4.3 Article

COVID-19 pandemic 2020: a tertiary Melbourne hospital's experience

Journal

INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL
Volume 52, Issue 7, Pages 1129-1134

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/imj.15699

Keywords

COVID-19; retrospective studies; hospitalisation; Australia; SARS-CoV-2

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reviewed the demographics, management, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients cared for by the Royal Melbourne Hospital in 2020. The study found that the demographics and outcomes of patients changed over time, with higher mortality rates observed in the elderly population.
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has affected different parts of Australia in distinct ways across 2020 and 2021. In 2020, Melbourne was the epicentre of COVID-19. As one of the key tertiary centres caring for the patients affected by the outbreaks, the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) managed the majority of the Victorian inpatient caseload. Aims To review the demographics, management and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 cared for by the RMH services in 2020. Methods A single health service retrospective cohort analysis of demographics, interventions and outcomes was conducted to characterise the RMH experience in 2020. Results From January to December 2020, 433 patients required admission more than 24 h. The demographics of affected patients and outcomes changed over the course of the study. Overall, 47% (203/433) required oxygen, most frequently (36%; 154/433) with low-flow devices (nasal prongs or hudson mask), and 11% (47/433) of patients required admission to intensive care. We recorded a 30-day mortality of 24% (104/433) mortality overall, rising to over 50% in patients aged over 80 years. Conclusions The experience of this health service in 2020 demonstrated changing demographics over time, with associated differences in outcomes; notably marked mortality in older populations, frequent complications and limited inter-site transfer possible with mobilised resources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available