The Cough Cold and Fever Clinic: A Model for the Safe Management of Ambulatory Patients With Suspected COVID-19

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

When the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic swept through New York City, hospital systems became quickly overwhelmed and ambulatory strategies were needed. We designed and implemented an innovative program called the Cough Cold and Fever (CCF) Clinic to safely triage, evaluate, treat, and follow up patients with symptoms concerning for COVID-19.

METHODS

The CCF Clinic was launched on March 13, 2020, in the ambulatory internal medicine office of New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medicine. Patients with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19 were first triaged via telemedicine to determine necessity of in-person evaluation. Clinic workspaces and workflows were fashioned to minimize risk of viral transmission and to conserve COVID-19 testing supplies and personal protective equipment. Protocols containing the most recent COVID-19 practice guidelines were created, updated regularly, and communicated through twice-daily huddles and as a shareable online document. Discharged patients were followed up for at least 7 days through telemedicine. Patient outcomes, including admission to the emergency department (ED), hospitalization, and death, were tracked to ensure clinical quality.

RESULTS

We report on the first 620 patients seen at CCF between March 13, 2020, and June 19, 2020. Telemedicine follow-up was achieved for 500 (81%). We tested 347 (56%) patients for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with 119 (34%) testing positive. Forty-seven (8%) patients were sent to the ED directly from the CCF Clinic and 42 (89%) of these were admitted. Of the patients discharged home from CCF, 15 (3%) were later admitted to a hospital. Twelve (2%) patients in total died.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of patients, over 90%, seen in CCF were discharged home, with only a small percentage (3%) later requiring admission to a hospital. Of the patients sent directly to the ED from CCF, close to 90% were admitted, verifying the accuracy of our triage. Overall mortality was low (2%), especially when compared with mortality rates in New York City during the pandemic peak. Telemedicine was effective in identifying patients in need of in-person evaluation and in tracking and follow-up. Workflows and protocols were adaptable to reflect rapidly changing resources and clinical guidelines. Frequent communication through a diversity of methods was critical. Through these strategies, we were able to create a safe and effective outpatient program for patients with potential COVID-19.

A Symptom-Directed Paradigm for the Evaluation and Management of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections

Upper respiratory tract infections are one of the most common challenges in ambulatory medicine. Effective evaluation involves identification, primarily through the history, of the dominant set of patient symptoms leading to accurate diagnosis. Certain more morbid illnesses that mimic common upper respiratory symptoms can also be excluded with this approach. Treatment should address patient preferences through an understanding of the limited utility of antibiotics and through tailored advisement of the numerous pharmacologic options for symptom relief.

Antibiotics for Anthrax

BACKGROUND

Little is known about patient encounters with primary care physicians and prescribing practices during the 2001 US anthrax attacks.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical record of outpatient telephone and clinic visits at a large primary care practice in New York City from September 11 to December 31, 2001, to identify physician- and patient-related factors that were associated with prescribing antibiotics for anthrax prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Average daily patient volume from October to December was higher in 2001 (221.2 patients per day) compared with 2000 (199.1; P<.01) and 2002 (215.8; P = .14). Patient-initiated discussion about anthrax or smallpox were involved in 244 patient contacts with 63 physicians, including 92 (0.6%) of 14917 telephone contacts and 152 (1.0%) of 15 539 office visits. Fifty patients (21%) requested antibiotics or vaccines and 52 (22%) received antibiotics: 39 received ciprofloxacin; 12, doxycycline; and 1, both drugs. Independent predictors of receiving anthrax prophylaxis included requesting medication (odds ratio [OR], 8.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-18.6), reporting powder or workplace exposure (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.1-10.0), having an abnormal physical examination finding (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.4-11.0), and being asymptomatic (reporting any illness symptoms was associated with an OR of 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.6]).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care physicians played an important and heretofore underdocumented role in responding to the 2001 anthrax attacks. Prescription of prophylactic antibiotics for anthrax was uncommon and appears to have been selective among concerned patients. These results highlight the importance of including primary care physicians in community-wide bioterrorism response planning.