ArticleHealth science reports2022
Integrating healthcare for follow-up of adult COVID-19 patients in an outpatient clinic: A matter of cooperation.
Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patients' evaluation of aftercare following hospitalization for COVID-19: satisfaction and unmet needs.Respiratory research · 2024Article
- Integrating healthcare for follow-up of adult COVID-19 patients in an outpatient clinic: A matter of cooperation.Health science reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE AIMS AND
objectivesA large number of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) need outpatient follow-up after hospitalization. As these patients may experience a broad range of symptoms, as do patients infected with the related SARS-CoV-1 virus, we set up a multidisciplinary outpatient clinic involving pulmonologists, internists, and geriatricians. Patients were allocated to a specialist based on symptoms reported on a self-developed questionnaire of expected symptoms of COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this outpatient clinic.
methodsIn this retrospective study, the medical records of patients who presented to the outpatient clinic for follow-up after hospitalization for COVID-19 up to 31 August 2020, were reviewed.
resultsIn total, 266 patients were seen at the outpatient clinic at least once. Overall, 100 patients were seen by a pulmonologist, 97 by an internist, and 65 by a geriatrician. A referral between these 3 medical specialists was needed for only 14 patients (5.3%). Fifty patients were seen by a psychologist, mostly those with a HADS score >10. Only 5 (2.2%) of the 221 patients who were not directly referred to a psychologist based on triage needed psychological support. Forty-eight patients (18%) were also seen by a physiatrist.
conclusionIdentifying which medical specialist (pulmonologist, internist, and/or geriatrician) should see patients attending a post-COVID outpatient clinic based on patient-reported symptoms proved an effective approach to managing the flow of post-COVID patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.