Abstract Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged healthcare globally. An acute increase in the number of hospitalized patients has neces‑ sitated a rigorous reorganization of hospital care, thereby creating circumstances that previously have been identifed as facilitating prescribing errors (PEs), e.g. a demanding work environment, a high turnover of doctors, and prescrib‑ ing beyond expertise. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may be at risk of PEs, potentially resulting in patient harm. We determined the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs in post–COVID-19 patients, hospitalized during the frst wave of COVID-19 in the Netherlands, 3months after discharge. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study recruited patients who visited a post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic of an academic hospital in the Netherlands, 3months after COVID-19 hospitalization, between June 1 and October 1 2020. All patients with appointments were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence and severity of PEs were assessed in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for PEs. Results: Ninety-eight patients were included, of whom 92% had ≥1 PE and 8% experienced medication-related harm requiring an immediate change in medication therapy to prevent detoriation. Overall, 68% of all identifed PEs were made during or after the COVID-19 related hospitalization. Multivariate analyses identifed ICU admission (OR 6.08, 95% CI 2.16–17.09) and a medical history of COPD / asthma (OR 5.36, 95% CI 1.34–21.5) as independent risk fac‑ tors for PEs. Conclusions: PEs occurred frequently during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patients admitted to an ICU during COVID19 hospitalization or who had a medical history of COPD / asthma were at risk of PEs. These risk factors can be used to identify high-risk patients and to implement targeted interventions. Awareness of prescribing safely is crucial to prevent harm in this new patient population.
MULTIFILE
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.
DOCUMENT
A new viral illness called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently spreading throughout the world at an alarming rate (Dong et al., 2020). As family nursing practitioners, educators, and researchers, we work from a guiding assumption that health and “illness is a family affair” (Wright & Bell, 2009, p. ix). Patients, clients, residents, and their families are inextricably connected. The science and practice of Family Nursing is based on a systemic premise offered by Wright and Leahey (2013) that serious illness and life challenges impact the family unit, and reciprocally, the functioning of the family unit (including their structure, development, and function) influences the health and well-being of each family member. This especially holds true for the current coronavirus pandemic which is creating unique hardships and suffering in an alarmingly large number of patients and their families around the world.
DOCUMENT
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is rapidly expanding across the world, with more than 100,000 new cases each day as of end-June 2020. Healthcare workers are struggling to provide the best care for COVID-19 patients. Approaches for invasive ventilation vary widely between and within countries and new insights are acquired rapidly. We aim to investigate invasive ventilation practices and outcome in COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands.Methods: PRoVENT-COVID ('study of PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19') is an investigator-initiated national, multicenter observational study to be undertaken in intensive care units (ICUs) in The Netherlands. Consecutive COVID-19 patients aged 18 years or older, who are receiving invasive ventilation in the participating ICUs, are to be enrolled during a 10-week period, with a daily follow-up of 7 days. The primary outcome is ventilatory management (including tidal volume expressed as mL/kg predicted body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure expressed as cmH2O) during the first 3 days of ventilation. Secondary outcomes include other ventilatory variables, use of rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia such as prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, use of sedatives, vasopressors and inotropes; daily cumulative fluid balances; acute kidney injury; ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), duration of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital and 90-day mortality.Discussion: PRoVENT-COVID will be the largest observational study to date, with high density ventilatory data and major outcomes. There is urgent need for a better understanding of ventilation practices, and the effects of ventilator settings on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The results of PRoVENT-COVID will be rapidly disseminated through electronic presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in international peer-reviewed journals. Access to source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets on request, and after agreement of the PRoVENT-COVID steering committee.Trial Registration: PRoVENT-COVID is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT04346342).
DOCUMENT
The aim of this analysis was to compare ventilation management and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between the first and second wave in the Netherlands. This is a post hoc analysis of two nationwide observational COVID-19 studies conducted in quick succession. The primary endpoint was ventilation management. Secondary endpoints were tracheostomy use, duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality. We used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors. This analysis included 1122 patients from the first and 568 patients from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were sicker, had more comorbidities, and had worse oxygenation parameters. They were ventilated with lower positive end-expiratory pressure and higher fraction inspired oxygen, had a lower oxygen saturation, received neuromuscular blockade more often, and were less often tracheostomized. Duration of ventilation was shorter, but mortality rates were similar. After matching, the fraction of inspired oxygen was lower in the second wave. In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, aspects of respiratory care and outcomes rapidly changed over the successive waves.
DOCUMENT
Objective: We determined the prevalences of hyperoxemia and excessive oxygen use, and the epidemiology, ventilation characteristics and outcomes associated with hyperoxemia in invasively ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19). Methods: Post hoc analysis of a national, multicentre, observational study in 22 ICUs. Patients were classified in the first two days of invasive ventilation as ‘hyperoxemic’ or ‘normoxemic’. The co–primary endpoints were prevalence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 90 mmHg) and prevalence of excessive oxygen use (FiO2 ≥ 60% while PaO2 > 90 mmHg or SpO2 > 92%). Secondary endpoints included ventilator settings and ventilation parameters, duration of ventilation, length of stay (LOS) in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU, hospital, and at day 28 and 90. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors that may influence endpoints. Results: Of 851 COVID–19 patients, 225 (26.4%) were classified as hyperoxemic. Excessive oxygen use occurred in 385 (45.2%) patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity was lowest in hyperoxemic patients. Hyperoxemic patients were ventilated with higher positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP), while rescue therapies for hypoxemia were applied more often in normoxemic patients. Neither in the unmatched nor in the matched analysis were there differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients with regard to any of the clinical outcomes. Conclusion: In this cohort of invasively ventilated COVID–19 patients, hyperoxemia occurred often and so did excessive oxygen use. The main differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients were ARDS severity and use of PEEP. Clinical outcomes were not different between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients.
DOCUMENT
A key policy measure introduced by governments worldwide at the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was to restrict travel, highlighting the importance of people's mobility as one of the key contributors to spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there was little consistency regarding the geographical scale or the severity of these measures. Little use was made of commuting and travel data to inform decisions on when, where and at what level restrictions should be applied. We aim to contribute to regional policy by providing evidence that could be used to inform future policy debates on the most effective travel restrictions to impose during a pandemic. We present an analysis of the impact of mobility between municipalities on COVID-19 incidence in the Netherlands. We used multiple linear regression models and geographical information systems to gain insight into the association between mobility-related factors and demographic, socio-economic and geographical factors with COVID-19 incidence in municipalities. Our results indicate that spatial mobility patterns, when combined with COVID-19 incidence in municipalities of origin, were associated with increased COVID-19 incidence in municipalities of destination. In addition, various regional characteristics were associated with municipal incidence. By conducting our analyses over three different periods, we highlight the importance of time for COVID-19 incidence. In the light of ongoing mitigation measures (and possible future events), spatial mobility patterns should be a key factor in exploring regional mobility restrictions as an alternative for national lockdowns.
DOCUMENT
What is known in scientific literature at this point in time about the effects of the measures against the transmission of the coronavirus and what is the meaning of this for the organisers of events?
DOCUMENT
Background: During COVID-19 measures face-to-face contact is limited and professional carers have to find other ways to support people with intellectual disabilities. COVID-19 measures can increase stress in people with intellectual disabilities, although some people may adapt to or grow from these uncertain situations. Resilience is the process of effectively negotiating, adapting to, or managing significant sources of stress and trauma. The current study aims to provide professional carers with new insights into how they can support people with intellectual disabilities. Method: An online survey was shared through the social media and organizational newsletters of MEE ZHN (a non-governmental organization for people with disabilities). The resilience framework by Ungar (2019) was adapted to fit to people with intellectual disabilities during COVID-19 measures. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS statistics version 26. Results: Results show that professional carers applied diverse and distal methods to maintain contact with people with intellectual disabilities during the COVID-19 measures. Professional carers reported a significant decrease in the quality of contact with clients with intellectual disabilities, but overall high levels of resilience in the same clients. Implications: Online methods of communication are possibly insufficient for professionals to cover all needs of people with intellectual disabilities. During this pandemic professionals should be aware of stress but also of resilience in people with intellectual disabilities.
DOCUMENT
Praktische aanbevelingen op basis van bevindingen uit systematisch literatuuronderzoek bij de Covid-19 en vergelijkbare virusuitbraken en interviews met experts en ervaringsdeskundigen.
DOCUMENT
