Effective vaccination against coronavirus mitigates the risk of hospitalisation and mortality; however, it is unclear whether vaccination status influences long COVID symptoms in patients who require hospitalisation. The available evidence is limited to outpatients with mild disease. Here, we evaluated 412 patients (age: 60 ± 16 years, 65% males) consecutively admitted to two Hospitals in Brazil due to confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Compared with patients with complete vaccination (n = 185) before infection or hospitalisation, those with no or incomplete vaccination (n = 227) were younger and had a lower frequency of several comorbidities. Data during hospitalisation revealed that the no or incomplete vaccination group required more admissions to the intensive care unit (ICU), used more corticosteroids, and had higher rates of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis than the complete vaccination group. Ninety days after hospital discharge, patients with no or incomplete vaccination presented a higher frequency of symptoms (≥ 1) than patients with complete vaccination (40 vs. 27%; p = 0.013). After adjusting for confounders, no or incomplete vaccination (odds ratio [OR] 1.819; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.175–2.815), female sex (OR 2.435; 95% CI 1.575–3.764) and ICU admission during hospitalisation (OR 1.697; 95% CI 1.062–2.712) were independently associated with ≥ 1 symptom 90 days after hospital discharge. In conclusion, even in patients with severe COVID-19, vaccination mitigates the probability of long COVID symptoms.

No abstract

Background: The long-term follow-up of clinical outcomes in patients admitted with acute stroke can identify relevant clinical data in the prevention of stroke recurrence as well as measure the quality of life of such patients. Follow-up after discharge in hospitals without stroke clinics can be a challenge. Therefore we created in our hospital an outcomes measurement nuclei characterized as a data collection center, with the main objective of periodically measuring clinical outcomes and quality of life of patients after hospital discharge.This sector works together with the different clinical specialties in providing information with a focus on outcome indicators, using questionnaires to estimate the parameters of evaluation of health states.Our objective was to describe data obtained from this data collection center evaluating post-discharge quality of life of patients treated in our stroke center 30, 90, 180 days and 01 years after the diagnosis. Methods: The study was conducted from January 2012 to March 2016, at a tertiary, general, private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Phone calls using the EuroQol instrument (EQ-5D) to measure quality of life were performed. The modified Rankin scale and a structured questionnaire to identify stroke recurrence, readmissions and medication failures were also applied. Results: We conducted 2184 telephone calls and obtained 1727 (79%) successful contacts. The mean EQ-5D at 30 days was: 0.732 +/-0.558; at 90 days: 0.722 +/- 0.358; at 180 Days: 0.781 +/- 0.326; and at 12 months 0.766 +/-0.349. During the follow-up, 31 patients (2%) died. The main reasons for censuring patients were unsuccessful contact after 3 attempts (51%); outdated registration data (3%) and refusals (9%). Conclusion: In conclusion, monitoring of standardized clinical outcomes after stroke is possible even in private non academic hospitals, allowing the acquisition of quality of care indicators and patient centered outcomes.

68 Background: Complete and accurate medical record (MR) documentation is essential to quality of cancer patient care, whose complex health and social needs should be addressed during medical consultation. We aimed to evaluate the MR compliance before and after an engagement plan (EP) and an education meeting (EM) for oncologists. Methods: An integrated EP was designed to improve medical notes in a Brazilian cancer center. Firstly, a pool of 160 selected MR of patients with prevalent neoplasms was reviewed to identify frequently missed components. Based on this result, a set of MR documentation standards was developed and presented in an EM for oncologists. To verify its effect, a cross-sectional analysis was performed using 25 standard elements collected from randomized MR before and after the EM such as pathology report, cancer stage, medical history, treatment plan, patient comprehension, and initial psychological assessment. It was given particular emphasis to psychological assessment during the EM as a low documentation of it was identified after the first MR review. The variation of the proportions pre- and post-EM was assessed using the chi-square test. Results: A total of 850 elements were collected from 34 patients’ MR two months pre-EM and 950 elements of 38 patients’ MR two weeks after. Of these patients, pre-EM 18 were under intravenous (IV) therapy and 16 under oral antineoplastic therapy and, post-EM, 14 and 24 patients were under IV and oral therapy, respectively. Pre-EM, MR compliance of patients under oral therapy was 68% and for patients under IV therapy 78% (P = 0.0013). Post-EM, the difference between MR compliance of patients under oral and IV therapy was 6% (82% vs. 88%, P = 0.0167). Overall MR compliance pre-EM was 73% and post-EM 84% (P < 0.0001). Psychological assessment pre- and post-EM were 9% and 50% (P = 0.0002), respectively. Conclusions: Patients under IV therapy have a more accurate MR documentation than patients under oral therapy. Overall compliance of MR documentation was significantly improved after an EM, a part of an integrated EP. Psychological assessment documentation has not only improved, but it is expected that more attention has been given to this valuation by oncologists.