English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background To establish the risk of catching COVID-19 as urology emergency inpatient and assess patients’ fears and attitudes towards seeking help. Methods A single-centre retrospective study of urological emergency admissions was conducted over a 10-week period in 2019 and compared to same period of 2020 pandemic. Also, a telephone survey was performed based on a COVID-19 fear questionnaire. Results In-hospital, infection rate was 0.82% during or within 28 days of discharge with no related mortality. The majority of patients were afraid to visit A&amp;E during the pandemic with less being afraid to visit their GPs; 64% were reluctant to seek medical input by trying self-treatment; 56% admitted intentional delay to visit the hospital. Additionally, 56% considered risk of getting COVID-19 was higher rather than leaving their condition untreated. Interestingly, the vast majority (82%) stated that they would not change approach regarding hospital visits if the same situation occurred. Conclusions The risk of contracting COVID 19 while a urology in patient in a COVID-19 epicentre was very low with no COVID-19-related mortality. Our data support that patients should be encouraged to attend rather than stay at home during future surges in the pandemic to prevent further non–COVID-19-related harm.

Are patients’ fears of catching COVID-19 during an emergency hospital admission with an acute urological problem justified?—A UK epicentre experience