Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Use of procalcitonin for antibiotic stewardship in patients with COVID-19: A quality improvement project in a district general hospital

Christina Peters, Kelly Williams, Elena A Un, Louisa Little, Abeer Saad, Katherine Lendrum, Naomi Thompson, Nicholas D Weatherley and Amanda Pegden
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2020-0614
Clin Med January 2021
Christina Peters
AChesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, UK
Roles: internal medicine trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kelly Williams
AChesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, UK
Roles: internal medicine trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elena A Un
AChesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, UK
Roles: internal medicine trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louisa Little
BChesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, UK
Roles: foundation year 2 doctor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Abeer Saad
CChesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, UK
Roles: respiratory medicine and general internal medicine specialty registrar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katherine Lendrum
DChesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, UK
Roles: consultant in emergency medicine and emergency department clinical lead
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Naomi Thompson
EChesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, UK
Roles: microbiology consultant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas D Weatherley
FUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, UK
Roles: NIHR academic clinical lecturer in respiratory medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amanda Pegden
GChesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, UK
Roles: sepsis lead and consultant in acute medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: amanda.pegden1@nhs.net
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

ABSTRACT

Antibiotic stewardship during the COVID-19 pandemic is an important part of a comprehensive strategy to improve patient outcomes and reduce long-term adverse effects secondary to rising antibiotic resistance. This report describes a quality improvement project which incorporates the use of procalcitonin (PCT) testing to rationalise antibiotic prescribing in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 at Chesterfield Royal Hospital. Data were collected from 118 patients with a total of 127 PCT levels checked over a period of 20 days. Each PCT level was correlated with the subsequent antibiotic outcome as well as the result of the COVID-19 PCR swab. Results indicate that antibiotics were either never started or were stopped within 48 hours in 72% of COVID-confirmed cases with a PCT less than 0.25 μg/L. Our findings suggest that procalcitonin testing, when used in combination with thorough clinical assessment, is a safe, simple and sustainable way of reducing antibiotic use in COVID-19.

KEYWORDS:
  • COVID-19
  • antibiotic stewardship
  • bacterial resistance
  • procalcitonin
  • quality improvement

Introduction

The rapid rise of antimicrobial resistance is a major public health concern. Extensive antibiotic use in global healthcare settings is associated with greater morbidity and mortality secondary to complex drug-resistant infections and severe diarrhoeal illnesses such as Clostridium difficile colitis.1 The resulting cost of prolonged hospital stays and expensive treatment courses puts additional unnecessary strain on an already overburdened healthcare system. Antimicrobial stewardship is an important component of the multifaceted approach needed to reduce rising resistance rates and improve long-term health outcomes.

Emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has served to exacerbate pre-existing pressures in healthcare provision. A major concern raised by the World Health Organization has been the prolific use of antibiotics in patients with suspected COVID-19.2 Guidelines released by WHO in May 20203 have subsequently advised limiting the use of empiric antibiotics to only those patients with severe symptoms thought to be caused by COVID-19. Translation of guidelines into practice has been understandably challenging as clinicians struggle to contend with the effects of the virus in a setting clouded by anxiety, urgency and ambiguity of viral presentation. With few treatment options available and considerable overlap of symptoms between COVID-19 and bacterial pneumonia, the reflex prescription of antibiotics has become routine.4

The basis of antibiotic use in a viral setting hinges on the possibility of bacterial co-infection. Retrospective studies from both the UK5 and China6 have shown that the incidence of secondary infection in COVID-19 is lower than that of influenza, accounting for only 10–15% of hospitalised patients in comparison with more than 30% in influenza.7,8 Nonetheless, the early days of the pandemic in the UK saw the majority of suspected COVID-19 cases being treated with antibiotics in an effort to reduce the impact of possible bacterial co-infection. An important principle of antibiotic stewardship is the avoidance of unnecessary antibiotics and avoidance of needlessly prolonged treatment courses. Prompt identification of patients to whom this applies may help reduce antibiotic prescribing rates and consequently antibiotic resistance.

Many hospitals, nationally and internationally, have begun to use procalcitonin (PCT) as an aid to rationalise antibiotic therapy.9 PCT is a protein biomarker for the presence and severity of bacterial infection. Levels rise within 12 hours of bacterial involvement and decrease as the host immune system begins to control the infection. Unlike other inflammatory biomarkers (CRP and ESR), PCT levels remain low in the context of non-bacterial causes of infection and inflammation.10 A large-scale meta-analysis has previously demonstrated the use of PCT as a helpful guide for the safe reduction of antibiotic prescription rates in COPD patients.11 As such, it seems likely that PCT can be used to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in patients with symptoms of COVID-19.

National guidelines from NICE do not currently advise routine use of PCT for antibiotic stewardship in COVID-19.12 Centres that are already using PCT have been encouraged to participate in research to improve current evidence on the value of PCT for antibiotic stewardship in COVID-19. This report describes a quality improvement project (QIP) which incorporates the use of PCT as part of a comprehensive strategy comprising routine radiological, bedside and biochemical features to help rationalise antibiotic prescribing in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 at Chesterfield Royal Hospital. The aim of this project was to determine the extent to which PCT testing influenced antibiotic prescribing. Although the true impact of antibiotic overuse during the pandemic remains to be seen, rapid, real-time adaptation is critical to mitigate associated harm.

Methods

In order to promote antibiotic stewardship in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, a new hospital guideline (Fig 1) was developed with input from a multidisciplinary team comprising consultants in respiratory, microbiology, emergency medicine, acute medicine and the sepsis lead. The quality improvement team consisted of three consultants, two registrars, three internal medicine trainees and one F2 doctor.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Guideline for rationalising antibiotics in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The algorithm, which was introduced on 8 April 2020, advised using PCT in cases where bacterial co-infection could not be ruled out. Although this was not an evidence-based approach, the MDT felt it would be the best means to minimise potential harm from early antibiotic withdrawal. Once a PCT level was checked, results were made available electronically with recommendations as shown in Table 1. PCT cut-off levels have been adapted from the ProHOSP randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating the effect of PCT-guided antibiotic prescribing in lower respiratory tract infections.13 PCT cut-offs in the majority of RCTs have been consistent at 0.25 μg/L and 0.5 μg/L in ward and ITU patients respectively.14 A lower cut-off level of 0.25 μg/L was chosen for this study as ITU patients were excluded from analysis. Furthermore, this helped reduce the risk of under-treating bacterial co-infection.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Recommendation of antibiotic use based on procalcitonin result

164 PCT levels were carried out between 8 April 2020 and 27 April 2020 on a total of 143 patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The date of each PCT result was correlated with the start and end dates of any antibiotic courses. The COVID-19 status was also checked for each patient. As the number of PCT results does not equate to the number of patients (due to repeat PCT levels in some patients), each ‘case’ refers to the number of times bacterial co-infection has been suspected (ie more than once in some patients).

To analyse the data, cases were grouped into categories based on PCT level (<0.25 μg/L, 0.25–0.49 μg/L, ≥0.5 μg/L). Each PCT result was correlated with the outcome of the COVID-19 PCR swab in order to determine the proportion of cases in each group that tested positive and negative for COVID-19. In all cases where a PCT level was correlated with a positive COVID-19 PCR swab, the antibiotic outcome was identified and divided into cases where antibiotics had not been started (pending PCT result), or where antibiotics were started but then stopped within 48 hours of PCT result, or continued, escalated or de-escalated. The results were also analysed by stratification into COVID-19 PCR swab result (see supplementary material, S1).

Results

Of the 164 PCT levels that were carried out in the 20-day period between 8 April 2020 and 27 April 2020, a few were excluded from data analysis. Fig 2 outlines the number of excluded PCT levels and the reasons why they were not analysed.

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

Flow chart of exclusion criteria for data analysis. PCT levels were excluded from ITU patients because in this setting PCT levels are checked repeatedly to assess for ventilator-associated pneumonia and/or infection severity rather than as a guide for antibiotic prescribing, and because the complexity and severity of illness risks confounding PCT levels to an extent where PCT might no longer be fit for purpose in the context of antibiotic stewardship.

Data from the remaining 127 PCT levels were analysed. It is important to note that nine ward-based patients had two PCT levels checked on different days during their admission. In most cases the second PCT was checked due to recurrent temperature spikes or a failure to recover despite initial treatment. As each PCT level represents discrete clinical scenarios, these have been included in the data analysis but have been treated as separate ‘cases’.

Demographics of all included cases are outlined in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Demographics of included cases

The antibiotic outcome following PCT result in patients with confirmed COVID-19 is summarised in Fig 3.

Fig 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3.

Pie charts showing antibiotic outcomes for all confirmed COVID-19 cases in each procalcitonin category. In all cases where antibiotics were prescribed, the outcome following procalcitonin result (ie started, stopped, continued, escalated or de-escalated) is also shown.

Among patients who were confirmed to have COVID-19, the pie-charts in Fig 3 show increasing antibiotic use with increasing PCT level. Shades of green have been used to represent cases where PCT helped reduce antibiotic use, while shades of pink/red represent cases where antibiotics have been started, continued or escalated post PCT level. The first pie chart shows a low rate of initial prescription or early stoppage of antibiotics in 77.5% of all COVID-confirmed cases with PCT <0.25. Cases with PCT in the mid (0.25–0.49) or high (≥0.5) ranges were continued on antibiotics (61.5% and 57.9% respectively).

For the nine patients that had two PCT levels checked on different days, Table 3 shows the first and second PCT results along with the days they were taken and the associated COVID-19 status and antibiotic outcomes. Patients 4 and 6 were both started on antibiotics in the time between their first and second PCT result. The outcome of this newly started course of antibiotics following repeat PCT level is given in the table below.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Antibiotic outcomes for patients with repeat procalcitonin levels

Discussion

Of the 127 cases in whom bacterial co-infection was queried in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, just above 60% of cases (n=77) had a PCT result that was not suggestive of bacterial involvement (ie PCT<0.25). Regardless of COVID-19 status, 72.7% of these cases (n=56) were either never started on antibiotics, or had antibiotics stopped within 48 hours of PCT result. Similar figures are seen for patients with confirmed COVID-19, with 72.5% of cases (n=29) with a PCT<0.25 either never starting antibiotics or having antibiotics stopped within 48 hours. Given that hospital guidelines only advised PCT use in clinically ambiguous cases, it can be expected that a full antibiotic course would have been completed in all 127 cases in the absence of PCT testing. Based on this data, we showed that PCT use has helped reduce antibiotic prescriptions in all COVID-suspected or confirmed cases by 44%, with levels being used to guide antibiotic therapy in just under three quarters of cases.

The third pie chart in Fig 3 shows an unexpectedly high number of COVID-19 cases with a high PCT who have had their antibiotics either stopped within 48 hours (n=4) or had them de-escalated (n=4). The reasoning for this was further investigated. In the four patients whose antibiotics were stopped within 48 hours, three had antibiotics withdrawn after being started on end of life care. The last patient had their PCT level checked 11 days after their COVID-19 swab, by which time a 10-day course of broad-spectrum IV antibiotics had already been completed. All four of the patients in the ‘de-escalated’ category were stepped down from IV to oral antibiotics, likely based on a broader clinical picture rather than PCT alone.

For the nine patients with repeat PCT levels, data in Table 3 help categorise PCT fluctuations and the resulting response in antibiotic prescribing. In most cases, the second PCT level was checked due to a clinical deterioration or poor response to treatment. In the five patients in whom PCT levels remained stable on repeat measurement, the response to the second PCT level is less likely to be compliant with the guideline compared to the first. Clinicians appear to have taken extra precautions in the context of a persistently unwell patient. Conversely, in patients with consecutive PCT levels spanning two different ranges, clinicians seem to be reassured in either de-escalating or continuing antibiotics, depending on the trend. Further analysis is required to determine the management of patients with a low PCT result and a negative COVID-19 PCR swab.

Evidence from this QIP suggests that PCT is a safe and effective guide for antibiotic stewardship within the sample population. Few studies have specifically investigated the practical use of PCT for antibiotic stewardship in ward-based COVID-19 patients in the UK. Data from this QIP will address this area. However, multicentre trials will be necessary in order to validate this approach or suggest alternate means of antibiotic rationalisation in COVID-19. Such a trial would involve randomisation of suspected COVID-19 patients to either an intervention group with PCT-directed antibiotic therapy or a control group with Gestalt physician guided therapy. Primary endpoint would be exposure to antibiotics, with secondary endpoint being length of stay. Relevant safety endpoints include mortality and need for ventilator assistance and antibiotics within 14 days of admission. An alternative approach would be a direct comparative study assessing the frequency of antibiotic prescribing in hospitals that utilise PCT-guidance versus those that use a stand-alone respiratory panel (comprising inflammatory markers, chest imaging, sputum cultures and COVID-19 PCR swab). Findings from such a study would facilitate a review of national guidance regarding the use of PCT as a guide for antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19.

Limitations

As this report describes a single-centre, retrospective study on PCT-guided antibiotic prescribing at a district general hospital, results are not necessarily reflective of prescribing behaviours at other institutions. Furthermore, PCT testing during the pandemic was facilitated at Chesterfield Royal Hospital by pre-existing use of PCT for guiding antibiotic prescribing in COPD patients. If PCT testing is restricted or unavailable at other hospitals, generalisability of this project would be limited. In turn, this would impact the success of this work on a larger scale.

Since ITU patients were excluded from this study, the use of PCT in severely unwell COVID-19 patients remains unclear. While this could have resulted in possible bias with regards to the overall benefit of PCT, exclusion of ITU patients was necessary as higher PCT cut-off levels have typically been used in this setting.14 Additionally, ITU patients in the initial data set had up to four PCT levels measured during their admission, which is suggestive of PCT being used as a prognostic tool rather than as a guide for antibiotic prescribing. It is therefore likely that excluding ITU patients has reduced overall bias. Multicentre prospective trials are necessary in order to determine accurate PCT cut off values and facilitate future studies that examine the use of PCT both in a ward-based setting as well as exclusively within the context of ITU.

Data analysis in this study assumes that all PCT levels checked, including repeat PCTs for ward-based patients, were used as a guide for antibiotic prescribing. Although this was likely the case for the majority of patients, repeat PCT levels were sometimes checked days after completing an antibiotic course as a measure of improving infection. The small proportion of cases in which PCT was used as a prognostic marker might have skewed the final outcome of data analysis.

In addition to the use of PCT, it is likely that several other factors influenced antibiotic prescribing. These include radiological, biochemical and bedside features of bacterial infection as well as patient risk factors (such as being immunocompromised) and severity of illness at presentation. This study aimed to promote PCT as part of a pragmatic strategy to limit antibiotic use when clinical presentation and standard respiratory panel were not able to rule out bacterial co-infection. The prospective guideline in Fig 1 was intended to improve standardisation; however, given the multitude of factors involved in treatment choice, there is a need for further research into standardising this approach.

Finally, the familiarity of the assessing clinician with PCT testing as well as treatment of COVID-19 and the presence of hospital guidelines would have all impacted antibiotic prescribing. These confounding factors emphasise the need for larger scale studies and/or meta-analyses in order to make definitive conclusions on the effects of PCT on antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

PCT testing in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 at Chesterfield Royal Hospital has helped clinicians rationalise antibiotic prescribing and ultimately led to a reduction in unnecessary antibiotic use. PCT, when used in combination with thorough clinical assessment, is a safe, simple and sustainable way of reducing antibiotic use in COVID-19. With the likelihood of a second peak of cases in the future, continued use of PCT testing will be a valuable guide for antibiotic therapy. Further studies are needed to investigate the benefit of PCT on a broader scale and aid development of a standardised guideline.

Supplementary material

Additional supplementary material may be found in the online version of this article at www.rcpjournals.org/clinmedicine:

S1 – Results stratified by COVID-19 PCR swab result.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Michael Collins and Alice May for their help with laboratory implementation of procalcitonin.

Conflicts of interest

Nicholas D Weatherley has received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and the European Medicines Agency for unrelated activities.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2021. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Llor C
    , Bjerrum L. Antimicrobial resistance: risk associated with antibiotic overuse and initiatives to reduce the problem. Ther Adv Drug Saf 2014;5:229–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Getahun H
    , Smith I, Trivedi K, et al. Tackling antimicrobial resistance in the COVID-19 pandemic. World Health Organization, 2020. Available from www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/98/7/20-268573/en/ [Accessed 10 July 2020].
  3. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Clinical management of COVID-19: Interim guidance. WHO, 2020. Available from www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/clinical-management-of-covid-19 [Accessed 10 July 2020].
  4. ↵
    1. Hsu J
    . How COVID-19 is accelerating the threat of antimicrobial resistance. BMJ 2020;18:369.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Hughes S
    , Troise O, Donaldson H, et al. Bacterial and fungal coinfection among hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study in a UK secondary care setting. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26:1395–9.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Zhou F
    , Yu T, Du R, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2020;395:1054–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Lansbury L
    , Lim B, Baskaran V, Lim WS. Co-infections in people with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect 2020;81:266–75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Chertow DS
    , Memoli MJ. Bacterial coinfection in influenza: a grand rounds review. JAMA 2013;309:275–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Huttner BD
    , Catho G, Pano-Pardo JR, et al. COVID-19: don't neglect antimicrobial stewardship principles! Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26:808–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Wacker C
    , Prkno A, Brunkhorst FM, Schlattmann P. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2013;13:426–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Mathioudakis AG
    , Chatzimavridou-Grigoriadou V, Corlateanu A, Vestbo J. Procalcitonin to guide antibiotic administration in COPD exacerbations: a meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev 2017;26:160073.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    . Tests to guide decisions about using antibiotics. In: COVID-19 rapid guideline: antibiotics for pneumonia in adults in hospital (NICE guideline [NG173]). NICE, 2020. Available from www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng173/chapter/2-Tests-to-guide-decisions-about-using-antibiotics.
  13. ↵
    1. Schuetz P
    , Christ-Crain M, Thomann R, et al. Effect of procalcitonin-based guidelines vs standard guidelines on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: the ProHOSP randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:1059–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Rhee C
    . Using procalcitonin to guide antibiotic therapy. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017;4:ofw249.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Use of procalcitonin for antibiotic stewardship in patients with COVID-19: A quality improvement project in a district general hospital
Christina Peters, Kelly Williams, Elena A Un, Louisa Little, Abeer Saad, Katherine Lendrum, Naomi Thompson, Nicholas D Weatherley, Amanda Pegden
Clinical Medicine Jan 2021, 21 (1) e71-e76; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0614

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Use of procalcitonin for antibiotic stewardship in patients with COVID-19: A quality improvement project in a district general hospital
Christina Peters, Kelly Williams, Elena A Un, Louisa Little, Abeer Saad, Katherine Lendrum, Naomi Thompson, Nicholas D Weatherley, Amanda Pegden
Clinical Medicine Jan 2021, 21 (1) e71-e76; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0614
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Supplementary material
    • Acknowledgements
    • Conflicts of interest
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Understanding the diagnosis and management of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) in the UK: results of a national Delphi process
  • The clinical course of pneumomediastinum in patients with SARS-CoV-2 before invasive mechanical ventilation
  • COVID-19 infection causing residual gastrointestinal symptoms – a single UK centre case series
Show more COVID-19 rapid report

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians