12Diagnostic testing for COVID-19 is central to controlling the global pandemic. Recently, To and 13 colleagues reported that 20 of 23 (87%) patients who had SARS-CoV-2 detected by reverse-14 transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) in nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) or sputum also had SARS-CoV-2 15 detectable in saliva (1). The use of saliva has several advantages compared to collection of NPS. In 16 particular, the close contact involved in swab collection poses a risk to healthcare workers, and 17 collection of saliva may reduce this risk. Further, saliva collection does not require specialised 18 consumables, causes less patient discomfort, and may be a useful sample for self-collection (2). 20We further investigated the feasibility and utility of saliva collection from ambulatory patients 21 presenting to a dedicated COVID-19 screening clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH), 22Melbourne, Australia. Between 25 th March and 1 st April 2020, 622 patients were tested for COVID-23 19 through the screening clinic. All patients had NPS, and 522/622 (83.9%) patients also provided 24 saliva. Patients were asked to pool saliva in their mouth for 1-2 minutes prior to collection, and gently 25 spit 1-2 mL of saliva into a 25mL collection pot. Neat saliva specimens were transported to the 26 laboratory where an approximate 1:1 ratio of liquid Amies media was immediately added. We 27 specifically chose to use liquid Amies media in order to: (i) evaluate the use of an alternative transport 28 media in the face of global shortages of viral transport medium (VTM), and (ii) to preserve VTM in 29 our own laboratory. The median time from sample collection to addition of media was 180 minutes 30 (range 55 -537 minutes). NPS and saliva specimens underwent nucleic acid extraction on the Qiagen 31 EZ1 platform (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). An extraction volume of 200uL of the sample was used, 32 with RNA eluted in 60uL. Reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing was performed using a 33 multiplex RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 and other seasonal coronaviruses (Coronavirus Typing (8-34 well) assay, AusDiagnostics, Mascot, Australia). All positive NPS samples for SARS-CoV-2 35 underwent confirmatory testing at a local reference laboratory (the Victorian Infectious Diseases 36 Reference Laboratory) using previously published primers (3). 38Overall, 39/622 (6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6%-8.5%) patients had PCR-positive NPS, and 39 33/39 patients (84.6%; 95% CI 70.0%-93.1%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in saliva. The median cycle 40 threshold (Ct) value was significantly lower in NPS than saliva ( Figure 1A), suggestive of higher viral 41 loads in NPS, and in both samples, there was a correlation between Ct value and days from symptom 42 onset ( Figure 1B). To assess specificity, a subset of saliva specimens from 50 patients with PCR-43 negative swabs was also tested. Of note, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 1/50 (2%; 95% CI 0.1%-44 11.5%) of these saliva samples, which may reflect differing quality of NPS collection. 46To date, studies assessing the utilit...

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a profound and prolonged impact on healthcare services and healthcare workers.AimsThe Australian COVID-19 Frontline Healthcare Workers Study aimed to investigate the severity and prevalence of mental health issues, as well as the social, workplace and financial disruptions experienced by Australian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA nationwide, voluntary, anonymous, single timepoint, online survey was conducted between 27 August and 23 October 2020. Individuals self-identifying as frontline healthcare workers in secondary or primary care were invited to participate. Participants were recruited through health organisations, professional associations or colleges, universities, government contacts and national media. Demographics, home and work situation, health and psychological well-being data were collected.ResultsA total of 9518 survey responses were received; of the 9518 participants, 7846 (82.4%) participants reported complete data. With regard to age, 4110 (52.4%) participants were younger than 40 years; 6344 (80.9%) participants were women. Participants were nurses (n=3088, 39.4%), doctors (n=2436, 31.1%), allied health staff (n=1314, 16.7%) or in other roles (n=523, 6.7%). In addition, 1250 (15.9%) participants worked in primary care. Objectively measured mental health symptoms were common: mild to severe anxiety (n=4694, 59.8%), moderate to severe burnout (n=5458, 70.9%) and mild to severe depression (n=4495, 57.3%). Participants were highly resilient (mean (SD)=3.2 (0.66)). Predictors for worse outcomes on all scales included female gender; younger age; pre-existing psychiatric condition; experiencing relationship problems; nursing, allied health or other roles; frontline area; being worried about being blamed by colleagues and working with patients with COVID-19.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic is associated with significant mental health symptoms in frontline healthcare workers. Crisis preparedness together with policies and practices addressing psychological well-being are needed.

Objectives The Australian COVID-19 Frontline Healthcare Workers Study investigated coping strategies and help-seeking behaviours, and their relationship to mental health symptoms experienced by Australian healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Australian HCWs were invited to participate a nationwide, voluntary, anonymous, single time-point, online survey between 27th August and 23rd October 2020. Complete responses on demographics, home and work situation, and measures of health and psychological wellbeing were received from 7846 participants. Results The most commonly reported adaptive coping strategies were maintaining exercise (44.9%) and social connections (31.7%). Over a quarter of HCWs (26.3%) reported increased alcohol use which was associated with a history of poor mental health and worse personal relationships. Few used psychological wellbeing apps or sought professional help; those who did were more likely to be suffering from moderate to severe symptoms of mental illness. People living in Victoria, in regional areas, and those with children at home were significantly less likely to report adaptive coping strategies. Conclusions Personal, social, and workplace predictors of coping strategies and help-seeking behaviour during the pandemic were identified. Use of maladaptive coping strategies and low rates of professional help-seeking indicate an urgent need to understand the effectiveness of, and the barriers and enablers of accessing, different coping strategies.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the changes in productivity when scribes were used by emergency physicians in emergency departments in Australia and assess the effect of scribes on throughput.DesignRandomised, multicentre clinical trial.SettingFive emergency departments in Victoria used Australian trained scribes during their respective trial periods. Sites were broadly representative of Australian emergency departments: public (urban, tertiary, regional referral, paediatric) and private, not for profit.Participants88 physicians who were permanent, salaried employees working more than one shift a week and were either emergency consultants or senior registrars in their final year of training; 12 scribes trained at one site and rotated to each study site.InterventionsPhysicians worked their routine shifts and were randomly allocated a scribe for the duration of their shift. Each site required a minimum of 100 scribed and non-scribed shifts, from November 2015 to January 2018.Main outcome measuresPhysicians’ productivity (total patients, primary patients); patient throughput (door-to-doctor time, length of stay); physicians’ productivity in emergency department regions. Self reported harms of scribes were analysed, and a cost-benefit analysis was done.ResultsData were collected from 589 scribed shifts (5098 patients) and 3296 non-scribed shifts (23 838 patients). Scribes increased physicians’ productivity from 1.13 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.17) to 1.31 (1.25 to 1.38) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 15.9% gain. Primary consultations increased from 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) to 1.04 (0.98 to 1.11) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 25.6% gain. No change was seen in door-to-doctor time. Median length of stay reduced from 192 (interquartile range 108-311) minutes to 173 (96-208) minutes, representing a 19 minute reduction (P<0.001). The greatest gains were achieved by placing scribes with senior doctors at triage, the least by using them in sub-acute/fast track regions. No significant harm involving scribes was reported. The cost-benefit analysis based on productivity and throughput gains showed a favourable financial position with use of scribes.ConclusionsScribes improved emergency physicians’ productivity, particularly during primary consultations, and decreased patients’ length of stay. Further work should evaluate the role of the scribe in countries with health systems similar to Australia’s.Trial registrationACTRN12615000607572 (pilot site); ACTRN12616000618459.

BackgroundMany COVID-19 patients are discharged home from hospital with instructions to self-isolate. This reduces the burden on potentially overwhelmed hospitals. The Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) Home Monitoring Programme (HMP) is a model of care for COVID-19 patients which chiefly tracks pulse oximetry and body temperature readings.ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the HMP from a patient perspective.Design, settings and participantsOf 46 COVID-19 patients who used the HMP through RMH during April to August 2020, 16 were invited to participate in this qualitative evaluation study; all accepted, including 6 healthcare workers. Attempts were made to recruit a gender-balanced sample across a range of COVID-19 severities and comorbidities. Participants completed a brief semistructured phone interview discussing their experience of using the HMP.Outcome measures and analysisA thematic analysis of interview data was conducted. Feasibility was defined as the HMP’s reported ease of use. Acceptability was considered holistically by reviewing themes in the interview data.ResultsThe HMP allowed clinical deterioration to be recognised as it occurred enabling prompt intervention. All participants reported a positive opinion of the HMP, stating it was highly acceptable and easy to use. Almost all participants said they found using it reassuring. Patients frequently mentioned the importance of the monitoring clinicians as an information conduit. The most suggested improvement was to monitor a broader set of symptoms.ConclusionsThe HMP is highly feasible and acceptable to patients. This model of care could potentially be implemented on a mass-scale to reduce the burden of COVID-19 on hospitals. A key benefit of the HMP is the ability to reassure patients they will receive suitable intervention should they deteriorate while isolating outside of hospital settings.

ObjectivesCT of the brain (CTB) for paediatric head injury is used less frequently at tertiary paediatric emergency departments (EDs) in Australia and New Zealand than in North America. In preparation for release of a national head injury guideline and given the high variation in CTB use found in North America, we aimed to assess variation in CTB use for paediatric head injury across hospitals types.MethodsMulticentre retrospective review of presentations to tertiary, urban/suburban and regional/rural EDs in Australia and New Zealand in 2016. Children aged <16 years, with a primary ED diagnosis of head injury were included and data extracted from 100 eligible cases per site. Primary outcome was CTB use adjusted for severity (Glasgow Coma Scale) with 95% CIs; secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and admission rate.ResultsThere were 3072 head injury presentations at 31 EDs: 9 tertiary (n=900), 11 urban/suburban (n=1072) and 11 regional/rural EDs (n=1100). The proportion of children with Glasgow Coma Score ≤13 was 1.3% in each type of hospital. Among all presentations, CTB was performed for 8.2% (95% CI 6.4 to 10.0) in tertiary hospitals, 6.6% (95% CI 5.1 to 8.1) in urban/suburban hospitals and 6.1% (95% CI 4.7 to 7.5) in regional/rural. Intragroup variation of CTB use ranged from 0% to 14%. The regional/rural hospitals admitted fewer patients (14.6%, 95% CI 12.6% to 16.9%, p<0.001) than tertiary and urban/suburban hospitals (28.1%, 95% CI 25.2% to 31.2%; 27.3%, 95% CI 24.7% to 30.1%).ConclusionsIn Australia and New Zealand, there was no difference in CTB use for paediatric patients with head injuries across tertiary, urban/suburban and regional/rural EDs with similar intragroup variation. This information can inform a binational head injury guideline.

No abstract

Background In Australia, COVID-19 diagnosis relies on RT-PCR testing which is relatively costly and time-consuming. To date, few studies have assessed the performance and implementation of rapid antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 testing in a setting with a low prevalence of COVID-19 infections, such as Australia. Methods This study recruited participants presenting for COVID-19 testing at three Melbourne metropolitan hospitals during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence. The Abbott PanBio TM COVID-19 Ag point-of-care test was performed alongside RT-PCR. In addition, participants with COVID-19 notified to the Victorian Government were invited to provide additional swabs to aid validation. Implementation challenges were also documented. Findings The specificity of the Abbott PanBio TM COVID-19 Ag test was 99.96% (95% CI 99.73 - 100%). Sensitivity amongst participants with RT-PCR-confirmed infection was dependent upon the duration of symptoms reported, ranging from 77.3% (duration 1 to 33 days) to 100% in those within seven days of symptom onset. A range of implementation challenges were identified which may inform future COVID-19 testing strategies in a low prevalence setting. Interpretation Given the high specificity, antigen-based tests may be most useful in rapidly triaging public health and hospital resources while expediting confirmatory RT-PCR testing. Considering the limitations in test sensitivity and the potential for rapid transmission in susceptible populations, particularly in hospital settings, careful consideration is required for implementation of antigen testing in a low prevalence setting. Funding This work was funded by the . The funder was not involved in data analysis or manuscript preparation.