INLEIDING In deze module worden behandeladviezen gegeven voor de Post-COVID-19 ambulante behandeling in de geriatrische revalidatie gericht op somatische-, functionele- en psychische status. Deze module is een onderdeel van het behandeladvies post-COVID-19 (geriatrische) revalidatie-Verenso. Deze module is in een zeer korte tijd tot stand gekomen en heeft de status van groeidocument. Zorgvuldigheid is betracht om zowel de (beperkte) ervaringskennis, als de actuele stand van de wetenschappelijke literatuur hierin te betrekken. Voor dit behandeladvies is gebruik gemaakt van het door GRZPLUS ontwikkeld ambulant revalidatieprogramma CO FIT+. Bij GRZPLUS is een doorontwikkeling gemaakt op basis van de update behandeladvies post-COVID-19 geriatrische revalidatie van Verenso (Verenso, 19-05-2020) welke is gebaseerd op de principes van longrevalidatie zoals vertaald in het Behandelprogramma geriatrische COPD-revalidatie (van Damvan Isselt et al.) en het Behandelprogramma COVID-19 Post IC, van Revalidatiecentrum de Hoogstraat (Brouwers, de Graaf). Dit is aangevuld met behandeladviezen en leidraden vanuit de beroepsverenigingen en kennis uit wetenschappelijk onderzoek (long-revalidatie) en vanuit het REACH netwerk (REhabilitation After Critical illness and Hospital discharge). De komende maanden zullen zowel de nieuwe wetenschappelijke literatuur als de ervaringen uit de praktijk gebruikt worden om de handreiking te verbeteren en zo nodig aan te vullen. Dat zullen wij doen met specialisten ouderengeneeskunde, revalidatieartsen, klinisch-geriaters, paramedici, longartsen, verpleegkundigen, infectie deskundigen, en andere betrokken beroepsgroepen. De revalidatie van ambulante post-COVID-19 patiënten vereist vooral afstemming binnen de multidisciplinaire zorg. De complexiteit en ernst van de problematiek en de interactie van beperkingen op diverse domeinen maakt dat interdisciplinaire behandeling essentieel is.
We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%—the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5–21.0) hours per full calendar day—the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0–23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0–19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO2 which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76–1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62–1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80–1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73–1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO2. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.
Background: A Dutch nationwide prospective cohort study was initiated to investigate recovery trajectories of people recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and costs of treatment by primary care allied health professionals. Objectives: The study described recovery trajectories over a period of 12 months and associated baseline characteristics of participants recovering from COVID-19 who visited a primary care allied health professional. It also aimed to provide insight into the associated healthcare and societal costs. Methods: Participants completed participant-reported standardized outcomes on participation, health-related quality of life, fatigue, physical functioning, and costs at baseline (ie, start of the treatment), 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Results: A total of 1451 participants (64 % women, 76 % mild/moderate severity) with a mean (SD) age of 49 (12) years were included. Linear mixed models showed significant and clinically relevant improvements over time in all outcome measures between baseline and 12 months. Between 6 and 12 months, we found significant but not clinically relevant improvements in most outcome measures. Having a worse baseline score was the only baseline factor that was consistently associated with greater improvement over time on that outcome. Total allied healthcare costs (mean €1921; SEM €48) made up about 3% of total societal costs (mean €64,584; SEM €3149) for the average participant in the cohort. Conclusions: The health status of participants recovering from COVID-19 who visited an allied health professional improved significantly over a 12-month follow-up period, but nearly the improvement occurred between baseline and 6 months. Most participants still reported severe impairments in their daily lives, and generated substantial societal costs. These issues, combined with the fact that baseline characteristics explained little of the variance in recovery over time, underscore the importance of continued attention for the management of people recovering from COVID-19. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov
MULTIFILE
