Abstract
Objectives To address the generalisability of COVID-19’s outcomes to the well-defined but diverse communities of a single City area.
Design An observational study of COVID-19 outcomes using quality-assured and integrated data from a single UK hospital contextualised to its feeder population and its associated factors (comorbidities, ethnicity, age, deprivation).
Setting/Participants Single city hospital with a feeder population of 228,632 adults in Wolverhampton’s city area.
Main Outcome Measures Hospital admissions and mortality.
Results 5558 patients admitted, 686 died (556 in hospital); 930 were COVID-19 admissions (CA),of which 270 were hospital COVID deaths, 47 non-COVID deaths, 36 deaths post-discharge; 4628 non-COVID-19 admissions (NCA), 239 in-hospital deaths (2 COVID), 94 deaths post-discharge. 223,074 adults not admitted, 407 died. Age, gender, multi-morbidity and Black ethnicity (OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.5-3.2] p<0.001, absolute excess risk of <1/1,000) were associated with COVID-19 admission and mortality. The South Asian cohort had lower CA and NCA, lower mortality (CA (0.5 [0.3-0.8], p<0.01), NCA (0.4 [0.3-0.6] p<0.001), community deaths (0.5 [0.3-0.7] p<0.001). Despite many common risk factors for CA and NCA, ethnic groups had different admission rates, and within-groups differing association of risk factors. Deprivation impacted only in White ethnicity, in the oldest age bracket and in a lesser (not most) deprived quintile.
Conclusions Wolverhampton’s results, reflecting high ethnic diversity and deprivation, are similar to other studies for Black ethnicity, age and comorbidity risk in COVID-19 but strikingly different in South Asians and for deprivation. Sequentially considering population and then hospital based NCA and CA outcomes, we present a complete single health-economy picture. Risk factors may differ within ethnic groups; our data may be more representative of communities with high BAME populations, highlighting the need for locally focussed public health strategies. We emphasise the need for a more comprehensible and nuanced conveyance of risk.
Strengths and limitations of this study
The rapidly developing COVID-19 pandemic has led to numerous studies (published, preprints and national public health reports) of its health impacts in relation to ethnicity, co-morbidities and other factors; few studies, however, have attempted to evaluate infection patient data in terms of morbidity and mortality in context of the feeder population and most are limited by incompleteness of data and inability to account for regional variations in factors such as ethnicity and deprivation
Our observational study used a high quality and complete dataset from the local population and the hospital serving it to examine the association of purported risk factors with severity and mortality and the results reveal the importance of evaluating such risks in the local, and not just national, population setting taking into account the local variations in patient backgrounds
We found an increased risk of COVID-19 mortality for Black ethnicity (OR 2.1) but a decreased risk (OR 0.5) for South Asians, compared with white ethnicity; Our analysis reveals that a nuanced approach to studying risk factors associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality is important – factoring in regional variation in ethnicity, deprivation etc. specifically linked to the source population
We suggest, based on our findings, that understandably rapid analysis and dissemination of studies of COVID-19 risk needs to be tempered by careful consideration of the real implications; we further urge caution in conveying risk messages to the wider community because of an ethical imperative to ensure such messages do not lead to unnecessary fear and deter individuals, particularly from specific ethnic backgrounds, from seeking needed medical assistance.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust Research Ethics Peer Review Group Outcome: Confirmation that ethical approval not required
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Copyright: The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in BMJ editions and any other BMJPGL products and sublicences such use and exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence
Data Availability
Anonymised data may be obtained on reasonable request from the corresponding author
