No abstract

BackgroundCommunity management of atrial fibrillation (AF) often requires the use of electrocardiographic (ECG) investigation. Patients discharged following treatment of AF with fast ventricular response (fast AF) can require numerous ECGs to monitor rate and/or rhythm control. Single-lead ECGs have been proposed as a more convenient and relatively accurate alternative to 12-lead ECGs for rate/rhythm management and also diagnosis of AF. We aimed to examine the feasibility of using the AliveCor single-lead ECG monitor for diagnosis and monitoring of AF in the community setting.MethodsDuring the course of 6 months, this evaluation of a clinical service improvement pathway used the AliveCor in management of patients requiring (1) follow-up ECGs for AF with previously documented rapid ventricular rate or (2) ECG confirmation of rhythm where AF was suspected. Twelve AliveCor devices provided to the acute community medical team were used to produce 30 s ECG rhythm strips (iECG) that were electronically sent to an overreading physician.ResultsSeventy-four patients (mean age 82 years) were managed on this pathway. (1) The AliveCor was successfully used to monitor the follow-up of 37 patients with fast AF, acquiring a combined total of 113 iECGs (median 1.5 ±3.75 per patient). None of these patients required a subsequent 12-lead ECG and this approach saved an estimate of up to £134.49 per patient. (2) Of 53 patients with abnormal pulses, the system helped identify 8 cases of new onset AF and 19 cases of previously known AF that had reverted from sinus back into AF.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated that the AliveCor system is a feasible, cost-effective, time-efficient and potentially safer alternative to serial 12-lead ECGs for community monitoring and diagnosis of AF.

Background The Acute Clinical Team (ACT) in Neath Port Talbot is a well-established hospital at home service that provides treatments in the community. During the COVID 19 outbreaks, the team proactively telephoned the care home managers on a regular basis to enquire about the residents wellbeing and establish if input was required. This proactive approach worked well with some homes. Where crises developed, we were able to provide hands on support to provide appropriate medical care. Methods A collaborative effort from community teams and volunteers assisted ACT to provide nursing and medical interventions in care homes which accepted our help. Interventions included intravenous (IV) antibiotics, parenteral fluids, IV/oral dexamethasone, low molecular weight heparin, oxygen (up to 10 L face mask), communication with families and palliative care. Results Data is presented from 7 care homes for which ACT provided input; patients who were unwell requiring additional help were referred to the team. Comparative data from a care home in the same area where ACT was not involved is presented. Data was collected from 01/11/20-10/02/21. Table 1 Care homes with ACT involvement (190 patients) Care home without ACT involvement (85 patients) Patients assessed Patients not assessed No. with COVID-19 infection (%) 96/190 (51%) 94/190 (49%) 27/85 (32%) Acute hospital admission related to COVID-19 (%) 3/96 (3%) 7/94 (9%) 8/27 (30%) Died within 28 days of positive test(%) 37/96 (39%) 20/94 (21%) 15/27 (56%). Conclusion ACT had a vital role during the outbreak in supporting the local community. The team was able to provide a range of interventions and prevent avoidable admissions. The team received excellent feedback ‘We couldn’t have survived without the ACT teams input. They were our lifesavers. The whole team were amazing and came to our rescue where everyone else who knew we had COVID bolted to the hills’ Manager.

This abstract describes how a small team of nurses (supported by a consultant physician) provides safe, timely, evidence-based efficient care to their patients that would have traditionally been done in a hospital setting.

No abstract