Background. The Klinikum Hochrhein is responsible as a regional sole provider for the acute and emergency medical treatment of more than 170.000 people. Against the background of the pandemic spread of SARS-CoV-2 with expected high patient inflows and at the same time endangering one's own infrastructure due to intraclinical transmissions, the hospital management defined the maintenance of one's functionality as a priority protection objective in the pandemic. An essential strategic element was a very short-term restructuring of the Emergency Department with the objectives of reducing the number of cases within the clinic, detecting COVID-19 cases as sensitively as possible and separating the patient pathways at an early stage. Methods. The present work is a retrospective analysis of the processes and structures established in the Emergency Department between 27 March 2020 and 20 May 2020. In addition, a retrospective descriptive evaluation of the epidemiological and clinical data of the patients is carried out at the time of first contact during the period mentioned above. Results. After establishing a pre-triage with structured algorithms, all confirmed COVID-19 cases were identified before entering the clinic and assigned to an appropriate treatment pathway. Unprotected entry into hospital structures or nosocomial infections were not observed, although almost 35% of patients with confirmed infection were admitted due to other symptom complexes or injuries. 201 inpatient patients were initially isolated without COVID-19 being confirmed. The number of cases in the Emergency Department was 39% lower than the previous year's period, thus avoiding crowding. Discussion. The reduction in the number of cases was strategically intended and is primarily the result of a restrictive indication of in-clinical treatment but supported by a decline in emergency consultations that can be noticed anyway. The proportion of false positive triage results is probably dependent on epidemiological activity and was accepted for safety reasons as sufficient resources were available for isolation. Conclusion. Short-term organizational, spatial and procedural restructuring of the ZNA has enabled the clinic to achieve its goal of managing the pandemic. The algorithms we developed are particularly well suited to guarantee the desired level of safety in the case of a high pre-test probability.

Background. The increasing number of cases and hospital admissions due to COVID-19 created an urgent need for rapid, reliable testing procedures for SARS-CoV-2 in Emergency Departments (ED) in order to effectively manage hospital resources, allocate beds and prevent nosocomial spread of infection. The ID NOW(TM) COVID-19 assay is a simple, user-friendly, rapid molecular test run on an instrument with a small footprint enabling point-of-care diagnostics. Methods. In the first wave, outsourced RT-PCR testing regularly required 36-48 hours before results were available. This prospective study was conducted in the second wave (October 2020-April 2021) and evaluated the impact the implementation of the ID NOW(TM) COVID-19 test in the ED had on clinical care processes and patient pathways. 710 patients were recruited upon arrival at the ED which included those presenting clinical symptoms, asymptomatic individuals or persons fulfilling epidemiological criteria. The first anterior nasal swab was taken by trained nurses in the ambulance or a separate consultation room. The ID NOW(TM) COVID-19 test was performed in the ED in strict compliance with the manufacturer's instructions and positive or suspected cases were additionally tested with RT_PCR (cobas SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR, Roche) following collection of a second nasopharyngeal NP specimen. Results. Swabs directly tested with the ID NOW(TM) COVID-19 test showed a diagnostic concordance of 98 % (sensitivity 99.59 %, specificity 94.55 %, PPV 97.6 %, NPV 99.05 %) compared to RT-PCR as reference. The 488 patients that tested positive with the ID NOW(TM) COVID-19 had a Ct range in RT-PCR results between 7.94 to 37.42 (in 23.2 % > 30). Two false negative results (0.28%) were recorded from patients with Ct values > 30. 14 (1.69%) discordant results were reviewed case-by-case and usually associated with either very early or very advanced stages of infection. Furthermore, patients initially negative with the ID NOW(TM) COVID-19 test and admitted to the hospital were tested again on days 5 and 12: no patient became positive. Discussion. The ID NOW(TM) COVID-19 test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated excellent diagnostic agreement with RT-PCR under the above-mentioned patients pathways implemented during the second wave. The main advantage of the system was the provision of reliable results within a few minutes. This not only allowed immediate initiative of appropriate therapy and care for COVID-19 (patient benefit) but provided essential information on isolation and thus available beds. This drastically helped the overall finances of the department and additionally allowed more patients to be admitted including those requiring immediate attention; this was not possible during the first wave since beds were blocked waiting for diagnostic confirmation. Our findings also show that when interpreting the results, the clinical condition and epidemiological history of the patient must be taken into account, as with any test procedure. Overall, the ID NOW(TM) COVID-19 test for SARS-CoV-2 provided a rapid and reliable alternative to laboratory-based RT-PCR in the real clinical setting which became an acceptable part of the daily routine within the ED and demonstrated that early patient management can mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the hospital.

Background. A significant decrease in the number of cases of emergency medical care during the first phase of the Corona pandemic has been reported from various regions of the world. Due to the lack of or delayed use of medical assistance, particularly in the case of time-critical clinical pictures (myocardial infarction, stroke), a corona collateral damage syndrome is postulated regarding possible health consequences. The present study investigates changes in the use of preclinical and clinical emergency care and effects on overall mortality in a rural area. Methods. The number of patients in the emergency department at the Klinikum Hochrhein and the ambulance service were retrospectively aggregated and analyzed regarding the total number and selected tracer diagnoses and alarm keywords. The investigation period was the 9th to 22nd calendar week 2020 compared to the identical period of the previous year. In addition, the death rates in the district were collected directly from the registries and related to the number of patients in emergency care. Results. Overall, the number of patients in clinical and preclinical emergency care declined significantly during the investigation period. This concerned in particular emergency inpatient treatment of patients with exacerbations or complications of severe chronic diseases. At the same time, excess mortality occurred in April 2020, which was still highly significant even after excluding deaths on or with COVID-19. Discussion. Only about 55 % of the excess mortality in April 2020 can be attributed to COVID-19 and is associated with the decline in inpatient emergency treatment, especially of chronically ill patients. Since a drift of patients with the use of other service providers is unlikely, we assume that fears of infection in overburdened hospitals, one-sided public communication and reporting, and the extent of contact restrictions have contributed significantly to the decline in case numbers and to excess mortality (collateral damage). Conclusion. For similar situations in the future, it is strongly recommended to make crisis communication and media coverage more balanced so as not to prevent people with acute health problems from receiving medical assistance. Contact restrictions should be critically reviewed and limited to the objectively necessary minimum.