Hospital length of stay in a mixed Omicron and Delta epidemic in New South Wales, Australia

  1. Ruarai J Tobin
  2. James G Wood
  3. Duleepa Jayasundara
  4. Grant Sara
  5. James Walker
  6. Genevieve E Martin
  7. James M McCaw
  8. Freya M Shearer
  9. David J Price

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Aim

To estimate the length of stay distributions of hospitalised COVID-19 cases during a mixed Omicron-Delta epidemic in New South Wales, Australia (16 Dec 2021 – 7 Feb 2022), and compare these to estimates produced over a Delta-only epidemic in the same population (1 Jul 2021 – 15 Dec 2022).

Background

The distribution of the duration that clinical cases of COVID-19 occupy hospital beds (the ‘length of stay’) is a key factor in determining how incident caseloads translate into health system burden as measured through ward and ICU occupancy.

Results

Using data on the hospital stays of 19,574 individuals, we performed a competing-risk survival analysis of COVID-19 clinical progression. During the mixed Omicron-Delta epidemic, we found that the mean length of stay for individuals who were discharged directly from ward without an ICU stay was, for age groups 0-39, 40-69 and 70+ respectively, 2.16 (95% CI: 2.12–2.21), 3.93 (95% CI: 3.78–4.07) and 7.61 days (95% CI: 7.31–8.01), compared to 3.60 (95% CI: 3.48–3.81), 5.78 (95% CI: 5.59–5.99) and 12.31 days (95% CI: 11.75–12.95) across the preceding Delta epidemic (15 Jul 2021 – 15 Dec 2021). We also considered data on the stays of individuals within the Hunter New England Local Health District, where it was reported that Omicron was the only circulating variant, and found mean ward-to-discharge length of stays of 2.05 (95% CI: 1.80–2.30), 2.92 (95% CI: 2.50–3.67) and 6.02 days (95% CI: 4.91–7.01) for the same age groups.

Conclusions

Hospital length of stay was substantially reduced across all clinical pathways during a mixed Omicron-Delta epidemic compared to a prior Delta epidemic. These changes in length of stay have contributed to lessened health system burden despite greatly increased infection burden and should be considered in future planning of response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and internationally.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.16.22271361: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.16.22271361v1 on medRxiv