BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the implementation of innovative healthcare models in preparation for an influx of patients. A virtual ward model delivers clinical care remotely to patients in isolation. We report an Australian cohort of patients with COVID-19 treated in a virtual ward. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the safety and efficacy of a virtual ward model of care for an Australian cohort of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective clinical audit was undertaken of 223 patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated in a virtual ward in Brisbane, Australia, from March 25 to May 15, 2020. Statistical analyses of variables associated with length of stay and hospitalisation were undertaken. RESULTS: Of 223 patients, 205 (92%) recovered without need for escalation to hospital care. The median virtual ward admission length was eight days (range, 1 to 44). Eighteen (8%) patients were referred to hospital with one-third discharged after emergency department assessment. Twelve patients were admitted to hospital, four required supplemental oxygen and two required mechanical ventilation. No deaths were recorded. Factors associated with escalation to hospital care were: hypertension (OR 3.6, CI 1.28-9.87, P=.01), sputum production (OR 5.2, CI 1.74-15.49, P=.001) or arthralgia (OR 3.8, CI 1.21-11.71, P=.02) at illness onset and polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold of 20 or less on diagnostic nasopharyngeal swab (OR 5.0, CI 1.25-19.63, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a virtual ward model of care to treat patients with COVID-19 is safe and efficacious. A small number of patients required escalation to hospital care. Further studies are recommended to validate this model of care.
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the implementation of innovative healthcare models in preparation for an influx of patients. A virtual ward model delivers clinical care remotely to patients in isolation. We report an Australian cohort of patients with COVID-19 treated in a virtual ward. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the safety and efficacy of a virtual ward model of care for an Australian cohort of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective clinical audit was undertaken of 223 patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated in a virtual ward in Brisbane, Australia, from March 25 to May 15, 2020. Statistical analyses of variables associated with length of stay and hospitalisation were undertaken. RESULTS: Of 223 patients, 205 (92%) recovered without need for escalation to hospital care. The median virtual ward admission length was eight days (range, 1 to 44). Eighteen (8%) patients were referred to hospital with one-third discharged after emergency department assessment. Twelve patients were admitted to hospital, four required supplemental oxygen and two required mechanical ventilation. No deaths were recorded. Factors associated with escalation to hospital care were: hypertension (OR 3.6, CI 1.28-9.87, P=.01), sputum production (OR 5.2, CI 1.74-15.49, P=.001) or arthralgia (OR 3.8, CI 1.21-11.71, P=.02) at illness onset and polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold of 20 or less on diagnostic nasopharyngeal swab (OR 5.0, CI 1.25-19.63, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a virtual ward model of care to treat patients with COVID-19 is safe and efficacious. A small number of patients required escalation to hospital care. Further studies are recommended to validate this model of care.
Authors: Breda Cushen; Aisling Madden; Deirdre Long; Yvonne Whelan; Michael Emmet O'Brien; Deirdre Carroll; Des O'Flynn; Michelle Forde; Virginia Pye; Loretto Grogan; Margaret Casey; Karolina Farrell; Richard W Costello; Clare Lewis Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Seok Ming Lim; Nicole L Allard; Janelle Devereux; Benjamin C Cowie; Michelle Tydeman; Alistair Miller; Khanh Ho; Brigitte Cleveland; Liz Singleton; Karen Aarons; Paul Eleftheriou; Thomas Chan; George Braitberg; Andrea Maier Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 12.776
Authors: Kate L McCarthy; Douglas P James; Nikhil Kumar; Gunter Hartel; Matthew Langley; Duncan McAuley; Julie Bunting; Elizabeth Rushbrook; Cameron Bennett Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 3.755