Oncological care organisation during COVID-19 outbreak.
- Onesti CE Department of Medical Oncology, CHU de Liège, Liege, Belgium elisaonesti@gmail.com.
- Rugo HS Department of Medicine and Division of Oncology, University of California San Francisco, Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
- Generali D UO Patologia Mammaria e Ricerca Traslazionale, Breast Unit, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale di Cremona, Cremona, Italy.
- Peeters M Oncology Department, University Hospital Antwerp (UZA), Antwerp, Belgium.
- Zaman K Oncology Department, CHUV - Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- Wildiers H Department of General Medical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
- Harbeck N Breast Center, Dept. OB&GYN and CCLMU, Ludwig Maximilians University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
- Martin M Departamento de Medicina, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
- Cristofanilli M Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
- Cortes J Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain.
- Tjan-Heijnen V Medical Oncology Department, Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
- Hurvitz SA Los Angeles/Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
- Berchem G Hemato-Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
- Tagliamento M Medical Oncology 2, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
- Campone M Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Centre René Gauducheau, Saint Herblain, France.
- Bartsch R Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
- De Placido S Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
- Puglisi F Department of Medical Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, Aviano, Italy.
- Rottey S Medical Oncology Department, UZ Gent, Gent, Belgium.
- Müller V Ginecology Department, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
- Ruhstaller T Medical Oncology Department, Breast Center of Eastern Switzerland, St Gallen, Switzerland.
- Machiels JP Oncology Department, Cliniques Universitaires St. Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
- Conte P Istituto Oncologico Veneto Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padova, Italy.
- Awada A Medical Oncology Department, Institut Jules Bordet, Bruxelles, Belgium.
- Jerusalem G Department of Medical Oncology, CHU de Liège, Liege, Belgium.
- 2020-08-28
Published in:
- ESMO open. - 2020
COVID-19
oncological care
Betacoronavirus
Cancer Care Facilities
Coronavirus Infections
Delivery of Health Care
Disinfection
Europe
Health Care Surveys
Humans
Medical Oncology
Neoplasms
Pandemics
Personal Protective Equipment
Pneumonia, Viral
Triage
United States
Visitors to Patients
English
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA.
METHODS
A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit.
RESULTS
Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres.
CONCLUSION
Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.
COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA.
METHODS
A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit.
RESULTS
Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres.
CONCLUSION
Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- gold
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000853
- PMID 32847836
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/861
Statistics
Document views: 53
File downloads:
- Full-text: 0