Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient Presentation and Perception to a Neurosurgical Outpatient Clinic

The Limited Utility of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score as a Frailty Assessment Tool in Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is an International Classification of Disease 10th Revision-based scale that was originally designed for, and validated in, the assessment of patients 75 years or older presenting in an acute care setting. This study highlights central tenets inherent to the concept of frailty; questions the logic behind, and utility of, HFRS' recent implementation in the neurosurgical literature; and discusses why there is no useful role for HFRS as a frailty-based neurosurgical risk assessment (FBNRA) tool.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review of the literature per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including all cranial and spinal studies that used HFRS as their primary frailty tool. Seventeen (N = 17) studies used HFRS to assess frailty's impact on neurosurgical outcomes. Thirteen total journals, 10 of which were neurosurgical journals, including the highest impact factor journals, published the 17 papers.

RESULTS

Increasing HFRS score was associated with adverse outcomes, including prolonged length of stay (11 of 17 studies), nonroutine discharge (10 of 17 studies), and increased hospital costs (9 of 17 studies). Four different HFRS studies, of the 17, predicted one of the following 4 adverse outcomes: worse quality of life, worse functional outcomes, reoperation, or in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Despite its rapid acceptance and widespread proliferation through the leading neurosurgical journals, HFRS lacks any conceptual relationship to the frailty syndrome or FBNRA for individual patients. HFRS measures acute conditions using International Classification of Disease 10th Revision codes and awards "frailty" points for symptoms and examination findings unrelated to the impaired baseline physiological reserve inherent to the very definition of frailty. HFRS lacks clinical utility as it cannot be deployed point-of-care at the bedside to risk stratify patients. HFRS has never been validated in any patient population younger than 75 years or in any nonacute care setting. We recommend HFRS be discontinued as an individual FBNRA tool.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Quality of Care of Treatment-Naïve Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Receiving Intravitreal Aflibercept

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of care received by treatment-naïve patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) who received intravitreal aflibercept therapy before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with patients who received the same therapy during the pandemic.

METHODS

Data, including best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) as the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and anatomical outcomes at diagnosis and at each follow-up, was collected on 297 treatment-naïve patients who received intravitreal aflibercept. Therapy-naïve patients who started therapy at least 24 months prior to the first pandemic-related lockdown and were thus treated exclusively prior to the pandemic (n = 123) were compared with patients who started therapy within 12 months prior to the first lockdown and were thus treated during the pandemic (n = 174). Both groups were followed over a two-year period.

RESULTS

In patients treated before the COVID-19 pandemic, VA remained stable (0.58 ± 0.41 logMAR) compared to baseline (0.54 ± 0.34 logMAR; p = 0.228) until the end of the observation period. In patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic, BCVA dropped below the baseline (0.56 ± 0.35 logMAR) within 24-month of follow-up (0.79 ± 0.43 logMAR; p = 0.010). Compared to the patients treated prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the latter group showed a significantly worse VA at the 6-month (p = 0.041), 12-month (p = 0.040), 18-month (p = 0.024), 21-month (p = 0.035), and 24-month (p = 0.004) follow-up. Additionally, the group treated during the COVID-19 pandemic received significantly fewer aflibercept injections (3,94 ± 1,9 vs. 3,30 ± 1,6; p = 0,007) and fewer follow-up examinations (2,71 ± 1,2 vs. 2,16 ± 0,9; p < 0,001) in the second year compared to the group that was treated before the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

We confirmed significantly worse VA outcomes in the group of nAMD patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Impeded access to care could be attributed to the restrictions imposed owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Effect of COVID-19 in a University Hospital Neurosurgery Clinic Comparison to Prepandemic Period: A Retrospective Study with 6 months of Data

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected all countries' health systems and people's lifestyles. In this study, we aimed to investigate its effects in a university hospital neurosurgery clinic.

METHODS

The 2019 year's 6 months' data as a prepandemic period compared to the 2020 year's same period as a pandemic date. Demographic data were collected. Operations were divided into seven groups: tumor, spinal, vascular, cerebrospinal fluid disorders, hematoma, local, and minor surgery, respectively. We classified the hematoma cluster into subgroups to evaluate the etiology: epidural, acute subdural, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, depressed skull fractures, and others. Patients' COVID-19 test results were collected.

RESULTS

Total operations decreased from 972 to 795 (Δ18.2%) during the pandemic. All groups, except minor surgery cases, decreased compared to the prepandemic period. Also, vascular procedures for females increased during the pandemic period. While focusing on the hematoma subgroups, there was decreasing in epidural and subdural hematomas, depressed skull fractures, and total case numbers; an increase in subarachnoid hemorrhage and intracerebral hemorrhage. Overall mortality significantly increased to 9.6% from 6.8% during the pandemic (P = 0.033). Eight (1.0%) of 795 patients were COVID-19-positive; three of them died. Neurosurgery residents and academicians were unsatisfied with decreased number of operations, training, and research productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic and restrictions affected negatively the health system and people's access to healthcare. Our retrospective observational study aimed to evaluate these effects and take lessons for the next similar situations. People's access to health care should be considered when lockdown restrictions.

Prescribing Antibiotics in Public Primary Care Clinics in Singapore: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic prescription practices in primary care in Singapore have received little scholarly attention. In this study, we ascertained prescription prevalence and identified care gaps and predisposing factors.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on adults (>21 years old) at six public primary care clinics in Singapore. Prescriptions >14 days were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to showcase the prevalence data. We used chi-square and logistic regression analyses to identify the factors affecting care gaps.

RESULTS

A total of 141,944 (4.33%) oral and 108,357 (3.31%) topical antibiotics were prescribed for 3,278,562 visits from 2018 to 2021. There was a significant reduction in prescriptions (p < 0.01) before and after the pandemic, which was attributed to the 84% reduction in prescriptions for respiratory conditions. In 2020 to 2021, oral antibiotics were most prescribed for skin (37.7%), genitourinary (20.2%), and respiratory conditions (10.8%). Antibiotic use in the "Access" group (WHO AWaRe classification) improved from 85.6% (2018) to 92.1% (2021). Areas of improvement included a lack of documentation of reasons for antibiotic use, as well as inappropriate antibiotic prescription for skin conditions.

CONCLUSION

There was a marked reduction in antibiotic prescriptions associated with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies could address the gaps identified here and evaluate private-sector primary care to inform antibiotic guidelines and the local development of stewardship programs.

Medical appointments and provision of medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mainz, Germany

Previous evidence suggested that non-COVID-19-related medical care was reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it remained unclear whether or to which extent this effect lasted beyond the first wave, or existed in a longer time frame. Here, we consider questionnaire data of the Gutenberg-COVID-19 study together with pre-pandemic baseline data of the Gutenberg Health Study concerning the region around Mainz, Germany, to study the effects of the pandemic on the provision of medical care until April 2021. We observed that the proportion of cancelled medical appointments was low and that the fraction of participants with a medical appointment as an indicator for the number of appointments being made was in line with pre-pandemic levels. Appointments were more likely cancelled by the patient (rather than the provider), and more likely cancelled by medical specialists such as dentists or ophthalmologists (rather than GPs). In conclusion, we found some evidence that, at least with regard to realized appointments, the medical system and the provision of medical care were not harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic on a longer time scale.

Facing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic: How Can We Allocate Outpatient Doctor Resources More Effectively?

The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant damage to global healthcare systems. Previous studies regarding COVID-19’s impact on outpatient numbers focused only on a specific department, lacking research data for multiple departments in general hospitals. We assessed differences in COVID-19’s impact on outpatient numbers for different departments to help hospital managers allocate outpatient doctor resources more effectively during the pandemic. We compared the outpatient numbers of 24 departments in a general hospital in Beijing in 2019 and 2020. We also examined an indicator not mentioned in previous studies, monthly departmental patient reservation rates. The results show that, compared with 2019, 2020 outpatient numbers decreased overall by 33.36%. Ten departments’ outpatient numbers decreased >33.36%; however, outpatient numbers increased in two departments. In 2020, the overall patient reservation rate in 24 departments was 82.22% of the 2019 reservation rate; the rates in 14 departments were <82.22%. Moreover, patient reservation rates varied across different months. Our research shows that COVID-19’s impact on different departments also varied. Additionally, our research suggests that well-known departments will be less affected by COVID-19, as will departments related to tumor treatment, where there may also be an increase in patient numbers. Patient reservation rates are an indicator worthy of attention. We suggest that hospital managers classify departments according to changes in outpatient numbers and patient reservation rates and adopt accurate, dynamic, and humanized management strategies to allocate outpatient doctor resources.

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease Pandemic and Related Vaccination in an Orthopedic Clinic in the United Arab Emirates: An Observational Study

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has influenced hospital visiting patterns. Although vaccination has decreased infection rates and disease severity, hospital visiting patterns and associated treatment changes related to orthopedics remain unexplored in the Middle East. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination on individual departments dealing with musculoskeletal disorders in the United Arab Emirates. Relationships between publicly available national data on the number of COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction tests and confirmed and recovered cases during May 2020–July 2021 and hospital data on the number of outpatients, inpatients, operations, and physiotherapy consultations were analyzed. In January 2021, the relationship between vaccination rate and orthopedic unit utilization was evaluated after vaccination campaign initiation. Multifactorial analysis revealed that an increased number of COVID-19-related deaths correlated with a decreased number of joint operations. Negative linear relationships were observed among confirmed and death cases with inpatient treatment and joint operation as well as recovered cases with inpatient treatment. Recovered cases with inpatient treatment and joint operation showed a positive linear relationship. Inpatient spine treatment showed a positive relationship with vaccination rates. The COVID-19 pandemic influenced orthopedic treatment in the Middle East, and vaccination campaigns facilitated inpatient spine treatment.

The impact of telephone consultations due to COVID-19 on paediatric neurosurgical health services

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the role of telephone consultations due to the pandemic in the management of paediatric neurosurgical patients and, furthermore, to examine the proportion of patients who eventually needed a face-to-face appointment and assess the underline reasons for that.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all the paediatric neurosurgical patients who had a telephone appointment during a 3-month lockdown period. Overall, 319 patients (186 males and 133 females) aged 8.36 ± 4.88 (mean ± SD) had a consultation via telephone. Two hundred fifty-one (78.7%) patients had a follow-up assessment and 68 (21.3%) were new appointments.

RESULTS

Patients were divided between two main groups. Group A included 263 patients (82.4%) whose consultation was adequate via telephone, and Group B included 56 patients (17.6%) who required a complementary face-to-face appointment. Patients who were more likely to require a supplementary appointment were patients with either dysraphism or ventriculomegaly and benign enlarged subarachnoid spaces (BESS) (43.3% and 36.4%, respectively). Interestingly, most children with hydrocephalus who underwent a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion procedure and children with Chiari I malformation were appropriately assessed via telephone (85.1% and 83.3%, respectively). Finally, children aged < 2 years (55.2%) were better managed with face-to-face appointments. No difference was noticed regarding follow-up and new appointments.

CONCLUSION

Although telemedicine was not unknown to neurosurgical services, the actual application of telephone or video consultations remained quite limited. It was COVID-19 pandemic who reinforced the use of telemedicine, and taking into consideration its promising results, we can safely assume that it can be incorporated into neurosurgical health care even once the pandemic crisis has resolved.