community transmission and not in a healthcare setting. Relevance to clinical practice: Fear and uncertainty have been features of this pandemic, including among nurses. This meta-analysis should provide some comfort to nurses that risks are similar to community exposure when adequate PPE is available and there is an adherence to infection control measures

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis reports the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses. Background: With a growing body of literature reporting the positive serology for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers, it remains unclear whether staff at the point of direct patient care are more prone to developing and transmitting the virus. Given nurses make up the majority of the global health workforce, outbreaks among these workers could severely undermine a health system’s capability to manage the pandemic. We aimed to summarise and report the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses globally. Design: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Methods: This systematic review was developed, undertaken and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. We searched the electronic medical literature databases: MEDLINE; CINAHL; and EMBASE for studies reporting the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nursing staff. Studies that reported nursing specific data were included in this review. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for studies reporting prevalence data. Studies were stratified according to the World Health Organisation region classifications, and results were presented using forest plots and summary prevalence and variance was estimated using a random effects model. Results: Our electronic search identified 1687 potential studies, of which 1148 were screened for eligibility after duplicates were removed, and 51 of the studies were included in our meta-analysis. The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses was estimated to be 8.1% (95% CI 6.9%–9.4%) among the 60,571 participants included in the studies. Seropositivity was highest in the African region (48.2%, 95% CI 39.2%–57.3%), followed by the European region (10.3%, 95% CI 8.0%–12.5%), the Region of the Americas (8.4%, 95% CI 6.0%–10.7%), the South-East Asia region (3.0%, 95% CI 0.00%–6.5%) and the Western Pacific region (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0%–1.0%). Pooled estimates were unable to be calculated in the Eastern Mediterranean region due to insufficient studies. Conclusion: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses is comparable to other healthcare workers, and possibly similar to the general population. Early adoption and adherence to personal protective equipment and social distancing measures could explain these similarities, meaning the majority of staff contracted the virus through community transmission and not in a healthcare setting. Relevance to clinical practice: Fear and uncertainty have been features of this pandemic, including among nurses. This meta-analysis should provide some comfort to nurses that risks are similar to community exposure when adequate PPE is available and there is an adherence to infection control measures