Quentin J Leclerc1, Naomi M Fuller2, Ruth H Keogh3, Karla Diaz-Ordaz3, Richard Sekula4, Malcolm G Semple5, Katherine E Atkins2,6, Simon R Procter2, Gwenan M Knight2. 1. Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. quentin.leclerc@lshtm.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 3. Department of Medical Statistics, Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, Centre for Statistical Methodology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 4. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 5. NIHR Health Protection Research Unit, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 6. Centre for Global Health Research, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Predicting bed occupancy for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requires understanding of length of stay (LoS) in particular bed types. LoS can vary depending on the patient's "bed pathway" - the sequence of transfers of individual patients between bed types during a hospital stay. In this study, we characterise these pathways, and their impact on predicted hospital bed occupancy. METHODS: We obtained data from University College Hospital (UCH) and the ISARIC4C COVID-19 Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN) on hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required care in general ward or critical care (CC) beds to determine possible bed pathways and LoS. We developed a discrete-time model to examine the implications of using either bed pathways or only average LoS by bed type to forecast bed occupancy. We compared model-predicted bed occupancy to publicly available bed occupancy data on COVID-19 in England between March and August 2020. RESULTS: In both the UCH and CO-CIN datasets, 82% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 only received care in general ward beds. We identified four other bed pathways, present in both datasets: "Ward, CC, Ward", "Ward, CC", "CC" and "CC, Ward". Mean LoS varied by bed type, pathway, and dataset, between 1.78 and 13.53 days. For UCH, we found that using bed pathways improved the accuracy of bed occupancy predictions, while only using an average LoS for each bed type underestimated true bed occupancy. However, using the CO-CIN LoS dataset we were not able to replicate past data on bed occupancy in England, suggesting regional LoS heterogeneities. CONCLUSIONS: We identified five bed pathways, with substantial variation in LoS by bed type, pathway, and geography. This might be caused by local differences in patient characteristics, clinical care strategies, or resource availability, and suggests that national LoS averages may not be appropriate for local forecasts of bed occupancy for COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study ISRCTN66726260 was retrospectively registered on 21/04/2020 and designated an Urgent Public Health Research Study by NIHR.
BACKGROUND: Predicting bed occupancy for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requires understanding of length of stay (LoS) in particular bed types. LoS can vary depending on the patient's "bed pathway" - the sequence of transfers of individual patients between bed types during a hospital stay. In this study, we characterise these pathways, and their impact on predicted hospital bed occupancy. METHODS: We obtained data from University College Hospital (UCH) and the ISARIC4C COVID-19 Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN) on hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required care in general ward or critical care (CC) beds to determine possible bed pathways and LoS. We developed a discrete-time model to examine the implications of using either bed pathways or only average LoS by bed type to forecast bed occupancy. We compared model-predicted bed occupancy to publicly available bed occupancy data on COVID-19 in England between March and August 2020. RESULTS: In both the UCH and CO-CIN datasets, 82% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 only received care in general ward beds. We identified four other bed pathways, present in both datasets: "Ward, CC, Ward", "Ward, CC", "CC" and "CC, Ward". Mean LoS varied by bed type, pathway, and dataset, between 1.78 and 13.53 days. For UCH, we found that using bed pathways improved the accuracy of bed occupancy predictions, while only using an average LoS for each bed type underestimated true bed occupancy. However, using the CO-CIN LoS dataset we were not able to replicate past data on bed occupancy in England, suggesting regional LoS heterogeneities. CONCLUSIONS: We identified five bed pathways, with substantial variation in LoS by bed type, pathway, and geography. This might be caused by local differences in patient characteristics, clinical care strategies, or resource availability, and suggests that national LoS averages may not be appropriate for local forecasts of bed occupancy for COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study ISRCTN66726260 was retrospectively registered on 21/04/2020 and designated an Urgent Public Health Research Study by NIHR.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bed occupancy; Bed pathway; COVID-19; Hospitalisation; Length of stay; SARS-CoV-2
Authors: Jason Phua; Li Weng; Lowell Ling; Moritoki Egi; Chae-Man Lim; Jigeeshu Vasishtha Divatia; Babu Raja Shrestha; Yaseen M Arabi; Jensen Ng; Charles D Gomersall; Masaji Nishimura; Younsuck Koh; Bin Du Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Robert Verity; Lucy C Okell; Ilaria Dorigatti; Peter Winskill; Charles Whittaker; Natsuko Imai; Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg; Hayley Thompson; Patrick G T Walker; Han Fu; Amy Dighe; Jamie T Griffin; Marc Baguelin; Sangeeta Bhatia; Adhiratha Boonyasiri; Anne Cori; Zulma Cucunubá; Rich FitzJohn; Katy Gaythorpe; Will Green; Arran Hamlet; Wes Hinsley; Daniel Laydon; Gemma Nedjati-Gilani; Steven Riley; Sabine van Elsland; Erik Volz; Haowei Wang; Yuanrong Wang; Xiaoyue Xi; Christl A Donnelly; Azra C Ghani; Neil M Ferguson Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Annemarie B Docherty; Ewen M Harrison; Christopher A Green; Hayley E Hardwick; Riinu Pius; Lisa Norman; Karl A Holden; Jonathan M Read; Frank Dondelinger; Gail Carson; Laura Merson; James Lee; Daniel Plotkin; Louise Sigfrid; Sophie Halpin; Clare Jackson; Carrol Gamble; Peter W Horby; Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam; Antonia Ho; Clark D Russell; Jake Dunning; Peter Jm Openshaw; J Kenneth Baillie; Malcolm G Semple Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-05-22
Authors: Eleanor M Rees; Emily S Nightingale; Yalda Jafari; Naomi R Waterlow; Samuel Clifford; Carl A B Pearson; Cmmid Working Group; Thibaut Jombart; Simon R Procter; Gwenan M Knight Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Sophie Meakin; Sam Abbott; Nikos Bosse; James Munday; Hugo Gruson; Joel Hellewell; Katharine Sherratt; Sebastian Funk Journal: BMC Med Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Christopher E Overton; Lorenzo Pellis; Helena B Stage; Francesca Scarabel; Joshua Burton; Christophe Fraser; Ian Hall; Thomas A House; Chris Jewell; Anel Nurtay; Filippo Pagani; Katrina A Lythgoe Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 4.779
Authors: Sophie Meakin; Sam Abbott; Nikos Bosse; James Munday; Hugo Gruson; Joel Hellewell; Katherine Sherratt; Sebastian Funk Journal: medRxiv Date: 2022-01-19