Background: To ensure availability of hospital beds and improve COVID-19 patients’ well-being during the ongoing pandemic, hospital care could be offered at home. Retrospective studies show promising results of deploying remote hospital care to reduce the number of days spent in the hospital, but the beneficial effect has yet to be established. Methods: We conducted a single centre, randomised trial from January to June 2021, including hospitalised COVID-19 patients who were in the recovery stage of the disease. Hospital care for the intervention group was transitioned to the patient’s home, including oxygen therapy, medication and remote monitoring. The control group received in-hospital care as usual. The primary endpoint was the number of hospital-free days during the 30 days following randomisation. Secondary endpoints included health care consumption during the follow-up period and mortality. Results: A total of 62 patients were randomised (31 control, 31 intervention). The mean difference in hospital-free days was 1.7 (26.7 control vs. 28.4 intervention, 95% CI of difference −0.5 to 4.2, p = 0.112). In the intervention group, the index hospital length of stay was 1.6 days shorter (95% CI −2.4 to −0.8, p < 0.001), but the total duration of care under hospital responsibility was 4.1 days longer (95% CI 0.5 to 7.7, p = 0.028). Conclusion: Remote hospital care for recovering COVID-19 patients is feasible. However, we could not demonstrate an increase in hospital-free days in the 30 days following randomisation. Optimising the intervention, timing, and identification of patients who will benefit most from remote hospital care could improve the impact of this intervention.

Early recognition of sepsis is essential for improving outcomes and preventing complications such as organ failure, depression, and neurocognitive impairment. The emergency department (ED) plays a key role in the early identification of sepsis, but clinicians lack diagnostic tools. Potentially, biomarkers could be helpful in assisting clinicians in the ED, but no marker has yet been successfully implemented in daily practice with good clinical performance. Pancreatic stone protein (PSP) is a promising biomarker in the context of sepsis, but little is known about the diagnostic performance of PSP in the ED. We prospectively investigated the diagnostic value of PSP in such a population for patients suspected of infection. PSP was compared with currently used biomarkers, including white blood cell count (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Of the 156 patients included in this study, 74 (47.4%) were diagnosed with uncomplicated infection and 26 (16.7%) patients with sepsis, while 56 (35.9%) eventually had no infection. PSP was significantly higher for sepsis patients compared to patients with no sepsis. In multivariate regression, PSP was a significant predictor for sepsis, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.69. Positive and negative predictive values for this model were 100% and 84.4%, respectively. Altogether, these findings show that PSP, measured at the ED of a tertiary hospital, is associated with sepsis but lacks the diagnostic performance to be used as single marker.

Background: Virtual hospital-at-home care might be an alternative to standard hospital care for patients with infectious diseases. In this study, we explore the potential for virtual hospital-at-home care and a potential design for this population. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of internal medicine patients suspected of infectious diseases, admitted between 1 January and 31 December 2019. We collected information on delivered care during emergency department visits, the first 24 h, between 24 and 72 h, and after 72 h of admission. Care components that could be delivered at home were combined into care packages, and the potential number of eligible patients per package was described. The most feasible package was described in detail. Results: 763 patients were included, mostly referred for general internal medicine (35%), and the most common diagnosis was lower respiratory tract infection (27%). The most frequently administered care components were laboratory tests, non-oral medication, and intercollegiate consultation. With a combination of telemonitoring, video consultation, non-oral medication administration, laboratory tests, oxygen therapy, and radiological diagnostics, 48% of patients were eligible for hospital-at-home care, with 35% already eligible directly after emergency department visits. Conclusion: While the potential for virtual hospital-at-home care is high, it depends greatly on which care can be arranged.

The early recognition of acute kidney injury (AKI) is essential to improve outcomes and prevent complications such as chronic kidney disease, the need for renal-replacement therapy, and an increased length of hospital stay. Increasing evidence shows that inflammation plays an important role in the pathophysiology of AKI and mortality. Several inflammatory hematological ratios can be used to measure systemic inflammation. Therefore, the association between these ratios and outcomes (AKI and mortality) in patients suspected of having an infection at the emergency department was investigated. Data from the SPACE cohort were used. Cox regression was performed to investigate the association between seven hematological ratios and outcomes. A total of 1889 patients were included, of which 160 (8.5%) patients developed AKI and 102 (5.4%) died in <30 days. The Cox proportional-hazards model revealed that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), segmented-neutrophil-to-monocyte ratio (SMR), and neutrophil-lymphocyte-platelet ratio (NLPR) are independently associated with AKI <30 days after emergency-department presentation. Additionally, the NLR, SMR and NLPR were associated with 30-day all-cause mortality. These findings are an important step forward for the early recognition of AKI. The use of these markers might enable emergency-department physicians to recognize and treat AKI in an early phase to potentially prevent complications.

Retrospective studies suggest that a rapid initiation of treatment results in a better prognosis for patients in the emergency department. There could be a difference between the actual medication administration time and the documented time in the electronic health record. In this study, the difference between the observed medication administration time and documentation time was investigated. Patient and nurse characteristics were also tested for associations with observed time differences. In this prospective study, emergency nurses were followed by observers for a total of 3 months. Patient inclusion was divided over 2 time periods. The difference in the observed medication administration time and the corresponding electronic health record documentation time was measured. The association between patient/nurse characteristics and the difference in medication administration and documentation time was tested with a Spearman correlation or biserial correlation test. In 34 observed patients, the median difference in administration and documentation time was 6.0 minutes (interquartile range 2.0-16.0). In 9 (26.5%) patients, the actual time of medication administration differed more than 15 minutes with the electronic health record documentation time. High temperature, lower saturation, oxygen-dependency, and high Modified Early Warning Score were all correlated with an increasing difference between administration and documentation times. A difference between administration and documentation times of medication in the emergency department may be common, especially for more acute patients. This could bias, in part, previously reported time-to-treatment measurements from retrospective research designs, which should be kept in mind when outcomes of retrospective time-to-treatment studies are evaluated.