An Examination of the Factors, Which May Affect the Duration of Admission to the Hospital of Panic Diagnosed Patient in Surgical Pathology during and Pre-COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Objective The present study aimed to determine the duration of hospital admission of the panic diagnosed patients, examine the factors that may influence hospital admission time, and identify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital admission time. Method: In this study, the panic diagnosed patients between January 2018 and January 2021 were determined. These patients’ demographic, clinical, and panic diagnosis form data were documented. The duration of hospital admission of patients during and pre-COVID-19 pandemic period was determined. Results: There were 65 panic diagnosed cases, of which one patient had leukocytoclastic vasculitis, 10 patients had uterine contents without villi or trophoblasts, and 54 patients had unexpected malignancy. The mean time of admission to the hospital of verbally informed and not verbally informed cases were five days and 156 days, respectively in the pre-COVID group. All cases in the COVID pandemic group were verbally informed about panic diagnosis by phone call. The mean time (day) of admission to the hospital was 18.3 days (1-40). Admission times were on mean about 13.3 days longer in verbally informed cases in the COVID pandemic group compared to verbally informed cases in the pre-COVID group. Conclusion: We determined a dramatic decrease in the number of panic diagnosed cases during the COVID pandemic and patients who are verbally informed admitted to the hospital in a shorter time. Integrations of hospital panic diagnosis notification systems to health application programs and primary responsible family physician’s systems may be useful for preventing unwanted delays.

Keywords

• Panic diagnosis
• unexpected diagnosis
• significant diagnosis
• critical value

COVID-19 Pandemi Dönemi ve Öncesinde Cerrahi Patolojide Panik Tanı alan Hastaların Hastaneye Başvuru Sürelerini Etkileyebilecek Faktörlerin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada Panik tanı alan hastaların hastaneye başvuru sürleri belirlenmiş, hastaneye başvuru süresini etkileyebilecek faktörler değerlendirilmiş ve COVID-19 pandemisinin hastaneye başvuru süresi üzerine etkisi irdelenmiştir. Metod: Bu çalışmada, 2018-2021 yılları Ocak ayları arasında panik tanı alan hastalar belirlendi. Bu hastaların demografik, Klinik ve panik tanı formlarındaki bilgiler derlendi. COVID-19 pandemi dönemi ve öncesindeki hastaneye başvuru süreleri belirlendi. Bulgular: Panik tanı alan 65 hasta mevcuttu. Bunlardan birinde lökositoklastik vaskülit, 10’nunda villus veya trophoblast içermeyen uterin kürataj materyali ve 54’ünde beklenmeyen malignite mevcuttu. COVID öncesi dönemde panik tanı hakkında sözlü olarak bilgilendirlen ve bilgilendirilmeyen vakaların hastaneye başvuru süresinin ortalaması sırası ile, beş ve 156 gündü. COVID pandemic döneminde tüm hastalar sözel olarak bilgilendirilmişti ve hastaneye başvuru süreleri ortalama 18 gündü. Sözel olarak bilgilendirilen grubun hastaneye başvuru süreleri COVID pandemic döneminde önceki döneme göre 13 gün daha uzundu. Sonuç: COVID pandemic döneminde panik tanı vakalarında belirgin düşüş ve sözlü olarak bilgilendirlen hastaların hastaneye daha kısa zamanda başvurduğunu saptadık. Hastane panik tanı bildirim sistemlerinin, sağlık aplikasyonlarına ve Aile hekimliği sistemine integre edilmesi istenmeyen gecikmelerin önüne geçmek için yararlı olabilir.

Keywords

• Panik Tanı,
• beklenmeyen tanı
• önemli tanı
• Kritik Değer

References

1. Pereira TC, Liu Y, Silverman JF. Critical values in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004; 122: 201-5. doi: 10.1309/7NRW-7G68-4VEP-WPMR.
2. Nakhleh RE, Myers JL, Allen TC, DeYoung BR, Fitzgibbons PL, Funkhouser WK, et al. Consensus statement on effective communication of urgent diagnoses and significant, unexpected diagnoses in surgical pathology and cytopathology from the College of American Pathologists and Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012; 136: 148-54. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0400-SA.
3. LiVolsi VA. Critical values in anatomic pathology: how do we communicate? Am J Clin Pathol. 2004; 122: 171-2. doi: 10.1309/G1C5-1DYV-MPDJ-3DD7.
4. Jackson C, Macdonald M, Anderson M, Stevens P, Gordon P, Laxer R. Improving communication of critical test results in a pediatric academic setting: key lessons in achieving and sustaining positive outcomes. Healthc Q. 2009; 12: 116-22. doi: 10.12927/hcq.2009.20978.
5. Georgiou A, Li J, Thomas J, Dahm MR, Westbrook JI. The impact of health information technology on the management and follow-up of test results - a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019; 26: 678-88. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocz032. Hui DS, I Azhar E, Madani TA, Ntoumi F, Kock R, Dar O, et al. The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health - The latest 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. Int J Infect Dis. 2020; 91: 264-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.009.
6. Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, Li X, Yang B, Song J, et al. China Novel Coronavirus Investigating and Research Team. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 727-33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001017.
7. Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2. Nat Microbiol. 2020; 5: 536-44. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-0695-z.
8. Birkmeyer JD, Barnato A, Birkmeyer N, Bessler R, Skinner J. The Impact Of The COVID-19 Pandemic On Hospital Admissions In The United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020; 39: 2010-7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00980.

9. Siegler JE, Heslin ME, Thau L, Smith A, Jovin TG. Falling stroke rates during COVID-19 pandemic at a comprehensive stroke center. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020; 29: 104953. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.104953.
10. Solomon MD, McNulty EJ, Rana JS, Leong TK, Lee C, Sung SH. The Covid-19 Pandemic and the Incidence of Acute Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383 (7): 691-3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2015630.
11. Lundberg GD. Panic values: five years later. MLO Med Lab Obs. 1977; 9: 27-34
12. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Critical diagnoses (critical values) in anatomic pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006; 30: 897-9. doi: 10.1097/01.pas.0000213287.73530.0a.
13. Huang EC, Kuo FC, Fletcher CD, Nosé V. Critical diagnoses in surgical pathology: a retrospective single-institution study to monitor guidelines for communication of urgent results. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009; 33: 1098-102. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181a05ea9.
14. Staats PN, Parkash V, Otis CN, Sharma P, Ioffe O, Bracamonte ER. The Current State of Communication of Urgent and Significant, Unexpected Diagnoses in Anatomic Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020; 144: 1067-74. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0436-OA.
15. Pereira TC, Clayton AC, Tazelaar HD, Liu Y, Leon M, Silverman JF. Critical values in cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006; 34: 447-51. doi: 10.1002/dc.20443.
16. Pereira TC, Silverman JF, LiVolsi V, Fletcher CD, Frable WJ, Goldblum JR, Swanson PE. A multi-institutional survey of critical diagnoses (critical values) in surgical pathology and cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 130: 731-5. doi: 10.1309/AJCPEHGNFGBEJZ7H.
17. Nakhleh RE, Souers R, Brown RW. Significant and unexpected, and critical diagnoses in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologists' survey of 1130 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133: 1375-8. doi: 10.1043/1543-2165-133.9.1375.
18. Dighe AS, Rao A, Coakley AB, Lewandrowski KB. Analysis of laboratory critical value reporting at a large academic medical center. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 125: 758-64. doi: 10.1309/R53X-VC2U-5CH6-TNG8.
19. Etchells E, Adhikari NK, Cheung C, Fowler R, Kiss A, Quan S, et al. Real-time clinical alerting: effect of an automated paging system on response time to critical laboratory values--a randomised controlled trial. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010; 19: 99-102.