Friday, November 22, 2024
Virtual Heart Care
Telehealth 

Proactive Teleconsultation for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Cases Identified Through the Community-Testing Initiative in Karachi, Pakistan: A Low-Cost Value-Added Service to Support a Pandemic Response in a Resource-Limited Setting

Editor


Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a coronavirus infection originating in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, proved to be highly infectious and developed into a glaring pandemic owing to globalization, with >83,859,650 confirmed cases as of December 31, 2020.1 Although COVID-19 has a much lower case fatality rate (1.4–3.4%), the total number of deaths from the disease have exceeded 1,825,450, far greater than those caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) pandemics combined.2 Earlier pandemics of the 21st century did not affect Pakistan3; however, 10 months into the pandemic, Pakistan has had >482,170 confirmed cases with >10,170 deaths.1 Karachi, Pakistan’s largest and most populous city, hosts the most number of COVID cases in the country.4

Pakistan reported its first case on February 26, 2020 from Sindh province.5 Immediate efforts were established at national and provincial levels to ensure screening, testing, contact-tracing, isolation, and “smart” lockdowns to reduce the infection spread. Indus Hospital and Health Network (IHHN) partnered with the provincial government and other private sector partners to tackle the pandemic, offering integrated services ranging from screening and testing to management of complicated COVID cases. The Global Health Directorate (GHD) of IHHN was uniquely placed to create a “COVID-response team” to provide services to communities through its existing infrastructure used for implementation of public health programs. The “COVID-response team,” based in Karachi, consisted of community health care workers, community engagement teams, program implementation specialists, and clinical teams. The team underwent training in patient screening and nasopharyngeal swabbing based on national guidelines.6 Given the unprecedented circumstances, the approach involved experiential learning, tweaking, and adapting systems and processes to control the pandemic.

GHD, in partnership with the local government administration, rolled out community-based testing initiatives across Karachi where patients were screened and tested and samples were safely transferred to The Indus Hospital (TIH) laboratory. Efforts were made to ensure that the testing locations were approachable and convenient for the majority; targeted hotspots such as madrassas (religious institutions) and community centers were also identified as testing sites after collaborating with district administration teams. Results were shared with the district government within 24–48 h. The aim of the district government was to convey test results to those who tested positive along with relevant instructions on immediate isolation and self-care. However, with escalating tests and a surge in positive cases, an increasing time lag was noticed between testing and results dissemination, with the resultant risk of infection spread by the unaware case and growing anxiety of patients awaiting their results.

Methods

To bridge the gap, occurring due to a delay in transmission of results, a doctor was engaged to communicate the test results to COVID-19 positive patients through a helpline. During the first few calls, the need for revision of strategy was realized. With the spread of the pandemic and consequent panic in the community, people were desperate to communicate with health professionals for guidance regarding isolation and self-care.7 Uncertainties prevailed and people had many queries for which they wanted answers. We had anticipated that each call would last under a minute; however, it extended to a teleconsultation of 5–6 min on average. Subsequently, an extensive document with standard operating procedures (SOPs) was drafted and regularly updated using national6 and Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.8 It contained information regarding COVID-19 testing, retesting, isolation, clinical management of mild to moderate cases, referral in case of severe symptoms, identification of red flags, self-care, disinfection, testing of contacts, and ending isolation. Consultations were tailored to patients’ context, background, and needs. Linkages were established with TIH’s Infectious Diseases specialists and emergency department (ED) physicians for further guidance in complicated cases. As numbers increased toward late April, a second physician and helpline were added.

Every morning, the list of new positive patients with their medical record number, basic demographic and contact details, was shared by the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) team with the doctors. During calls, key information was collected from cases regarding the possible source of infection, signs and symptoms, comorbidities, and contacts. Data were compiled over Microsoft Excel. All data acquired were manually entered and stored in compliance with IHHN privacy standards. Active M&E was limited because of unprecedented circumstances of operating in a pandemic coupled with lack of resources; however, a call-log was maintained by the doctors daily.

Key challenges included the ever-increasing number of cases, which finally led to the decision to switch to system-generated short message service (SMS) to convey results. An anticipated challenge was the low literacy rate of our population9 and, as expected, there were patients who received the SMS but could not read. An unexpected challenge, however, was that many people could not comprehend the term “Detected” and “Not detected.” Based on patient feedback, the terminology was changed to “Positive” and “Negative,” respectively.

A second consequence of the teleconsultation initiative was to extend the scope of an existing IHHN tuberculosis (TB) call center to integrate COVID-19-related queries from August 2020 onward. Experience of the doctors conducting teleconsultations was utilized to train the call center team so that people with COVID-related queries could contact the call center for assistance. The top priority identified was early communication of results through SMS, followed by availability of a team of trained health workers at the call center to provide basic guidelines on isolation and self-care, on demand; doctors were the second tier of contact for medical guidance and referrals, whereas specialists were the final tier reserved for serious cases.

We present a retrospective chart review of data collected from April 5 to June 10, 2020, during teleconsultation service for COVID-19 positive cases identified through community-based testing. This was exempted from Institutional Review Board review due to minimal risk.

Results

During the study period, 4,279 tests were conducted in the communities out of which 28% were positive. During the first week of the intervention, an average of 30 tests were performed daily with a positivity rate of 13%, which rose to 78 tests daily with 42% positivity in the ninth week. Out of the 1,196 people who had tested positive, 74.7% (894 people) were contactable over the phone for teleconsultation; 13.5% (162 people) were those who tested positive toward the end of the study period and they were contacted through SMS to inform them of their test results as a backlog of cases was accumulating; and 11.7% (140 people) were not contactable because either they did not receive the call (47 people), their number was switched off (31 people) or the number that they provided was incorrect (62 people). Out of the contactable people, 752 had been tested for the first time and were thus considered as baseline positives, whereas the rest were repeat tests.

The gender and age category breakdown of tested and positive patients is given in Table 1. Among those tested, 68% were males and most patients were between 25 and 44 years; a similar distribution was seen among positive cases. Figure 1 displays the sources of infection, symptoms, and existing comorbidities as reported by patients during teleconsultation. Responses from 4.3% baseline positive patients were documented as “unknown” since they were either under district government surveillance in isolation centers and, therefore, inaccessible for direct communication or they refused to give any information. 76.9% patients reported possible sources of infection as household contacts (30.1%) and close contacts (46.8%), whereas 18.9% could not pinpoint any source of infection. Regarding symptoms, 41.8% of baseline positive cases were asymptomatic, 52.9% had mild to moderate symptoms and 1.1% were referred to ED due to severe symptoms. Ages of these eight severe cases ranged from 42 to 70 years, five were males, and comorbidities (hypertension and diabetes) were present in two patients, both females. Seven percent (318) of the tested population comprised children from 5 to 15 years of age (children <5 years were referred to a hospital for testing). Out of these, 46 children were baseline positive cases and 47.8% (22) of them had no symptoms.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. COVID-19 tests conducted between April 5 and June 10, 2020, and data collected from community cases during teleconsultation.1 Household contacts include family members or domestic help.2 Close contacts include people encountered at workplace, during travel or socially.3 Unknown 32 (4%): 23 patients were not directly accessible and were under district government surveillance, 9 refused to answer any queries. COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; SMS, short message service.

Table 1. Gender and Age Categories of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Cases Identified Through Community-Based Testing
Age Group Tested cohort Positive cases
Male Female Total Male Female Total
5–14 155 4% 163 4% 318 7% 31 3% 26 2% 57 5%
15–24 699 16% 282 7% 981 23% 165 14% 69 6% 234 20%
25–44 1,329 31% 587 14% 1,916 45% 393 33% 159 13% 552 46%
45–64 590 14% 282 7% 872 20% 210 18% 100 8% 310 26%
65+ 120 3% 72 2% 192 4% 29 2% 14 1% 43 4%
Total 2,893 (68%) 1,386 (32%) 4,279 828 (69%) 368 (31%) 1,196

Common symptoms recorded were fever, cough, body aches, flu-like symptoms, shortness of breath, ageusia, and anosmia; rashes were reported in two patients. Presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, TB, or cancers, was documented in 13% of the contactable cases (98 patients).

During teleconsultations, some notable experiences were recorded. They are worth mentioning as they reflect the sentiments and responses of the people from the urban communities in Karachi, faced with the pandemic. These responses could be used to generate specific guidelines that could contribute toward the preparedness of governments to handle similar emergencies in future.

  • Patient response: Initially, fear and uncertainty prevailed as people were unaware of self-care measures and official guidelines. With time, people seemed better equipped, acknowledging their familiarity with steps of self-care and isolation.

  • Home remedies: With an overload of nonscientific information circulating through social media (such as use of various herbal remedies), many patients sought verification.

  • Clinical signs and symptoms: Asymptomatic cases specifically needed to be counseled to observe isolation. Owing to absence of symptoms, they were not convinced to isolate and hence were placing their contacts at risk of contracting the infection through exposure.

  • Isolation: Many were unaware that multiple positive patients in a family could isolate together; people expressed concern on isolating together if the symptoms were a couple of days apart or if different family members had different types of symptoms. Some people did not have space in their homes to isolate and they were directed to the closest quarantine facilities established by the government.

  • Revised guidelines: National guidelines were being revised, but the changes were not being implemented concurrently by companies and organizations. Many workplaces insisted on submission of a negative test result before allowing employees to rejoin; some patients were forced to continue isolation for prolonged periods when consecutive test results were positive, despite revised guidelines discouraging retesting for general public.

  • Specific queries: Some patients had specific queries; answers were sought from specialists and conveyed to the patients. For example, guidelines regarding breastfeeding by COVID-positive mother.

Discussion

Community testing proved convenient to the public for many reasons. Primarily, it was free of cost, accessible (as intracity transport was suspended), and safer since it was distant from crowded hospitals.10 The proactive approach of teleconsultation was unique as positive patients were being contacted by doctors for timely communication of results, to provide self-care guidelines, and to refer patients with severe symptoms to ED. This encouraged early isolation and reduced the pressure on hospitals. The community welcomed teleconsultation as a safe, free, and convenient mode of interaction with a doctor in times where access to health care became a challenge.11–13 This was translated as relief and gratitude, expressed by many patients. It was a low-cost intervention leveraging on existing human resources with a small expenditure to support telecommunication using mobile phones.

Within the duration of the study period, the number of tests being conducted in the communities increased by 2.6 times, whereas the positivity rate increased more than threefold (3.2 times), which became a challenge to handle. Through word of mouth, more people were coming to get tested, but the increase in positivity rate indicated spread of the disease. Forty-five percent (1,916 individuals) of those tested were in the age category of 25–44 years and 69.4% (1,329 individuals) of these were males. Reasons for such age and gender distribution could be that this is the working age group exposed to risk due to their professional activities linked to medical practice, banking, social activism, or simply because females had less access to walk-in testing facilities due to a gender-based difference in health-seeking behaviors prevalent in our culture.14,15 Similar age and gender distribution was seen among the positive cases in our cohort and it is also reflected in Pakistan’s COVID-19 national statistics dashboard, maintained by Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.16 More than three quarters of the positive cases were able to identify the source of infection as household or close contacts; this indicates the need for imposing strict SOPs such as isolation of cases and wearing of masks to contain the spread among people in proximity.

In our cohort, a large number of the contactable baseline positive cases were asymptomatic, similar to findings stated in a narrative review.17 Since all patients were contacted only once, there is a possibility that some or many would have developed symptoms after they were contacted, as depicted in the meta-analysis conducted by He et al.18 This meta-analysis of 41 studies with a total of 50,155 patients with confirmed COVID-19 showed a pooled percentage of asymptomatic infection to be 15.6%. Another study conducted on Japanese nationals who were evacuated from Wuhan, China, on charter flights reported the asymptomatic proportion among evacuees to be 30.8%; however, the small sample size was mentioned as a study limitation.19 Children were reported to often be asymptomatic or have a milder course of COVID-19 in a systematic review20; a meta-analysis revealed that 17.4% of children had asymptomatic infection.21 Our study demonstrated that nearly half (47.8%) of the contactable children with positive test results showed no symptoms. Asymptomatic patients pose a greater threat for virus transmission as they fail to isolate in the absence of symptoms and continue to shed the infectious virus. Widespread and increased testing to identify asymptomatic patients and ensuring that they isolate and follow the infection control protocol is the only strategy that will prove to be effective in limiting this mode of virus transmission.22 More than half of the baseline cases reported symptoms of mild to moderate intensity. Counseling these patients regarding isolation and self-care helped divert a large volume of patients away from hospitals unless essential.

National statistics reveal that the highest mortality rate occurred in the age ranges of 40–79 years with a predominance of males.16 Our data show that the small number of eight patients with severe symptoms who were referred to ED belonged to the 42–70 years age range and were mostly males. Since we were unable to track their progress, we cannot comment on their prognosis. Comorbidities existed in two out of the eight severe cases; however, the number is too small to deduce any conclusions.

We feel that dissemination of evidence-based knowledge allowed patient empowerment and encouraged behavioral change. The pandemic taught us the importance of “preparedness” in the face of challenge. With a bigger organized and trained team, the service could have handled the rising numbers with follow-up calls to ensure continuity of care and proper referral mechanisms for serious or worsening cases. Owing to limited capacity, our focus was positive cases; however, people who had tested negative also needed to be informed of their results. Noncontactable patients (12%) were recognized as a major limitation as this number represented the unaware cases that were possibly contributing to the spread of infection in their communities.

To our knowledge, there are no published data from any developing country capturing clinical and demographic information first-hand from COVID-19 positive cases tested in the communities. By compiling this information, we hope to share our insights with a wider audience (clinical professionals, public health officials, and policy makers) to help develop evidence-based policies and clinical guidelines to effectively tackle the current virus spread or future threats in Pakistan and similar settings. Contributions from studies conducted in other urban and rural communities across the country could prove valuable in informing policy-making, considering the differences in terms of infrastructure and literacy.

Our teleconsultation intervention has opened avenues to explore the scope of proactive telemedicine in resource-constrained settings, in the event of future epidemics.10,23 Patient satisfaction and feedback could provide insights on the value of this service.

Conclusion

Pandemics create a sense of uncertainty, panic, and anxiety, fuelled by factual and incorrect information; affectees of the pandemic need reassurance, medical help, and guidance, even if they are mildly or moderately affected. In resource-constrained settings, hospitals are burdened by active critical cases and access to health facilities becomes a greater challenge during pandemics. An organized trained teleconsultation team backed by an M&E team, can satisfactorily inform positive cases in the community of their test results and equip them with knowledge regarding isolation and self-care or provide further guidance based on their clinical condition.

Authors’ Contributions

Conceptualization by S.M. Methodology by S.M., S.S., A.F.M., and K.F.H. Data Collection by S.M. and S.S. Analysis by A.F.M. Writing—original draft preparation by S.M., S.S., A.F.M., and K.F.H. Writing—review and editing by S.M. and S.K. Supervision by S.K.

Disclosure Statement

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Funding Information

No funds were received from any funding body for this study.

References

  • 1. Pakistan Go. Realtime Pakistan and Worldwide COVID-19 situation. In: Coordination MoNHSR, ed. Islamabad: Ministry of National Health Services. 2020. Available at https://covid.gov.pk (last accessed January 12, 2021). Google Scholar
  • 2. Mahase E. Coronavirus: COVID-19 has killed more people than SARS and MERS combined, despite lower case fatality rate. BMJ 2020;368:m641. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 3. da Costa VG, Moreli ML, Saivish MV. The emergence of SARS, MERS and novel SARS-2 coronaviruses in the 21st century. Arch Virol 2020;165:1517–1526. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 4. Nisar MI, Ansari N, Amin M, et al. Serial population based serosurvey of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a low and high transmission area of Karachi, Pakistan. medRxiv 2020;106:176–182. Google Scholar
  • 5. Ilyas N, Azuine RE, Tamiz A. COVID-19 Pandemic in Pakistan. Int J Transl Med Res Public Health 2020;4:37–49. Crossref, Google Scholar
  • 6. Copyright © 2020 MoNHSRCI. Covid-19 Guidelines by Ministry of National Health Services Regulations and Coordination, Government of Pakistan. 2020. Available at www.nhsrc.gov.pk/Detail/NWYyMzg2MGMtM2ZmOC00YThlLTgyZmMtN2QxYTZjMjE3YzQz (last accessed January 2021). Google Scholar
  • 7. Mubarak N. Corona and clergy–The missing link for effective social distancing in Pakistan: Time for some unpopular decisions. Int J Infect Dis 2020;95:431–432. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 8. Guidelines CfDCaP. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Center for Disease Control and Prevention Guidelines. 2020. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html (last accessed January 13, 2021). Google Scholar
  • 9. Rehman A, Jingdong L, Hussain I. The province-wise literacy rate in Pakistan and its impact on the economy. Pac Sci Rev B Hum Soc Sci 2015;1:140–144. Google Scholar
  • 10. Ahmed S, Sanghvi K, Yeo D. Telemedicine takes centre stage during COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Innov 2020;6:252–254. Crossref, Google Scholar
  • 11. Ahmed S, Ajisola M, Azeem K, et al. Impact of the societal response to COVID-19 on access to healthcare for non-COVID-19 health issues in slum communities of Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria and Pakistan: Results of pre-COVID and COVID-19 lockdown stakeholder engagements. BMJ Glob Health 2020;5:e003042. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 12. Qazi SH, Saleem A, Pirzada AN, Hamid LR, Dogar SA, Das JK. Challenges to delivering pediatric surgery services in the midst of COVID 19 crisis: Experience from a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. Pediatr Surg Int 2020;36:1–7. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 13. Chandir S, Siddiqi DA, Setayesh H, Khan AJ. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on routine immunisation in Karachi, Pakistan. Lancet Global Health 2020;8:e1118–e1120. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 14. Shaikh BT, Hatcher J. Health seeking behaviour and health service utilization in Pakistan: Challenging the policy makers. J Public Health (Oxf) 2005;27:49–54. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 15. Anwar M, Green J, Norris P. Health-seeking behaviour in Pakistan: A narrative review of the existing literature. Public Health 2012;126:507–517. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 16. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE). 2020. Available at https://pide.org.pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=695 (last accessed December 15, 2020). Google Scholar
  • 17. Oran DP, Topol EJ. Prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A narrative review. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:362–367. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 18. He J, Guo Y, Mao R, Zhang J. Proportion of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol 2020;93:820–830. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 19. Nishiura H, Kobayashi T, Miyama T, et al. Estimation of the asymptomatic ratio of novel coronavirus infections (COVID-19). Int J Infect Dis 2020;94:154–155. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 20. Ludvigsson JF. Systematic review of COVID-19 in children shows milder cases and a better prognosis than adults. Acta Paediatrica 2020;109:1088–1095. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 21. Ding Y, Yan H, Guo W. Clinical characteristics of children with COVID-19: A meta-analysis. Front Pediatr 2020;8:431. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 22. Han H, Xu Z, Cheng X, et al. Descriptive, retrospective study of the clinical characteristics of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. mSphere 2020;5:e00922. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
  • 23. Ohannessian R, Duong TA, Odone A. Global telemedicine implementation and integration within health systems to fight the COVID-19 pandemic: A call to action. JMIR Public Health Surv 2020;6:e18810. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar





Source link