Characteristics of frequent emergency department presenters to an Australian emergency medicine network

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To describe the characteristics of emergency department (ED) patients defined as frequent presenters (FP) presenting to an Australian emergency department network and compare these with a cohort of non-frequent presenters (NFP).</p> <p>Method</p> <p>A retrospective chart review utilising an electronic emergency medicine patient medical record database was performed on patients presenting to Southern Health EDs from March 2009 to March 2010. Non-frequent presenters were defined as patients presenting less than 5 times and frequent presenters as presenting 8 or more times in the study period. Characteristics of both groups were described and compared.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During the 12-month study period there were 540 FP patients with 4549 admissions and 73,089 NFP patients with 100,943 admissions. FP patients were slightly older with a significant increase in frequency of patients between the ages of 70 to 79 years and they were more likely to be divorced or separated than NFP patients. Frequent presenters to the emergency department were more likely to utilise the ambulance service to arrive at the hospital, or in the custody of police than NFP patients. FPs were more likely to be admitted to hospital, more likely to have an admission to a mental health bed than NFP patients and more likely to self-discharge from the emergency department while waiting for care.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There are major implications for the utilisation of limited ED resources by frequent presenters. By further understanding the characteristics of FP we may be able to address the specific health care needs of this population in more efficient and cost effective ways. Further research analysing the effectiveness of targeted multidisciplinary interventions aiming to reduce the frequency of ED attendances may be warranted.</p

Characterising long COVID: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND: While it is now apparent clinical sequelae (long COVID) may persist after acute COVID-19, their nature, frequency and aetiology are poorly characterised. This study aims to regularly synthesise evidence on long COVID characteristics, to help inform clinical management, rehabilitation strategies and interventional studies to improve long-term outcomes. METHODS: A living systematic review. Medline, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database, LitCovid and Google Scholar were searched till 17 March 2021. Studies including at least 100 people with confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 at 12 weeks or more post onset were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the tool produced by Hoy et al. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and meta-analyses to estimate prevalence. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies were included: 32 cohort, 6 cross-sectional and 1 case-control. Most showed high or moderate risk of bias. None were set in low-income countries and few included children. Studies reported on 10 951 people (48% female) in 12 countries. Most included previously hospitalised people (78%, 8520/10 951). The longest mean follow-up time was 221.7 (SD: 10.9) days post COVID-19 onset. Over 60 physical and psychological signs and symptoms with wide prevalence were reported, most commonly weakness (41%; 95% CI 25% to 59%), general malaise (33%; 95% CI 15% to 57%), fatigue (31%; 95% CI 24% to 39%), concentration impairment (26%; 95% CI 21% to 32%) and breathlessness (25%; 95% CI 18% to 34%). 37% (95% CI 18% to 60%) of patients reported reduced quality of life; 26% (10/39) of studies presented evidence of reduced pulmonary function. CONCLUSION: Long COVID is a complex condition with prolonged heterogeneous symptoms. The nature of studies precludes a precise case definition or risk evaluation. There is an urgent need for prospective, robust, standardised, controlled studies into aetiology, risk factors and biomarkers to characterise long COVID in different at-risk populations and settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020211131

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development

Background A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. Main text While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. Conclusions A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations

Accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of COVID-19 clinical management guidelines early in the pandemic: a global survey

Background: With a rapidly changing evidence base, high-quality clinical management guidelines (CMGs) are key tools for aiding clinical decision making and increasing access to best available evidence-based care. A rapid review of COVID-19 CMGs found most lacked methodological rigour, overlooked at-risk populations, and varied in treatment recommendations. Furthermore, social science literature highlights the complexity of implementing guidelines in local contexts where they were not developed and the resulting potential to compound health inequities. This study aimed to evaluate access to, inclusivity of, and implementation of COVID-19 CMGs in different settings. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of clinicians worldwide was conducted from 15th June to 20th July 2020, to explore access to and implementation of COVID-19 CMGs, and treatment and supportive care recommendations provided. Data on accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of CMGs were analysed by geographic location. Results: 76 clinicians from 27 countries responded: 82% from high-income countries, 17% from lower middle-income countries (LMICs). Most respondents reported access to COVID-19 CMGs and confidence in their implementation. However, many respondents, particularly from LMICs, reported barriers to implementation, including limited access to treatment and equipment. Only 20% of respondents reported having access to CMGs covering care for children, 25% for pregnant women, and 50% for older adults (>65 years). Identified themes were for CMGs to include recommendations for at-risk populations and settings, include supportive care guidance, and be updated as evidence emerges, and for clinicians to have training and access to recommended treatments to support implementation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight important gaps in COVID-19 CMG development and implementation challenges during a pandemic, particularly affecting at-risk populations and lower resourced settings. This study identifies an urgent need for an improved CMG development framework that is inclusive and adaptable to emerging evidence and considers contextual implementation support, to improve access to evidence-based care globally

Accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of COVID-19 clinical management guidelines early in the pandemic: a global survey

&lt;h4&gt;Background&lt;/h4&gt; With a rapidly changing evidence base, high-quality clinical management guidelines (CMGs) are key tools for aiding clinical decision making and increasing access to best available evidence-based care. A rapid review of COVID-19 CMGs found that most lacked methodological rigour, overlooked many at-risk populations, and had variations in treatment recommendations. Furthermore, social science literature highlights the complexity of implementing guidelines in local contexts where they were not developed and the resulting potential to compound health inequities. The aim of this study was to evaluate access to, inclusivity of, and implementation of Covid-19 CMGs in different settings. &lt;h4&gt;Methods&lt;/h4&gt; A cross-sectional survey of clinicians worldwide from 15 June to 20 July 2020, to explore access to and implementation of Covid-19 CMGs and treatment and supportive care recommendations provided. Data on accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of CMGs. were analyzed by geographic location. &lt;h4&gt;Results&lt;/h4&gt; Seventy-six clinicians, from 27 countries responded, 82% from high-income countries, 17% from low-middle income countries. Most respondents reported access to Covid-19 CMG and confidence in implementation of these. However, many respondents, particularly from LMICs reported barriers to implementation, including limited access to treatments and equipment. Only 20% of respondents reported having access to CMGs covering care for children, 25% for pregnant women and 50% for older adults (&gt;65 years). Themes emerging were for CMGs to include recommendations for different at-risk populations, and settings, include supportive care guidance, be readily updated as evidence emerges, and CMG implementation supported by training, and access to treatments recommended. &lt;h4&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h4&gt; Our findings highlight important gaps in Covid-19 CMG development and implementation challenges during a pandemic, particularly affecting different at-risk populations and lower resourced settings., to improve access in evidence-based care recommendations during an emergency. The findings identifies an urgent need for an improved framework for CMG development, that is inclusive and adaptable to emerging evidence and considers contextual implementation support, to improve access to evidence-based care globally

Preparing for pandemics: a systematic review of pandemic influenza clinical management guidelines

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of evidence-based clinical decision-making. Clinical management guidelines (CMGs) may help reduce morbidity and mortality by improving the quality of clinical decisions. This systematic review aims to evaluate the availability, inclusivity, and quality of pandemic influenza CMGs, to identify gaps that can be addressed to strengthen pandemic preparedness in this area. Methods Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, TRIP (Turning Research Into Practice), and Guideline Central were searched systematically from January 2008 to 23rd June 2022, complemented by a grey literature search till 16th June 2022. Pandemic influenza CMGs including supportive care or empirical treatment recommendations were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed their quality using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). The findings are presented narratively. Results Forty-eight CMGs were included. They were produced in high- (42%, 20/48), upper-middle- (40%, 19/48), and lower-middle (8%, 4/48) income countries, or by international organisations (10%, 5/48). Most CMGs (81%, 39/48) were over 5 years old. Guidelines included treatment recommendations for children (75%, 36/48), pregnant women (54%, 26/48), people with immunosuppression (33%, 16/48), and older adults (29%, 14/48). Many CMGs were of low quality (median overall score: 3 out of 7 (range 1–7). All recommended oseltamivir; recommendations for other neuraminidase inhibitors and supportive care were limited and at times contradictory. Only 56% (27/48) and 27% (13/48) addressed oxygen and fluid therapy, respectively. Conclusions Our data highlights the limited availability of up-to-date pandemic influenza CMGs globally. Of those identified, many were limited in scope and quality and several lacked recommendations for specific at-risk populations. Recommendations on supportive care, the mainstay of treatment, were limited and heterogeneous. The most recent guideline highlighted that the evidence-base to support antiviral treatment recommendations is still limited. There is an urgent need for trials into treatment and supportive care strategies including for different risk populations. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient outcomes. A ‘living guideline’ framework is recommended and further research into guideline implementation in different resourced settings, particularly low- and middle-income countries

Availability, scope and quality of monkeypox clinical management guidelines globally: a systematic review

Background Monkeypox (MPX) is an important human Orthopoxvirus infection. There has been an increase in MPX cases and outbreaks in endemic and non-endemic regions in recent decades. We appraised the availability, scope, quality and inclusivity of clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. Methods For this systematic review, we searched six databases from inception until 14 October 2021, augmented by a grey literature search until 17 May 2022. MPX guidelines providing treatment and supportive care recommendations were included, with no exclusions for language. Two reviewers assessed the guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Results Of 2026 records screened, 14 guidelines were included. Overall, most guidelines were of low-quality with a median score of 2 out of 7 (range: 1–7), lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Most guidelines focused on adults, five (36%) provided some advice for children, three (21%) for pregnant women and three (21%) for people living with HIV. Treatment guidance was mostly limited to advice on antivirals; seven guidelines advised cidofovir (four specified for severe MPX only); 29% (4/14) tecovirimat, and 7% (1/14) brincidofovir. Only one guideline provided recommendations on supportive care and treatment of complications. All guidelines recommended vaccination as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Three guidelines advised on vaccinia immune globulin as PEP for severe cases in people with immunosuppression. Conclusion Our results highlight a lack of evidence-based clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. There is a clear and urgent need for research into treatment and prophylaxis including for different risk populations. The current outbreak provides an opportunity to accelerate this research through coordinated high-quality studies. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient and epidemic outcomes. A ‘living guideline’ framework is recommended. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020167361

Standard of care for viral haemorrhagic fevers (VHFs): a systematic review of clinical management guidelines for high-priority VHFs

The Sudan virus disease outbreak in Uganda in 2022 showed our vulnerability to viral haemorrhagic fevers (VHFs). Although there are regular outbreaks of VHFs with high morbidity and mortality, which disproportionally affect low-income settings, our understanding of how to treat them remains inadequate. In this systematic review, we aim to explore the availability, scope, standardisation, and quality of clinical management guidelines for VHFs. We identified 32 guidelines, 25 (78%) of which were low quality and did not have supporting evidence and eight (25%) of which had been produced or updated in the past 3 years. Guidance on supportive care and therapeutics had little detail and was sometimes contradictory. Guidelines based on uncertain evidence are a risk to patients, an ethical challenge for clinicians, and a challenge to implementing trials due to heterogeneous standards of care. We recommend a standard living guideline framework to improve the quality, scope, and applicability of guidelines. Furthermore, investments into trials should aim to identify optimal treatment strategies for VHFs and prioritise affordable and scalable interventions to improve outcomes globall

An evaluation of global Chikungunya clinical management guidelines: a systematic review

Background Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) has expanded its geographical reach in recent decades and is an emerging global health threat. CHIKV can cause significant morbidity and lead to chronic, debilitating arthritis/arthralgia in up to 40% of infected individuals. Prevention, early identification, and clinical management are key for improving outcomes. The aim of this review is to evaluate the quality, availability, inclusivity, and scope of evidence-based clinical management guidelines (CMG) for CHIKV globally. Methods We conducted a systematic review. Six databases were searched from Jan 1, 1989, to 14 Oct 2021 and grey literature until Sept 16, 2021, for CHIKV guidelines providing supportive care and treatment recommendations. Quality was assessed using the appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool. Findings are presented in a narrative synthesis. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020167361. Findings 28 CMGs were included; 54% (15/28) were produced more than 5 years ago, and most were of low-quality (median score 2 out of 7 (range 1–7)). There were variations in the CMGs’ guidance on the management of different at-risk populations, long-term sequelae, and the prevention of disease transmission. While 54% (15/28) of CMGs recommended hospitalisation for severe cases, only 39% (11/28) provided guidance for severe disease management. Further, 46% (13/28) advocated for steroids in the chronic phase, but 18% (5/28) advised against its use. Interpretation There was a lack of high-quality CMGs that provided supportive care and treatment guidance, which may impact patient care and outcomes. It is essential that existing guidelines are updated and adapted to provide detailed evidence-based treatment guidelines for different at-risk populations. This study also highlights a need for more research into the management of the acute and chronic phases of CHIKV infection to inform evidence-based care.</p