Перейти к основному содержанию
AkademIndex

Продукты

Для разработчиков

AkademBaseОткрытый API экосистемы
Статья

Sixty‐eight consecutive patients assessed for COVID‐19 infection: Experience from a UK Regional infectious diseases Unit

Nicholas EasomDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKPeter MossDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKGavin BarlowDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKAnda SamsonDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKThomas TayntonDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKKate AdamsDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKMonica IvanDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKPhillipa BurnsDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKKavitha GajeeDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKKirstine EastickDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UKPatrick LillieDepartment of Infection Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Castle Hill Hospital Hull UK
2020en
ABI

Аннотация

BACKGROUND: Assessment of possible infection with SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 illness, has been a major activity of infection services since the first reports of cases in December 2019. OBJECTIVES: We report a series of 68 patients assessed at a Regional Infection Unit in the UK. METHODS: Between 29 January 2020 and 24 February 2020, demographic, clinical, epidemiological and laboratory data were collected. We compared clinical features between patients not requiring admission for clinical reasons or antimicrobials with those assessed as needing either admission or antimicrobial treatment. RESULTS: Patients assessed were aged from 0 to 76 years; 36/68 were female. Peaks of clinical assessments coincided with updates to the case definition for suspected COVID-19. Microbiological diagnoses included SARS-CoV-2, mycoplasma pneumonia, influenza A, non-SARS/MERS coronaviruses and rhinovirus/enterovirus. Nine of sixty-eight received antimicrobials, 15/68 were admitted, 5 due to inability to self-isolate. Patients requiring admission on clinical grounds or antimicrobials (14/68) were more likely to have fever or raised respiratory rate compared to those not requiring admission or antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients had mild illness, which did not require clinical intervention. This finding supports a community testing approach, supported by clinicians able to review more unwell patients. Extensions of the epidemiological criteria for the case definition of suspected COVID-19 lead to increased screening intensity; strategies must be in place to accommodate this in time for forthcoming changes as the epidemic develops.

Перевод пока недоступен

Идентификаторы

Цитирования и источники

Цитирований: 2Использованных источников: 0