Hundreds of thousands of seriously ill coronavirus patients who survive and leave the hospital are facing a new and difficult challenge:
recovery. Many are struggling to overcome a range of troubling residual symptoms, and some problems may persist for months, years or even the rest of their lives.
Patients who are returning home after being hospitalized for severe respiratory failure from the virus are confronting physical, neurological, cognitive and emotional issues.
And they must navigate their recovery process as the pandemic continues, with all of the stresses and stretched resources that it has brought.
“It’s not just, ʻOh, I had a terrible time in hospital, but thank goodness I’m home and everything’s back to normal,’” said Dr. David Putrino, director of rehabilitation innovation at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “It’s, ʻI just had a terrible time in hospital and guess what? The world is still burning. I need to address that while also trying to sort of catch up to what my old life used to be.’”
It is still too early to say how recovery will play out for these patients. But here is a look at what they are experiencing so far, what we can learn from former patients with similar medical experiences, and the challenges that most likely lie ahead.

Background. In post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) there is a need for self-rating scales that are sensitive to treatment effects and have been tested in a broad range of trauma survivors. Separate measures of frequency and severity may also provide an advantage.
Methods. Three hundred and fifty-three men and women completed the Davidson Trauma Scale (DTS), a 17-item scale measuring each DSM-IV symptom of PTSD on 5-point frequency and severity scales. These subjects comprised war veterans, survivors of rape or hurricane and a mixed trauma group participating in a clinical trial. Other scales were included as validity checks as follows: Global ratings, SCL-90-R, Eysenck Scale, Impact of Event Scale and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R.
Results. The scale demonstrated good test–retest reliability (r ̄0±86), internal consistency (r ̄0±99). One main factor emerged for severity and a smaller one for intrusion. In PTSD diagnosed subjects, and the factor structure more closely resembled the traditional grouping of symptoms. Concurrent validity was obtained against the SCID, with a diagnostic accuracy of 83% at a DTS score of 40. Good convergent and divergent validity was obtained. The DTS showed predictive validity against response to treatment, as well as being sensitive to treatment effects.
Conclusions. The DTS showed good reliability and validity, and offers promised as a scale which is particularly suited to assessing symptom severity, treatment outcome and in screening for the likely diagnosis of PTSD.

Several interviews are available for assessing PTSD. These interviews vary in
merit when compared on stringent psychometric and utility standards. Of all
the interviews, the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (UPS-1) appears to
satisfy these standards most uniformly. The CAPS-1 is a structured interview
for assessing core and associated symptoms of PTSD. It assesses the frequency
and intensity of each symptom using standard prompt questions and explicit,
behaviorally-anchored rating scales. The CAPS-1 yields both continuous and
dichotomous scores for current and lifetime PTSD symptoms. Intended for use
by experienced clinicians, it also can be administered by appropriately trained
paraprofessionals. Data from a large scale psychometric study of the CAPS-1
have provided impressive evidence of its reliability and validity as a PTSD
interview.