There is limited evidence on the efficacy of awake prone positioning (PP) in non-ventilated patients with COVID-19 who have hypoxemia. We, therefore, aim to describe our experience with the use of early proning in awake, non-intubated patients with confirmed COVID-19. In our retrospective observational study, 23 patients with confirmed positive PCR test results for Severe Acute respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and hypoxemia that required oxygen therapy with or without non-invasive ventilation were treated with PP. Patients were classified into mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 disease. There were no targeted number of hours for proning per day and patients were kept in prone position according to their tolerance. The primary outcome measure was the avoidance of intubation and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stays and complications related to PP. The mean (standard deviation) age of our cohort was 54.5 (11.7) years, and the majority were males (21/23, 91.3%). Sixty-one per cent (14/23) of the patients were suffering from severe disease and 82.6% (19/23) had bilateral lung involvement with interstitial infiltrates. Majority of the patients were prone positioned for a median of 6 days (IQR 4 – 8). Only one patient required transfer to ICU for mechanical ventilation and subsequently died due to severe ARDS. All 22 patients showed progressive improvement in oxygen requirement and PF ratio, mostly after 3-5 days of proning. The mean length of hospital stay was 12 days. All patients, except one, were discharged in stable conditions, on room air or on a minimal oxygen requirement of 1-2 liters. No major complication of PP was recorded. Awake prone positioning is a valuable and safe therapeutic adjunct that can be applied in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. It can also be included in the home-based management protocols of COVID-19 to improve patient outcomes and mitigate the burden on health care facilities.

Objective There is a probability that vaccination may lead to reduction in the severity and complications associated with COVID-19 infection among hospitalized patients. This study aimed to determine the characteristics, clinical profiles, and outcomes of COVID-19 infection in vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients. Design and data sources This prospective observational cohort study was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH) and recruited COVID-19 patients admitted between June 1st and September 30th, 2021. Patients’ demographics, date of admission and discharge, comorbid conditions, immunization status for COVID-19 infection, presenting complaints, lab workup and computed tomography (CT) scan findings were obtained from the medical records. The primary outcome of the study was patients’ condition at discharge and the secondary outcomes included level of care, length of stay (LOS), requirement of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and inotropic support. Results Among a cohort of 434 patients, 37.7% (n = 164), 6.6% (n = 29) and 55.5% (n = 241) were fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated, respectively. Around 3% and 42.9% of the patient required inotropic and NIV support respectively; however, there was no discernible difference between them in terms of vaccination status. In case of unvaccinated patients there were significantly increased number of critical care admissions (p-value 0.043). Unvaccinated patients had significantly higher median serum procalcitonin, ferritin, LDH and D-dimer levels. Around 5.3% (n = 23) of the patient required invasive ventilation and it was more common in unvaccinated patients (p-value 0.04). Overall, mortality rate was 12.2% (n = 53) and this was higher (16.2%, n = 39) in unvaccinated patients as compared to fully vaccinated patients (6.1%, n = 10, p-value 0.006). Conclusions Through this preliminary data, we can conclude that patient can develop severe and critical COVID-19 infection despite being vaccinated but this proportion is low as compared to unvaccinated population. So, uninterrupted endeavors need to be done to vaccinate as many individuals as possible. Furthermore, more effective vaccinations need to be developed to lessen the high death toll of COVID-19 infection.

Objective The discrepancy between admission and discharge diagnosis can lead to possible adverse patient outcomes. There are gaps in integrated studies, and less is understood about its characteristics and effects. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of diagnostic discrepancies at admission and discharge. Design and data sources This retrospective study reviewed the admitting and discharge diagnoses of adult patients admitted at Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH), Internal Medicine Department between October 2018 and February 2019. The frequency and outcomes of discrepancies in patient diagnoses were noted among Emergency Department (ED) physician versus admitting physician, admitting physician versus discharge physician, and ED physician versus discharge physician for the full match, partial match, and mismatch diagnoses. The studied outcomes included interdepartmental transfer, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) transfer, in-hospital mortality, readmission within 30 days, and the length of stay. For simplicity, we only analyzed the factors for the discrepancy among ED physicians and discharge physicians. Results Out of 537 admissions, there were 25.3–27.2% admissions with full match diagnoses while 18.6–19.4% and 45.3–47.9% had mismatch and partial match diagnoses respectively. The discrepancy resulted in an increased number of interdepartmental transfers (5–5.8%), ICU transfers (5.6–8.7%), in-hospital mortality (8–11%), and readmissions within 30 days in ED (14.4%-16.7%). A statistically significant difference was observed for the ward’s length of stay with the most prolonged stay in partially matched diagnoses (6.3 ± 5.4 days). Among all the factors that were evaluated for the diagnostic discrepancy, older age, multi-morbidities, level of trainee clerking the patient, review by ED faculty, incomplete history, and delay in investigations at ED were associated with significant discrepant diagnoses. Conclusions Diagnostic discrepancies are a relevant and significant healthcare problem. Fixed patient or physician characteristics do not readily predict diagnostic discrepancies. To reduce the diagnostic discrepancy, emphasis should be given to good history taking and thorough physical examination. Patients with older age and multi-morbidity should receive significant consideration.

Objectives: Hospital readmission has become a focus of national attention as a potential indicator of healthcare quality and has a significant financial impact on healthcare system. Limited data is available regarding readmissions to Internal Medicine specialty from our sub-continent. It is, therefore, essential to determine the frequency and factors leading to readmissions, in order to avoid preventable readmissions and improve quality of healthcare provision. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed adult discharges from Internal Medicine specialty between October 2018 and February 2019 at Aga Khan University Hospital. Out of 1,835 discharges, 491 were randomly selected after excluding expiries. The frequency, factors and outcomes of readmission were noted. The studied outcomes included length of stay and in-hospital mortality. Results: Out of 491 patients, 15.3% were readmitted within 30-days of their discharge. Most of the readmitted patients were females (56%) and elderly with a mean age 67.1±14.9 years. Majority of the patient who got readmitted had multi-morbidities (68%) and were of functional Class-II (39%).The mean length of stay for index and readmission was between 4-7days. Eighty-percent readmissions were discharged as planned, 13% on request and seven-percent left against medical advice in their index admission. The most common causes of readmission were persistence of symptoms (43%) and nosocomial infection (29%). Avoidable causes included hospital-associated pneumonia, urinary tract infections and septic shock. Mortality in readmitted patients was 12%. Conclusions: The causes of readmission is multi-factorial, including advanced age, multi-morbidities, persistence of symptoms and nosocomial infections. Early follow-ups should be advised to prevent avoidable readmissions. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.7.3575 How to cite this:Fatima S, Shamim S, Raffat S, Tariq M. Hospital readmissions in Internal Medicine Specialty: Frequency, associated factors and outcomes. Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(7):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.37.7.3575 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract