Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers in Germany: Description, Economic Evaluation, and Systematic Review.
COVID-19
Germany
algorithm
algorithm-based treatment
allocation
consultation
coordination
economic
establishment
management
patient allocation
review
telehealth
telemedical consultation
telemedicine
treatment
Journal
JMIR public health and surveillance
ISSN: 2369-2960
Titre abrégé: JMIR Public Health Surveill
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101669345
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 11 2021
18 11 2021
Historique:
received:
10
09
2021
accepted:
05
10
2021
revised:
27
09
2021
pubmed:
9
10
2021
medline:
24
11
2021
entrez:
8
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers (CCCCs) have been established at several hospitals across Germany with the intention to assist local health care professionals in efficiently referring patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to regional hospitals and therefore to prevent the collapse of local health system structures. In addition, these centers coordinate interhospital transfers of patients with COVID-19 and provide or arrange specialized telemedical consultations. This study describes the establishment and management of a CCCC at a German university hospital. We performed economic analyses (cost, cost-effectiveness, use, and utility) according to the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) criteria. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review to identify publications on similar institutions worldwide. The 2 months with the highest local incidence of COVID-19 cases (December 2020 and January 2021) were considered. During this time, 17.3 requests per day were made to the CCCC regarding admission or transfer of patients with COVID-19. The majority of requests were made by emergency medical services (601/1068, 56.3%), patients with an average age of 71.8 (SD 17.2) years were involved, and for 737 of 1068 cases (69%), SARS-CoV-2 had already been detected by a positive polymerase chain reaction test. In 59.8% (639/1068) of the concerned patients, further treatment by a general practitioner or outpatient presentation in a hospital could be initiated after appropriate advice, 27.2% (291/1068) of patients were admitted to normal wards, and 12.9% (138/1068) were directly transmitted to an intensive care unit. The operating costs of the CCCC amounted to more than €52,000 (US $60,031) per month. Of the 334 patients with detected SARS-CoV-2 who were referred via EMS or outpatient physicians, 302 (90.4%) were triaged and announced in advance by the CCCC. No other published economic analysis of COVID-19 coordination or management institutions at hospitals could be found. Despite the high cost of the CCCC, we were able to show that it is a beneficial concept to both the providing hospital and the public health system. However, the most important benefits of the CCCC are that it prevents hospitals from being overrun by patients and that it avoids situations in which physicians must weigh one patient's life against another's.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers (CCCCs) have been established at several hospitals across Germany with the intention to assist local health care professionals in efficiently referring patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to regional hospitals and therefore to prevent the collapse of local health system structures. In addition, these centers coordinate interhospital transfers of patients with COVID-19 and provide or arrange specialized telemedical consultations.
OBJECTIVE
This study describes the establishment and management of a CCCC at a German university hospital.
METHODS
We performed economic analyses (cost, cost-effectiveness, use, and utility) according to the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) criteria. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review to identify publications on similar institutions worldwide. The 2 months with the highest local incidence of COVID-19 cases (December 2020 and January 2021) were considered.
RESULTS
During this time, 17.3 requests per day were made to the CCCC regarding admission or transfer of patients with COVID-19. The majority of requests were made by emergency medical services (601/1068, 56.3%), patients with an average age of 71.8 (SD 17.2) years were involved, and for 737 of 1068 cases (69%), SARS-CoV-2 had already been detected by a positive polymerase chain reaction test. In 59.8% (639/1068) of the concerned patients, further treatment by a general practitioner or outpatient presentation in a hospital could be initiated after appropriate advice, 27.2% (291/1068) of patients were admitted to normal wards, and 12.9% (138/1068) were directly transmitted to an intensive care unit. The operating costs of the CCCC amounted to more than €52,000 (US $60,031) per month. Of the 334 patients with detected SARS-CoV-2 who were referred via EMS or outpatient physicians, 302 (90.4%) were triaged and announced in advance by the CCCC. No other published economic analysis of COVID-19 coordination or management institutions at hospitals could be found.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the high cost of the CCCC, we were able to show that it is a beneficial concept to both the providing hospital and the public health system. However, the most important benefits of the CCCC are that it prevents hospitals from being overrun by patients and that it avoids situations in which physicians must weigh one patient's life against another's.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34623955
pii: v7i11e33509
doi: 10.2196/33509
pmc: PMC8604254
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e33509Informations de copyright
©Nikolas Schopow, Georg Osterhoff, Nikolaus von Dercks, Felix Girrbach, Christoph Josten, Sebastian Stehr, Pierre Hepp. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 18.11.2021.
Références
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jul 6;18(1):528
pubmed: 29976185
J Med Virol. 2021 Jan;93(1):522-527
pubmed: 32558962
Vaccine. 2010 Jul 12;28(31):4895-902
pubmed: 20553769
Tohoku J Exp Med. 2017;243(1):1-9
pubmed: 28890523
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019 Apr;34(2):149-154
pubmed: 30981285
Orthopade. 2020 Jun;49(6):494-501
pubmed: 32436038
Crit Care Med. 2019 Apr;47(4):501-507
pubmed: 30688718
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 16;371(16):1481-95
pubmed: 25244186
JAMA. 2021 Apr 13;325(14):1469-1470
pubmed: 33595630
Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2013 Sep;15(9):829-35
pubmed: 24616795
Inform Med Unlocked. 2020;21:100475
pubmed: 33204821
JAMA. 2020 Apr 7;323(13):1239-1242
pubmed: 32091533
J Infect Dev Ctries. 2016 Mar 31;10(3):201-7
pubmed: 27031450
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2021 Mar 10;:1-10
pubmed: 33750505
J Crit Care. 2013 Jun;28(3):318.e9-15
pubmed: 23159140
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 27;22(10):e21476
pubmed: 32946413
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017 Oct;11(5):526-530
pubmed: 28659222
Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Jun;14(3):367-72
pubmed: 23526140
Mil Med. 2021 Jul 1;186(7-8):e811-e818
pubmed: 33216935
Epidemiol Infect. 2015 Dec;143(16):3359-74
pubmed: 26205078
Front Immunol. 2019 Mar 28;10:549
pubmed: 30984169
N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 18;349(25):2431-41
pubmed: 14681510
Lancet. 2015 Sep 5;386(9997):995-1007
pubmed: 26049252
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):762-74
pubmed: 26903335
Methods Inf Med. 2018 Nov;57(5-06):231-242
pubmed: 30875702