Search

ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of early CT coronary angiography (CTCA) for intermediate risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), compared with standard careMethodsWe performed within-trial economic analysis using data from the RAPID-CTCA randomised trial, and long-term modelling of cost-effectiveness using secondary data sources to estimate the cost-effectiveness of early CTCA compared with standard care for patients with suspected ACS attending acute hospitals in the UK. Cost-effectiveness was estimated as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and the probability of each strategy being cost-effective at varying willingness-to-pay per QALY gained.ResultsThe within-trial analysis showed that there were no demonstrable differences in costs or QALYs between early CTCA and standard care, with point estimates suggesting higher costs (£7414 vs £6845: mean difference £569, 95% CI -£208 to £1335; p=0.1521) and lower QALYs (0.749 vs 0.758, mean difference −0.009, 95% CI −0.026 to 0.010; p=0.377) in the CTCA arm. The long-term economic analysis suggested that, on average, CTCA was slightly less effective than standard care alone with 0.025 quality-adjusted life years lost per patient treated and was more expensive with additional costs of £481 per patient treated. At a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, CTCA has 24% probability of being cost-effective.ConclusionsThere are no demonstrable differences in within-trial costs and QALYs, and long-term cost-effectiveness modelling suggested higher long-term costs with CTCA and uncertain effect on long-term QALYs, making routine use of CTCA for suspected ACS unlikely to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

Background Acute coronary syndrome is a common medical emergency. The optimal strategy to investigate patients who are at intermediate risk of acute coronary syndrome has not been fully determined. Objective To investigate the role of early computed tomography coronary angiography in the investigation and treatment of adults presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Design A prospective, multicentre, open, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with blinded end-point adjudication. Setting Thirty-seven hospitals in the UK. Participants Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) presenting to the emergency department, acute medicine services or cardiology department with suspected or provisionally diagnosed acute coronary syndrome and at least one of the following: (1) a prior history of coronary artery disease, (2) a cardiac troponin level > 99th centile and (3) an abnormal 12-lead electrocardiogram. Interventions Early computed tomography coronary angiography in addition to standard care was compared with standard care alone. Participants were followed up for 1 year. Main outcome measure One-year all-cause death or subsequent type 1 (spontaneous) or type 4b (stent thrombosis) myocardial infarction, measured as the time to such event adjudicated by two cardiologists blinded to the computerised tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) arm. Cost-effectiveness was estimated as the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results Between 23 March 2015 and 27 June 2019, 1748 participants [mean age 62 years (standard deviation 13 years), 64% male, mean Global Registry Of Acute Coronary Events score 115 (standard deviation 35)] were randomised to receive early computed tomography coronary angiography (n = 877) or standard care alone (n = 871). The primary end point occurred in 51 (5.8%) participants randomised to receive computed tomography coronary angiography and 53 (6.1%) participants randomised to receive standard care (adjusted hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.35; p = 0.65). Computed tomography coronary angiography was associated with a reduced use of invasive coronary angiography (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.92; p = 0.001) but no change in coronary revascularisation (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.21; p = 0.76), acute coronary syndrome therapies (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.32; p = 0.63) or preventative therapies on discharge (adjusted odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.32; p = 0.52). Early computed tomography coronary angiography was associated with longer hospitalisations (median increase 0.21 days, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.40 days) and higher mean total health-care costs over 1 year (£561 more per patient) than standard care. Limitations The principal limitation of the trial was the slower than anticipated recruitment, leading to a revised sample size, and the requirement to compromise and accept a larger relative effect size estimate for the trial intervention. Future work The potential role of computed tomography coronary angiography in selected patients with a low probability of obstructive coronary artery disease (intermediate or mildly elevated level of troponin) or who have limited access to invasive cardiac catheterisation facilities needs further prospective evaluation. Conclusions In patients with suspected or provisionally diagnosed acute coronary syndrome, computed tomography coronary angiography did not alter overall coronary therapeutic interventions or 1-year clinical outcomes, but it did increase the length of hospital stay and health-care costs. These findings do not support the routine use of early computed tomography coronary angiography in intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN19102565 and Clinical Trials NCT02284191. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

IntroductionInjuries are a major public health problem which can lead to disability or death. However, little is known about the incidence, presentation, management and outcomes of emergency care for patients with injuries among people from ethnic minorities in the UK. The aim of this study is to investigate what may differ for people from ethnic minorities compared with white British people when presenting with injury to ambulance and Emergency Departments (EDs).Methods and analysisThis mixed methods study covers eight services, four ambulance services (three in England and one in Scotland) and four hospital EDs, located within each ambulance service. The study has five Work Packages (WP): (WP1) scoping review comparing mortality by ethnicity of people presenting with injury to emergency services; (WP2) retrospective analysis of linked NHS routine data from patients who present to ambulances or EDs with injury over 5 years (2016–2021); (WP3) postal questionnaire survey of 2000 patients (1000 patients from ethnic minorities and 1000 white British patients) who present with injury to ambulances or EDs including self-reported outcomes (measured by Quality of Care Monitor and Health Related Quality of Life measured by SF-12); (WP4) qualitative interviews with patients from ethnic minorities (n=40) and focus groups—four with asylum seekers and refugees and four with care providers and (WP5) a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative findings.Ethics and disseminationThis study received a favourable opinion by the Wales Research Ethics Committee (305391). The Health Research Authority has approved the study and, on advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group, has supported the use of confidential patient information without consent for anonymised data. Results will be shared with ambulance and ED services, government bodies and third-sector organisations through direct communications summarising scientific conference proceedings and publications.

BackgroundUneven vaccination and less resilient health care systems mean hospitals in LMICs are at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection. Risk-scores proposed for rapid triage of need for admission from the emergency department (ED) have been developed in higher-income settings during initial waves of the pandemic.MethodsRoutinely collected data for public hospitals in the Western Cape, South Africa from the 27thAugust 2020 to 11thMarch 2022 were used to derive a cohort of 446,084 ED patients with suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was death or ICU admission at 30 days. The cohort was divided into derivation and Omicron variant validation sets. We developed the LMIC-PRIEST score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort and existing triage practices. We externally validated accuracy in the Omicron period and a UK cohort.ResultsWe analysed 305,564, derivation 140,520 Omicron and 12,610 UK validation cases. Over 100 events per predictor parameter were modelled. Multivariable analyses identified eight predictor variables retained across models. We used these findings and clinical judgement to develop a score based on South African Triage Early Warning Scores and also included age, sex, oxygen saturation, inspired oxygen, diabetes and heart disease. The LMIC-PRIEST score achieved C-statistics: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.83) development cohort; 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.80) Omicron cohort; and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79 to 0.80) UK cohort. Differences in prevalence of outcomes led to imperfect calibration in external validation. However, use of the score at thresholds of three or less would allow identification of very low-risk patients (NPV ≥0.99) who could be rapidly discharged using information collected at initial assessment.ConclusionThe LMIC-PRIEST score shows good discrimination and high sensitivity at lower thresholds and can be used to rapidly identify low-risk patients in LMIC ED settings.What is already known on this subjectUneven vaccination in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) coupled with less resilient health care provision mean that emergency health care systems in LMICs may still be at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection.Risk-stratification scores may help rapidly triage need for hospitalisation. However, those proposed for use in the ED for patients with suspected COVID-19 have been developed and validated in high-income settings.What this study addsThe LMIC-PRIEST score has been robustly developed using a large routine dataset from the Western Cape, South Africa and is directly applicable to existing triage practices in LMICs.External validation across both income settings and COVID-19 variants showed good discrimination and high sensitivity (at lower thresholds) to a composite outcome indicating need for inpatient admission from the EDHow this study might affect research, practice or policyUse of the LMIC-PRIEST score at thresholds of three or less would allow identification of very low-risk patients (negative predictive value ≥0.99) across all settings assessedDuring periods of increased demand, this could allow the rapid identification and discharge of patients from the ED using information collected at initial assessment.

Acute coronary syndrome is a common medical emergency. The optimal strategy to investigate patients who are at intermediate risk of acute coronary syndrome has not been fully determined.To investigate the role of early computed tomography coronary angiography in the investigation and treatment of adults presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome.A prospective, multicentre, open, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with blinded end-point adjudication.Thirty-seven hospitals in the UK.Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) presenting to the emergency department, acute medicine services or cardiology department with suspected or provisionally diagnosed acute coronary syndrome and at least one of the following: (1) a prior history of coronary artery disease, (2) a cardiac troponin level 99th centile and (3) an abnormal 12-lead electrocardiogram.Early computed tomography coronary angiography in addition to standard care was compared with standard care alone. Participants were followed up for 1 year.One-year all-cause death or subsequent type 1 (spontaneous) or type 4b (stent thrombosis) myocardial infarction, measured as the time to such event adjudicated by two cardiologists blinded to the computerised tomography coronary angiography ( CTCA ) arm. Cost-effectiveness was estimated as the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.Between 23 March 2015 and 27 June 2019, 1748 participants [mean age 62 years (standard deviation 13 years), 64% male, mean Global Registry Of Acute Coronary Events score 115 (standard deviation 35)] were randomised to receive early computed tomography coronary angiography (The principal limitation of the trial was the slower than anticipated recruitment, leading to a revised sample size, and the requirement to compromise and accept a larger relative effect size estimate for the trial intervention.The potential role of computed tomography coronary angiography in selected patients with a low probability of obstructive coronary artery disease (intermediate or mildly elevated level of troponin) or who have limited access to invasive cardiac catheterisation facilities needs further prospective evaluation.In patients with suspected or provisionally diagnosed acute coronary syndrome, computed tomography coronary angiography did not alter overall coronary therapeutic interventions or 1-year clinical outcomes, but it did increase the length of hospital stay and health-care costs. These findings do not support the routine use of early computed tomography coronary angiography in intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain.This trial is registered as ISRCTN19102565 and Clinical Trials NCT02284191.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inChest pain is a common medical emergency. It is important to decide if the cause is a heart attack. The two tests that are often used are a heart recording (electrocardiogram) and a blood test (troponin levels). If both are normal, the cause of chest pain is unlikely to be a heart attack and the patient is often discharged home. If either test is positive or if the patient has had previous heart problems, then the patient may require further investigation. We wanted to test whether or not adding a heart scan called a computerised tomography coronary angiogram improved patients’ care.We carried out a randomised trial in which half of the patients attending hospital with chest pain had a computerised tomography coronary angiography scan as part of their assessment and half of the patients did not. In total, 1749 patients were recruited and followed up for 1 year.The use of an additional early computerised tomography coronary angiography scan for chest pain patients of medium risk produced only small improvements in patient care.

BackgroundGuidelines for adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected sepsis recommend protocols and bundles that promote rapid and potentially intensive treatment, but give little consideration of how patient characteristics, such as age, functional status and comorbidities, might influence management. This study aimed to describe the characteristics, management and outcomes of adults attending the ED with suspected sepsis, and specifically describe the prevalence of comorbidities, functional impairment and escalations of care.MethodsWe undertook a single-centre retrospective observational study involving medical record review of a random sample of adults admitted to an ED between February 2018 and January 2019 with suspected sepsis. Descriptive statistics were used with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for key proportions.ResultsWe included 509 patients (median age 74 years), of whom 49.3% met the Sepsis-3 criteria. Less than half of the patients were living at home independently (42.5%) or could walk independently (41.5%), 19.3% were care home residents and 89.2% of patients had one or more comorbidity. 22% had a pre-existing do not attempt resuscitation order. 6.5% were referred to intensive care, and 34.3% of the 13.2% who died in-hospital had an escalation plan explicitly documented.ConclusionAdults with suspected sepsis have substantial functional limitations, comorbidities and treatment directives that should be considered in guidelines, especially recommendations for escalation of care.

AIMS: We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of adults admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19 according to their DNACPR decisions, and identify factors associated with DNACPR decisions. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of 13,977 adults admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19 and included in the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (PRIEST) study. We recorded presenting characteristics and outcomes (death or organ support) up to 30 days. We categorised patients as early DNACPR (before or on the day of admission) or late/no DNACPR (no DNACPR or occurring after the day of admission). We undertook descriptive analysis comparing these groups and multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of early DNACPR. RESULTS: We excluded 1249 with missing DNACPR data, and identified 3929/12748 (31%) with an early DNACPR decision. They had higher mortality (40.7% v 13.1%) and lower use of any organ support (11.6% v 15.7%), but received a range of organ support interventions, with some being used at rates comparable to those with late or no DNACPR (e.g. non-invasive ventilation 4.4% v 3.5%). On multivariable analysis, older age (p < 0.001), active malignancy (p < 0.001), chronic lung disease (p < 0.001), limited performance status (p < 0.001), and abnormal physiological variables were associated with increased recording of early DNACPR. Asian ethnicity was associated with reduced recording of early DNACPR (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Early DNACPR decisions were associated with recognised predictors of adverse outcome, and were inversely associated with Asian ethnicity. Most people with an early DNACPR decision survived to 30 days and many received potentially life-saving interventions. REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.

Study ObjectiveTools proposed to triage acuity in suspected COVID-19 in the ED have been derived and validated in higher-income settings during early waves of the pandemic. We estimated the accuracy of seven risk-stratification tools recommended to predict severe illness in the Western Cape, South Africa.MethodsAn observational cohort study using routinely collected data from EDs across the Western Cape, from the 27th of August 2020 to 11th March 2022 was conducted to assess performance of the PRIEST tool, NEWS2, TEWS, the WHO algorithm, CRB-65, Quick COVID-19 Severity Index and PMEWS in suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was death or ICU admission.ResultsOf 446,084 patients, 15,397 patients (3.45%, 95% CI:34% to 35.1%) experienced the primary outcome. Clinical decision-making for inpatient admission achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.78), specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.88) and the negative predictive value (NPV) 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 0.99). NEWS2, PMEWS and PRIEST tool algorithm identified patients at risk of adverse outcomes at recommended cut-offs with moderate sensitivity (>0.8) and specificity ranging from 0.47 (NEWS2) to 0.65 (PRIEST tool). Use of the tools at recommended thresholds would have more than doubled admissions with only a 0.01% reduction in false negative triage.ConclusionUse of the PRIEST score, NEWS2 and PMEWS at a threshold of a point higher would achieve similar accuracy to current clinical admission decision, with possible gains in transparency and speed of decision-making.

Aims To evaluate the potential associations between presentation cardiac troponin and the clinical impact of early computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in intermediate-risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Methods and results In a large multicentre randomized controlled trial of patients with intermediate-risk chest pain due to suspected acute coronary syndrome, early CTCA had no effect on the primary outcome—death or subsequent Type 1 or 4b myocardial infarction—but reduced the rate of invasive coronary angiography. In this pre-specified secondary analysis, cardiovascular testing and clinical outcomes were compared between those with or without cardiac troponin elevation at presentation. Of 1748 patients, 1004 (57%) had an elevated cardiac troponin concentration and 744 (43%) had a normal concentration. Patients with cardiac troponin elevation had a higher Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score (132 vs. 91; P Conclusion Presentation cardiac troponin had no demonstrable associations between the effects of early CTCA on reductions in non-invasive and invasive testing, or the lack of effect on coronary revascularization or the primary outcome in intermediate-risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.

BackgroundTools proposed to triage ED acuity in suspected COVID-19 were derived and validated in higher income settings during early waves of the pandemic. We estimated the accuracy of seven risk-stratification tools recommended to predict severe illness in the Western Cape, South Africa.MethodsAn observational cohort study using routinely collected data from EDs across the Western Cape, from 27 August 2020 to 11 March 2022, was conducted to assess the performance of the PRIEST (Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage) tool, NEWS2 (National Early Warning Score, version 2), TEWS (Triage Early Warning Score), the WHO algorithm, CRB-65, Quick COVID-19 Severity Index and PMEWS (Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score) in suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was intubation or non-invasive ventilation, death or intensive care unit admission at 30 days.ResultsOf the 446 084 patients, 15 397 (3.45%, 95% CI 34% to 35.1%) experienced the primary outcome. Clinical decision-making for inpatient admission achieved a sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.78), specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.88) and the negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 0.99). NEWS2, PMEWS and PRIEST scores achieved good estimated discrimination (C-statistic 0.79 to 0.82) and identified patients at risk of adverse outcomes at recommended cut-offs with moderate sensitivity (>0.8) and specificity ranging from 0.41 to 0.64. Use of the tools at recommended thresholds would have more than doubled admissions, with only a 0.01% reduction in false negative triage.ConclusionNo risk score outperformed existing clinical decision-making in determining the need for inpatient admission based on prediction of the primary outcome in this setting. Use of the PRIEST score at a threshold of one point higher than the previously recommended best approximated existing clinical accuracy.

Introduction:Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common medical emergency. Pre-hospital management includes controlled oxygen therapy, supplemented by specific management options directed at the underlying disease. The aim of the current study was to characterise the accuracy of paramedic diagnostic assessment in acute respiratory failure. Methods:A nested diagnostic accuracy and agreement study comparing pre-hospital clinical impression to the final hospital discharge diagnosis was conducted as part of the ACUTE (Ambulance CPAP: Use, Treatment effect and Economics) trial. Adults with suspected ARF were recruited from the UK West Midlands Ambulance Service. The pre-hospital clinical impression of the recruiting ambulance service clinician was prospectively recorded and compared to the final hospital diagnosis at 30 days. Agreement between pre-hospital and hospital diagnostic assessments was evaluated using raw agreement and Gwets AC1 coefficient. Results:77 participants were included. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (32.9%) and lower respiratory tract infection (32.9%) were the most frequently suspected primary pre-hospital diagnoses for ARF, with secondary contributory conditions recorded in 36 patients (46.8%). There was moderate agreement between the primary pre-hospital and hospital diagnoses, with raw agreement of 58.5% and a Gwets AC1 coefficient of 0.56 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.69). In five cases, a non-respiratory final diagnosis was present, including: myocardial infarction, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, liver failure and sepsis. Conclusions:Pre-hospital assessment of ARF is challenging, with limited accuracy compared to the final hospital diagnosis. A syndromic approach, providing general supportive care, rather than a specifically disease-orientated treatment strategy, is likely to be most appropriate for the pre-hospital environment.

Aims, Objectives and BackgroundUneven vaccination in low- and middle-income settings and less resilient health care provision mean that emergency health care systems may still be at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection. Risk stratification tools proposed to allow rapid triage of need for admission in ED settings have almost exclusively been developed and validated in high-income settings during early waves of the pandemic.Our study aimed to estimate the accuracy of risk-stratification tools recommended to predict severe illness in adults with suspected COVID-19 infection in the Western Cape of South Africa.Method and DesignAn observational cohort study using routinely electronically collected clinical information in all state-run hospitals in the Western Cape between 27th August 2020 and 11th March 2022 was conducted to assess performance of the PRIEST tool, NEWS2, the WHO algorithm, CRB-65, TEWS, Quick Covid Severity Index and PMEWS in patients with suspected COVID-19. The primary outcome was death, respiratory support or ICU admission.Abstract 1482 Figure 1Performance of tools predicting composite primary outcome for total study periodAbstract 1482 Figure 2Performance of tools predicting composite primary outcome for the Omicron periodAbstract 1482 Table 1Triage tool diagnostic accuracy statistics (95% CI) for predicting any adverse outcome (entire study period)ToolN*C-statisticThresholdN (%) above thresholdSensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVCRB-65432,5840.70(0.70, 0.71)>0102,964 (23.8%)0.61(0.61, 0.61)0.78(0.77, 0.78)0.09(0.09, 0.09)0.98(0.98, 0.98)NEWS2433,1010.80(0.79, 0.80)>1178835 (41.3%)0.83(0.83, 0.83)0.6(0.6,0.6)0.07(0.07–0.07)0.99(0.99, 0.99)PMEWS438,8100.79(0.79, 0.79)>2199,386 (45.4%)0.85(0.85, 0.85)0.56(0.56, 0.56)0.06(0.06, 0.07)0.99 (0.99,0.99)PRIEST438,8800.82(0.82, 0.82)>4158,893 (36.2%)0.83(0.83, 0.83)0.65 (0.65,0.66)0.08(0.08, 0.08)0.99(0.99, 0.99)WHO437,8500.71(0.71, 0.72)>0235,775 (53.8%)0.82(0.81, 0.82)0.47(0.47, 0.47)0.05(0.05, 0.05)0.99(0.99, 0.99)TEWS432,6120.72(0.71, 0.72)>2134,097 (31%)0.62(0.62, 0.62)0.70(0.70, 0.70)0.07(0.07, 0.07)0.98(0.98, 0.98)Quick COVID446,0880.70(0.69, 0.70)>335,145 (7.9%)0.33(0.33, 0.33)0.93(0.93, 0.93)0.14(0.14, 0.14)0.98(0.98, 0.98)*Patients with Abstract 1482 Table 2Triage tool diagnostic accuracy statistics (95% CI) for predicting any adverse outcome (Omicron period)ToolN*C-statisticThresholdN (%) above thresholdSensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVCRB-65136,9610.69(0.68, 0.70)>031,373 (22.9%)0.59(0.59, 0.59)0.78(0.78, 0.78)0.05(0.05, 0.05)0.99(0.99, 0.99)NEWS2137,1250.77(0.76, 0.78)>176,183 (55.6%)0.87(0.87, 0.87)0.45(0.45, 0.45)0.03(0.03, 0.03)0.99(0.99, 0.99)PMEWS138,9540.76(0.75, 0.76)>259,876 (43.1%)0.80(0.80, 0.80)0.58(0.58, 0.58)0.04(0.04, 0.04)0.99(0.99, 0.99)PRIEST158,8930.78(0.77, 0.79)>446,529 (33.5%)0.75(0.75, 0.75)0.67(0.67, 0.67)0.04(0.04, 0.04)0.99(0.99, 0.99)WHO138,6660.62(0.61, 0.63)>072,599 (52.4%)0.70(0.70, 0.70)0.48(0.48, 0.48)0.03(0.03, 0.03)0.99(0.99, 0.99)TEWS136,9670.73(0.72, 0.74)>239,509 (28.8%)0.64(0.64, 0.64)0.72(0.72, 0.72)0.04(0.04, 0.04)0.99(0.99, 0.99)Quick COVID1405200.61(0.60, 0.63)>38,210(6.4%)0.17(0.17, 0.17)0.94(0.94, 0.94)0.06(0.06, 0.06)0.98(0.98, 0.98)*Patients with Results and ConclusionOf the 446,084 patients, 15,397 patients (3.45%, 95% CI:34% to 35.1%) experienced the primary outcome. Figure 1 presents the ROC curves for the triage tools for the total study period and figure 2 for the period of the Omicron wave. NEWS2, PMEWS, PRIEST tool and WHO algorithm identified patients at risk of adverse outcomes at recommended cut-offs with moderate sensitivity (>0.8) and specificity ranging from 0.47 (NEWS2) to 0.65 (PRIEST tool). The low prevalence of the primary outcome, especially in the Omicron period, meant use of these tools would have more than doubled admissions with only a small reduction in risk of false negative triage.Triage tools developed specifically in low- and middle-income settings may be needed to provide accurate risk prediction. Existing triage tools may need to be used at varying thresholds to reflect different baseline-line risks of adverse outcomes in different settings.

BackgroundEmergency Medical Services (EMS) have experienced surges in demand as the COVID-19 pandemic has progressed with ambulances services in the UK declaring major incidents due to the risk of care being compromised. COVID-19 specific EMS telephone triage tools have been introduced to help manage demand. There has been no previous evaluation of the accuracy of EMS telephone triage in identifying patients with suspected COVID-19 at risk of serious adverse outcome.We aimed to assess accuracy of EMS telephone triage in identifying patients who need an EMS response and identify factors which affect triage accuracy.MethodPatients who made an emergency call to Yorkshire Ambulance Service between 2nd April and 29th June 2020 and were assessed using an AMPDS pandemic pathway for suspected COVID-19 were linked to Office for National Statistics death registration data, hospital and general practice electronic health care data collected by NHS Digital.Accuracy of decision to dispatch an ambulance was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support at 30 days from the first 999 call. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with false negative and false positive triage.ResultsOf 12, 653 callers included in the study population, 11.1% experienced the primary composite adverse outcome. Using the triage pathway, 16% of callers did not receive an emergency response and they had a lower risk (3.5%) of the primary outcome. Ambulances were dispatched to 4, 230 callers (33.4%) who were not subsequently conveyed to hospital and did not experience the primary outcome (false positive triage). Multivariable modelling found older age and presence of pre-existing respiratory disease were significant predictors of false positive triage.ConclusionEMS telephone triage avoided 16% of calls receiving an emergency ambulance, of whom 3.5% died or needed organ support by 30 days. Telephone triage can therefore reduce the burden of EMS responses but with the cost of a small proportion of patients who do not receive an initial emergency response deteriorating. Research is needed to identify the appropriate balance between over- and under-triage

Purpose Epilepsy is associated with costly unplanned health service use. The UK’s National Audits of Seizure Management in Hospital found use was often clinically unnecessary, avoidable and typically led to little benefit for epilepsy management. We systematically identified how services have responded to reduce such use. Methods We invited England’s ambulance services, neuroscience and neurology centres and a random sample of Emergency Departments (EDs) to complete a survey. It asked what innovations they (or services they worked with) had made in the past 5 years or were making, the priority afforded to them, user involvement, what comprised usual practice, and barriers to change. Results 72/87 of invited (82.8 %) services responded. EDs ascribed less priority to reducing emergency hospital use for epilepsy and convulsions, than other service types. Overall, 60 % of services reported a change(s) and/or were planning one. Neurology/neuroscience sites (93.8 %) were most likely to report change; EDs (15.4 %) least likely. Eleven types of change were identified; 5 sought to promote proactive epilepsy care and avert the need for emergency care; 3 focused on the care received from emergency services; and 3 focused on follow-up care ED attendees received. Most were for those with established, rather than new epilepsy and targeted known limitations to current care provision. Conclusion Reducing emergency hospital use by PWE is a high priority for most health services in England and a number of new services have been developed. However, they have not been consistently implemented and innovation is lacking in some areas of care.

BackgroundTools proposed to triage patient acuity in COVID-19 infection have only been validated in hospital populations. We estimated the accuracy of five risk-stratification tools recommended to predict severe illness and compared accuracy to existing clinical decision making in a prehospital setting.MethodsAn observational cohort study using linked ambulance service data for patients attended by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) crews in the Yorkshire and Humber region of England between 26 March 2020 and 25 June 2020 was conducted to assess performance of the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (PRIEST) tool, National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), WHO algorithm, CRB-65 and Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score (PMEWS) in patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. The primary outcome was death or need for organ support.ResultsOf the 7549 patients in our cohort, 17.6% (95% CI 16.8% to 18.5%) experienced the primary outcome. The NEWS2 (National Early Warning Score, version 2), PMEWS, PRIEST tool and WHO algorithm identified patients at risk of adverse outcomes with a high sensitivity (>0.95) and specificity ranging from 0.3 (NEWS2) to 0.41 (PRIEST tool). The high sensitivity of NEWS2 and PMEWS was achieved by using lower thresholds than previously recommended. On index assessment, 65% of patients were transported to hospital and EMS decision to transfer patients achieved a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.85) and specificity of 0.39 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.40).ConclusionUse of NEWS2, PMEWS, PRIEST tool and WHO algorithm could improve sensitivity of EMS triage of patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. Use of the PRIEST tool would improve sensitivity of triage without increasing the number of patients conveyed to hospital.

Background Many health care systems triage injured patients to major trauma centres (MTCs) or local hospitals by using triage tools and paramedic judgement. Triage tools are typically assessed by whether patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 go to an MTC and whether patients with an ISS Methods A patient-level, probabilistic, mathematical model of a UK major trauma system was developed. Patients with an ISS ≥ 16 who were only treated at local hospitals had worse outcomes compared to being treated in an MTC. Nine empirically derived triage tools, from a previous study, were examined so we assessed triage tools with realistic trade-offs between triage tool sensitivity and specificity. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each tool and compared to maximum acceptable ICERs (MAICERs) in England. Results Four tools had ICERs within the normal range of MAICERs used by English decision makers (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). A low sensitivity (28.4%) and high specificity (88.6%) would be cost-effective at the lower end of this range while higher sensitivity (87.5%) and lower specificity (62.8%) was cost-effective towards the upper end of this range. These results were sensitive to the cost of MTC admissions and whether MTCs had a benefit for patients with an ISS between 9 and 15. Conclusions The cost-effective triage tool depends on the English decision maker’s MAICER for this health problem. In the usual range of MAICERs, cost-effective prehospital trauma triage involves clinically suboptimal sensitivity, with a proportion of seriously injured patients (at least 10%) being initially transported to local hospitals. High sensitivity trauma triage requires development of more accurate decision rules; research to establish if patients with an ISS between 9 and 15 benefit from MTCs; or, inefficient use of health care resources to manage patients with less serious injuries at MTCs.

Background Approximately 75,000 people fracture a hip each year in the UK. This painful injury can be devastating—with a high associated mortality rate—and survivors likely to be more dependent and less mobile. Pain relief at the scene of injury is known to be inadequate. Intravenous morphine is usually given by paramedics, but opioids are less effective for dynamic pain and can cause serious side effects, including nausea, constipation, delirium and respiratory depression. These may delay surgery, require further treatment and worsen patient outcomes. We completed a feasibility study of paramedic-provided fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), testing the intervention, trial methods and data collection. The study (RAPID) demonstrated that a full trial was feasible. In this subsequent study, we aim to test safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedic-provided FICB as pain relief to patients with suspected hip fracture in the prehospital environment. Methods We will conduct a pragmatic multi-centre individually randomised parallel-group trial, with a 1:1 allocation between usual care (control) and FICB (intervention). Hospital clinicians in five sites (paired ambulance services and receiving hospitals) in England and Wales will train 220 paramedics to administer FICB. The primary outcome is change in pain score from pre-randomisation to arrival at the emergency department. One thousand four hundred patients are required to find a clinically important difference between trial arms in the primary outcome (standardised statistical effect ~ 0.2; 90% power, 5% significance). We will use NHS Digital (England) and the SAIL (Secure Anonymised Information Linkage) databank (Wales) to follow up patient outcomes using routine anonymised linked data in an efficient study design, and questionnaires to capture patient-reported outcomes at 1 and 4 months. Secondary outcomes include mortality, length of hospital stay, job cycle time, prehospital medications including morphine, presence of hip fracture, satisfaction, mobility, and NHS costs. We will assess safety by monitoring serious adverse events (SAEs). Discussion The trial will help to determine whether paramedic administered FICB is a safe, clinically and cost-effective treatment for suspected hip fracture in the pre-hospital setting. Impact will be shown if and when clinical guidelines either recommend or reject the use of FICB in routine practice in this context. Trial registration ISRCTN15831813. Registered on 22 September 2021.

IntroductionDiagnosing underlying arrhythmia in emergency department (ED) syncope patients is difficult. There is a evidence that diagnostic yield for detecting underlying arrhythmia is highest when cardiac monitoring devices are applied early, ideally at the index visit. This strategy has the potential to change current syncope management from low diagnostic yield Holter to higher yield ambulatory monitoring, reduce episodes of syncope, reduce risk of recurrence and its potential serious consequences, reduce hospital admissions, reduce overall health costs and increase quality of life by allowing earlier diagnosis, treatment and exclusion of clinically important arrhythmias.Methods and analysesThis is a UK open prospective parallel group multicentre randomised controlled trial of an immediate 14-day ambulatory patch heart monitor vs standard care in 2234 patients presenting acutely with unexplained syncope. Our patient focused primary endpoint will be number of episodes of syncope at 1 year. Health economic evaluation will estimate the incremental cost per syncope episode avoided and quality-adjusted life year gained.Ethics and disseminationInformed consent for participation will be sought. The ASPIRED trial received a favourable ethical opinion from South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee 01 (21/SS/0073). Results will be disseminated via scientific publication, lay summary and visual abstract.Trial registration numberISRCTN 10278811.

ObjectivesWe evaluated the accuracy of using routine health service data to identify hospital-acquired thrombosis (HAT) and major bleeding events (MBE) compared with a reference standard of case note review.DesignA multicentre observational cohort study.SettingFour acute hospitals in the UK.ParticipantsA consecutive unselective cohort of general medical and surgical patients requiring hospitalisation for a period of >24 hours during the calendar year 2021. We excluded paediatric, obstetric and critical care patients due to differential risk profiles.InterventionsWe compared preidentified sources of routinely collected information (using hospital coding data and local contractually mandated thrombosis datasets) to data extracted from case notes using a predesigned workflow methodology.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe defined HAT as objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism occurring during hospital stay or within 90 days of discharge and MBE as per international consensus.ResultsWe were able to source all necessary routinely collected outcome data for 87% of 2008 case episodes reviewed. The sensitivity of hospital coding data (International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision, ICD-10) for the diagnosis of HAT and MBE was 62% (95% CI, 54 to 69) and 38% (95% CI, 27 to 50), respectively. Sensitivity improved to 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) when using local thrombosis data sets.ConclusionsUsing routinely collected data appeared to miss a substantial proportion of outcome events, when compared with case note review. Our study suggests that currently available routine data collection methods in the UK are inadequate to support efficient study designs in venous thromboembolism research.Trial registration numberNIHR127454.

Composite outcomes are widely used in clinical research. Existing literature has considered the pros and cons of composite outcomes in clinical trials, but their extensive use in clinical prediction has received much less attention. Clinical prediction assists decision-making by directing patients with higher risks of adverse outcomes toward interventions that provide the greatest benefits to those at the greatest risk. In this article, we summarize our existing understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of composite outcomes, consider how these relate to clinical prediction, and highlight the problem of key predictors having markedly different associations with individual components of the composite outcome. We suggest that a “composite outcome fallacy” may occur when a clinical prediction model is based on strong associations between key predictors and one component of a composite outcome (such as mortality) and used to direct patients toward intervention when these predictors actually have an inverse association with a more relevant component of the composite outcome (such as the use of a lifesaving intervention). We propose that clinical prediction scores using composite outcomes should report their accuracy for key components of the composite outcome and examine for inconsistencies among predictor variables.

Introduction: The relationship between medical expenditure and long-term effectiveness of early (within 72 hours) non-invasive cardiac stress testing (NIT) in reducing future acute myocardial infraction (AMI) is not well understood. We estimated the value of early NIT after an emergency department (ED) evaluation for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult (18+) patients with chest pain, presenting at EDs within the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system from 10/2015-12/2018. We analyzed the direct medical expenditure associated with medical office visits, hospital facility and ED visits, pharmacy utilization, hospice stays, skilled nursing stays, home health, dialysis, laboratory and radiology utilization during the one year following the index chest pain ED visit. We also identified incidence of AMI during the 1-year follow-up. We used 2-stage residual inclusion instrumental variables (IV) techniques to evaluate the marginal effect of early NIT on total all cause expenditure as well as subgroups of utilization. We used control functions IV techniques to evaluate the marginal effect of NIT on AMI and calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) as the inverse of the absolute risk reduction. All models adjusted for socio-demographics, cardiovascular disease (CVD) history and treatment and non-CVD comorbidities. Results: The cohort included 91250 patients (mean age 58 years, female 58%) and 19% received early NIT. The marginal difference in total expenditure between the early NIT vs controls was $2,583 (95% CI $591 to $4,575) and was mainly related to the index ED visit (Table 1). Those who received early NIT had slightly lower risk of AMI during the 1-year follow-up (risk reduction 1.3% (-1.9% to -0.7%) resulting in NNT of 75. Conclusions: Early NIT offers minor risk reduction of AMI but with an increase of $2583 in expenditure. With a NNT of 75, the cost to avoid one AMI is estimated to be $193,725.

ObjectiveTo assess accuracy of telephone triage in identifying patients who need emergency care amongst those with suspected COVID-19 infection and identify factors which affect triage accuracy.DesignObservational cohort studySettingCommunity telephone triage in the Yorkshire and Humber, Bassetlaw, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire region.Participants40, 261 adults who contacted NHS 111 telephone triage services provided by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust between the 18th March 2020 and 29th June 2020 with symptoms indicating possible COVID-19 infection were linked to Office for National Statistics death registration data, hospital and general practice electronic health care data collected by NHS Digital.OutcomeAccuracy of triage disposition (self-care/non-urgent clinical assessment versus ambulance dispatch/urgent clinical assessment) was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support at 30, 7 and 3 days from first contact with the telephone triage service.ResultsCallers had a 3% (1, 200/40, 261) risk of adverse outcome. Telephone triage recommended self-care or non-urgent assessment for 60% (24, 335/40, 261), with a 1.3% (310/24, 335) risk of subsequent adverse outcome. Telephone triage had 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (61% to 62%) for adverse outcomes at 30 days from first contact. Multivariable analysis suggested some co-morbidities (such as chronic respiratory disease) may be over-estimated as predictors of adverse outcome, while the association of diabetes with adverse outcome may be under-estimated. Repeat contact with the service appears to be an important under recognised predictor of adverse outcomes with both 2 contacts (OR 1.77 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.75) and 3 or more contacts (OR 4.02 95% CI: 1.68 to 9.65) associated with clinical deterioration when not provided with an ambulance or urgent clinical assessment.ConclusionPatients advised to self-care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of serious clinical deterioration. The sensitivity and specificity of telephone triage was comparable to other tools used to triage patient acuity in emergency and urgent care. Repeat contact with telephone services needs recognition as an important predictor of subsequent adverse outcomes.What is already known on this topicTelephone triage has been used to divert patients with suspected COVID-19 to self care or for non-urgent clinical assessments, and thereby help mitigate the risk of health services being overwhelmed by patients who require no speficic treatment.Concerns have been raised that telephone triage may not be sufficiently accurate in identifying need for emergency care. However, no previous evaluation of accuracy of telephone triage in patients with suspected COVID-19 infection has been completed.What this study addsPatients advised to self care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of deterioration and significant adverse outcomes.Telephone triage has comparable performance to methods used to triage patient acuity in other emergency and urgent care settings.Accuracy of triage may be improved by better recognition of multiple contact with services as a predictor of adverse outcomes.

What you need to know Early recognition and treatment of sepsis is essential to reduce mortality, but this can only be achieved if patients with suspected sepsis receive priority treatment in the emergency care system. One suggested approach for identifying these patients is through the use of early warning scores. These use simple clinical measurements to calculate a score indicating the risk of adverse outcome,1 and several guidelines make recommendations around their use in early recognition of sepsis (see box 1). Box 1 ### Guidelines recommending the use of early warning scores to aid in early recognition of sepsis risk in adultsRETURN TO TEXT

Edited by Dr Gabrielle Prager on behalf of the RCEM COVID-19 CPD team Following from the successful ‘RCEM weekly top five’ series starting in April 2020, this is the third of a monthly format for EMJ readers. We have undertaken a focused search of the PubMed literature using a standardised COVID-19 search string. Our search between 1 December and 31 December 2020 returned 1183 papers limited to human subjects and English language. We also searched high impact journals for papers of interest. Our team have narrowed down the most interesting, relevant and important of the papers and provided a critical snapshot of five of those we felt most deserved EMJ reader attention. Importantly, we have highlighted not only the main findings from the papers but also key limitations and considerations for EM clinicians when interpreting the work. In doing so we have created an accessible window into pertinent research findings for our busy colleagues during this fast-paced and ever-changing COVID-19 landscape. The papers are ranked in one of three categories, allowing you to focus on those that are most vital to your practice: This month’s searches were undertaken by the Centre for Urgent and Emergency Care Research at the University of Sheffield. We look forward to next month’s instalment by our colleagues in Leicester. ### Topic: treatment #### Rating: game changer In March 2020, the WHO recommended randomised trials into potential treatments for COVID-19. Experts agreed on four antiviral drugs that could be repurposed to reduce mortality in this patient group. The four drugs were remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir and interferon beta-1a. Within a month a large international, open-label randomised trial was launched at 405 hospitals in 30 different countries. There was no placebo group; the control group consisted …

ObjectivesTo assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).DesignSystematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021.Eligibility criteriaAll validation studies that examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium (within 6 weeks post-delivery).Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). Data were synthesised without meta-analysis.ResultsSeventeen studies, comprising 19 externally validated RAMs and 1 internally validated model, met the inclusion criteria. The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines (six studies), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines (two studies), Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines (two studies) and the Lyon score (two studies). In general, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0% to 100% for RAMs that were applied to antepartum women to predict antepartum or postpartum VTE and 0% to 100% for RAMs applied postpartum to predict postpartum VTE. Specificity estimates were similarly diverse ranging from 28% to 98% and 5% to 100%, respectively.ConclusionsAvailable data suggest that external validation studies have weak designs and limited generalisability, so estimates of prognostic accuracy are very uncertain.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020221094.

IntroductionHospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital.MethodsA systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.ResultsAmong 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%.ConclusionAvailable data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM.PROSPERO registration numberSteve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778

BackgroundAmbulance service quality measures have focused on response times and a small number of emergency conditions, such as cardiac arrest. These quality measures do not reflect the care for the wide range of problems that ambulance services respond to and the Prehospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (PhOEBE) programme sought to address this.ObjectivesThe aim was to develop new ways of measuring the impact of ambulance service care by reviewing and synthesising literature on prehospital ambulance outcome measures and using consensus methods to identify measures for further development; creating a data set linking routinely collected ambulance service, hospital and mortality data; and using the linked data to explore the development of case-mix adjustment models to assess differences or changes in processes and outcomes resulting from ambulance service care.DesignA mixed-methods study using a systematic review and synthesis of performance and outcome measures reported in policy and research literature; qualitative interviews with ambulance service users; a three-stage consensus process to identify candidate indicators; the creation of a data set linking ambulance, hospital and mortality data; and statistical modelling of the linked data set to produce novel case-mix adjustment measures of ambulance service quality.SettingEast Midlands and Yorkshire, England.ParticipantsAmbulance services, patients, public, emergency care clinical academics, commissioners and policy-makers between 2011 and 2015.InterventionsNone.Main outcome measuresAmbulance performance and quality measures.Data sourcesAmbulance call-and-dispatch and electronic patient report forms, Hospital Episode Statistics, accident and emergency and inpatient data, and Office for National Statistics mortality data.ResultsSeventy-two candidate measures were generated from systematic reviews in four categories: (1) ambulance service operations (n = 14), (2) clinical management of patients (n = 20), (3) impact of care on patients (n = 9) and (4) time measures (n = 29). The most common operations measures were call triage accuracy; clinical management was adherence to care protocols, and for patient outcome it was survival measures. Excluding time measures, nine measures were highly prioritised by participants taking part in the consensus event, including measures relating to pain, patient experience, accuracy of dispatch decisions and patient safety. Twenty experts participated in two Delphi rounds to refine and prioritise measures and 20 measures scored ≥ 8/9 points, which indicated good consensus. Eighteen patient and public representatives attending a consensus workshop identified six measures as important: time to definitive care, response time, reduction in pain score, calls correctly prioritised to appropriate levels of response, proportion of patients with a specific condition who are treated in accordance with established guidelines, and survival to hospital discharge for treatable emergency conditions. From this we developed six new potential indicators using the linked data set, of which five were constructed using case-mix-adjusted predictive models: (1) mean change in pain score; (2) proportion of serious emergency conditions correctly identified at the time of the 999 call; (3) response time (unadjusted); (4) proportion of decisions to leave a patient at scene that were potentially inappropriate; (5) proportion of patients transported to the emergency department by 999 emergency ambulance who did not require treatment or investigation(s); and (6) proportion of ambulance patients with a serious emergency condition who survive to admission, and to 7 days post admission. Two indicators (pain score and response times) did not need case-mix adjustment. Among the four adjusted indicators, we found that accuracy of call triage was 61%, rate of potentially inappropriate decisions to leave at home was 5–10%, unnecessary transport to hospital was 1.7–19.2% and survival to hospital admission was 89.5–96.4% depending on Clinical Commissioning Group area. We were unable to complete a fourth objective to test the indicators in use because of delays in obtaining data. An economic analysis using indicators (4) and (5) showed that incorrect decisions resulted in higher costs.LimitationsCreation of a linked data set was complex and time-consuming and data quality was variable. Construction of the indicators was also complex and revealed the effects of other services on outcome, which limits comparisons between services.ConclusionsWe identified and prioritised, through consensus processes, a set of potential ambulance service quality measures that reflected preferences of services and users. Together, these encompass a broad range of domains relevant to the population using the emergency ambulance service. The quality measures can be used to compare ambulance services or regions or measure performance over time if there are improvements in mechanisms for linking data across services.Future workThe new measures can be used to assess different dimensions of ambulance service delivery but current data challenges prohibit routine use. There are opportunities to improve data linkage processes and to further develop, validate and simplify these measures.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

BackgroundThe use of ambulance services by older patients with injuries increases within the impacts of ageing-related changes leading to adverse patient outcomes. There is increasing recognition of the importance of prehospital trauma care for older patients, but little systematic research to guide practice. We aimed to review the published evidence on prehospital trauma care for older patients, determine the scope of existing research and identify research gaps in the literature.MethodsA systematic scoping review guided by the Arksey and O’Malley framework reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR checklist. A systematic search was conducted of Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane library databases to identify articles published between (2001-2021) years. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted, charted and summarised from eligible articles.Results65 studies were identified and reviewed, and 25 included. Five categories were identified: ‘field triage, ‘ageing impacts’, ‘decision-making’, ‘paramedic’ awareness’ and ‘paramedic’s behaviour’. Undertriage & overtriage (sensitivity & specificity) were commonly cited as poorly investigated field-triage subthemes. Ageing-related physiologic changes, comorbidities and polypharmacy were the most widely researched. Inaccurate decision-making and poor early identification of major injuries were identified as potentially influencing patient outcomes. More research is required into paramedic knowledge of geriatric care & ageing changes and the potential impact of paramedic care.ConclusionThis is the first study reviewing the published evidence on prehospital trauma care for older patients and identifying research priorities for future research. This review has identified the prehospital triage for older trauma victims and studies of paramedic knowledge of older trauma care as key priorities. Investigating and understanding these can improve providing prehospital care of the older patient with injuries for positive patient outcomes.

BackgroundAmbulance clinicians use pre-alert calls to inform receiving emergency departments (EDs) of the arrival of a critically unwell patient that will require a specialised response. Little is known about how a decision to pre-alert is made and how this is communicated and acted upon in the receiving ED. Whilst appropriate use of pre-alerts benefits patient care, their overuse carries a risk of harm or opportunity costs. The impact of pre-alerts on ambulance clinicians, ED staff and patients is not currently well understood.MethodsWe are conducting a mixed methods study with five inter-related work packages. We will analyse 12 months of routine data from ambulance pre-alerts in three regions to identify factors in the variation of pre-alert use, including pre-hospital decision-making. We will undertake a national online Qualtrics survey of ambulance clinician perspectives and experience of pre-alerts. We will explore the impacts of a pre-alert on staff, ED facilities and the patient using semi-structured interviews with ambulance clinicians, ED staff, patients and carers and undertake non-participant observation of ED pre-alert response.Expected ResultsWe will describe current pre-alert practice using 12 months’ data for 3 Ambulance Services, including volume and types of pre-alerts. We will identify specific conditions or patient groups for whom pre-alerts are most likely to lead to change in clinical practice, or for whom action is unlikely to provide benefit. We will hold a feedback workshop in which we will share and discuss our findings with key stakeholders.ConclusionsCurrent variation in pre-alert processes, both pre-hospital and in-hospital and the impact on patient care is not understood. The outputs of this study will establish an evidence base to update national guidance for pre-alert practice and identify areas of good pre-alert practice for both ambulance service and Emergency Department staff.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is the top reason for hospitalization/observation in the USA, but it is unclear if this strategy improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare 30-day outcomes for patients admitted versus discharged after a negative emergency department (ED) evaluation for suspected acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: A retrospective, multi-site, cohort study of adult encounters with chest pain presenting to one of 13 Kaiser Permanente Southern California EDs between January 1, 2015, and December 1, 2017. Instrumental variable analysis was used to mitigate potential confounding by unobserved factors. PATIENTS: All adult patients presenting to an ED with chest pain, in whom an acute myocardial infarction was not diagnosed in the ED, were included. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was 30-day acute myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included 30-day revascularization and major adverse cardiac events. KEY RESULTS: In total, 77,652 patient encounters were included in the study (n=11,026 admitted, 14.2%). Three hundred twenty-two (0.4%) had an acute myocardial infarction (n=193, 0.2%) or death (n=137, 0.2%) within 30 days of ED visit (1.5% hospitalized versus 0.2% discharged). Very few (0.3%) patients underwent coronary revascularization within 30 days (0.7% hospitalized versus 0.2% discharged). Instrumental variable analysis found no adjusted differences in 30-day patient outcomes between the hospitalized cohort and those discharged (risk reduction 0.002, 95% CI −0.002 to 0.007). Similarly, there were no differences in coronary revascularization (risk reduction 0.003, 95% CI −0.002 to 0.007). CONCLUSION: Among ED patients with chest pain not diagnosed with an acute myocardial infarction, risk of major adverse cardiac events is quite low, and there does not appear to be any benefit in 30-day outcomes for those admitted or observed in the hospital compared to those discharged with outpatient follow-up. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06841-2.

PurposeA process that does not include the customer's value may not be effective in providing care. This study aimed to identify value and waste in an emergency department (ED) patient flow process from a patient and clinician perspective.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative case study was conducted in an ED in Trinidad and Tobago. Observations and informal conversational interviews with clinicians (n = 33) and patients (n = 50) explored patient flow, value and waste. Thematic analysis was used to create a framework on valuable and wasteful aspects in the ED patient flow process.FindingsValuable aspects led to direct improvements in the patient's health or an exchange of information in the process. Wasteful aspects were those with no patient activity, no direct ED clinical involvement, or resulted in a perceived inappropriate use of ED resources. However, there was a disparity in responses between clinicians and patients with clinicians identifying more features in the process.Research limitations/implicationsThe single case study design limits the generalizability of findings to other settings. This study did not specifically explore the influence of age and gender on what mattered to patients in ED services. Future studies would benefit from exploring whether there are any age and gender differences in patient perspectives of value and waste. Further research is needed to validate the usefulness of the framework in a wider range of settings and consider demographic factors such as age and gender.Practical implicationsThe study has produced a framework which may be used to improve patient flow in a way that maximized value to its users. A collaborative approach, with active patient involvement, is needed to develop a process that is valuable to all. The single case study design limits the generalizability of findings to other settings.Originality/valueQualitative methods were used to explicitly explore both value and waste in emergency department patient flow, incorporating the patient perspective. This paper provides an approach that decision makers may use to refine the ED patient flow process into one that flows well, improves quality and maximizes value to its users.

Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening emergency. Standard prehospital management involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment; however, it is uncertain whether or not this treatment could improve outcomes in NHS ambulance services.To assess the feasibility of a large-scale pragmatic trial and to update an existing economic model to determine cost-effectiveness and the value of further research.(1) An open-label, individual patient randomised controlled external pilot trial. (2) Cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses, updating an existing economic model. (3) Ancillary substudies, comprising an acute respiratory failure incidence study, an acute respiratory failure diagnostic agreement study, clinicians perceptions of a continuous positive airway pressure mixed-methods study and an investigation of allocation concealment.Four West Midlands Ambulance Service hubs, recruiting between August 2017 and July 2018.Adults with respiratory distress and peripheral oxygen saturations below the British Thoracic Society's target levels were included. Patients with limited potential to benefit from, or with contraindications to, continuous positive airway pressure were excluded.Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure (O-Two system, O-Two Medical Technologies Inc., Brampton, ON, Canada) was compared with standard oxygen therapy, titrated to the British Thoracic Society's peripheral oxygen saturation targets. Interventions were provided in identical sealed boxes.Feasibility objectives estimated the incidence of eligible patients, the proportion recruited and allocated to treatment appropriately, adherence to allocated treatment, and retention and data completeness. The primary clinical end point was 30-day mortality.Seventy-seven patients were enrolled (target 120 patients), including seven patients with a diagnosis for which continuous positive airway pressure could be ineffective or harmful. Continuous positive airway pressure was fully delivered to 74% of participants (target 75%). There were no major protocol violations/non-compliances. Full data were available for all key outcomes (target ≥ 90%). Thirty-day mortality was 27.3%. Of the 21 deceased participants, 14 (68%) either did not have a respiratory condition or had ceiling-of-treatment decision implemented that excluded hospital non-invasive ventilation and critical care. The base-case economic evaluation indicated that standard oxygen therapy was probably cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £5685 per quality-adjusted life-year), but there was considerable uncertainty (population expected value of perfect information of £16.5M). Expected value of partial perfect information analyses indicated that effectiveness of prehospital continuous positive airway pressure was the only important variable. The incidence rate of acute respiratory failure was 17.4 (95% confidence interval 16.3 to 18.5) per 100,000 persons per year. There was moderate agreement between the primary prehospital and final hospital diagnoses (Gwet's AC1 coefficient 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.69). Lack of hospital awareness of the Ambulance continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): Use, Treatment Effect and economics (ACUTE) trial, limited time to complete trial training and a desire to provide continuous positive airway pressure treatment were highlighted as key challenges by participating clinicians.During week 10 of recruitment, the continuous positive airway pressure arm equipment boxes developed a 'rattle'. After repackaging and redistribution, no further concerns were noted. A total of 41.4% of ambulance service clinicians not participating in the ACUTE trial indicated a difference between the control and the intervention arm trial boxes (115/278); of these clinician 70.4% correctly identified box contents.Recruitment rate was below target and feasibility was not demonstrated. The economic evaluation results suggested that a definitive trial could represent value for money. However, limited compliance with continuous positive airway pressure and difficulty in identifying patients who could benefit from continuous positive airway pressure indicate that prehospital continuous positive airway pressure is unlikely to materially reduce mortality.A definitive clinical effectiveness trial of continuous positive airway pressure in the NHS is not recommended.Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12048261.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inAcute respiratory failure is a life-threatening medical emergency. It occurs when heart or lung disease suddenly develops, or deteriorates, and leads to the patient being unable to maintain oxygen levels in their blood. Continuous positive airway pressure is a potentially useful treatment that could be used by paramedics. It involves delivering oxygen under increased pressure through a tight-fitting face mask. However, it is uncertain whether or not it could work effectively in NHS ambulance services, or if it represents value for money. The Ambulance continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP): Use, Treatment Effect and economics (ACUTE) trial investigated whether or not it is possible and worthwhile to undertake a full-scale study comparing continuous positive airway pressure with normal paramedic treatment. Paramedics identified adults with acute respiratory failure when attending 999 emergency calls. Half were randomly assigned to receive continuous positive airway pressure, whereas the other half were treated normally. Patients were then followed up to see what happened to them. Fewer patients than expected were entered into the trial, but paramedics were able to provide treatment with continuous positive airway pressure, and most patients were successfully followed up. It therefore seems possible to do a full-scale trial. A cost-effectiveness model also showed that it is uncertain whether or not continuous positive airway pressure represents value for money for the NHS, so further research might be worthwhile, if continuous positive airway pressure is thought to be effective. However, examination of patients recruited to the trial uncovered important doubts about whether or not continuous positive airway pressure would help them. One-quarter of patients were not able to tolerate the tight continuous positive airway pressure mask. Some of the patients had conditions that are not usually treated by continuous positive airway pressure, or had severe underlying disease that could not be helped by this treatment. Others had collapsed lungs that could have been made worse by continuous positive airway pressure. This means that, although a full-scale trial may be possible, it is difficult to see how continuous positive airway pressure could save enough lives to make a trial worthwhile.

Uneven vaccination and less resilient health care systems mean hospitals in LMICs are at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection. Risk-scores proposed for rapid triage of need for admission from the emergency department (ED) have been developed in higher-income settings during initial waves of the pandemic.Routinely collected data for public hospitals in the Western Cape, South Africa from the 27We analysed 305,564, derivation 140,520 Omicron and 12,610 UK validation cases. Over 100 events per predictor parameter were modelled. Multivariable analyses identified eight predictor variables retained across models. We used these findings and clinical judgement to develop a score based on South African Triage Early Warning Scores and also included age, sex, oxygen saturation, inspired oxygen, diabetes and heart disease. The LMIC-PRIEST score achieved C-statistics: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.83) development cohort; 0.79 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.80) Omicron cohort; and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.79 to 0.80) UK cohort. Differences in prevalence of outcomes led to imperfect calibration in external validation. However, use of the score at thresholds of three or less would allow identification of very low-risk patients (NPV ≥0.99) who could be rapidly discharged using information collected at initial assessment.The LMIC-PRIEST score shows good discrimination and high sensitivity at lower thresholds and can be used to rapidly identify low-risk patients in LMIC ED settings.Uneven vaccination in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) coupled with less resilient health care provision mean that emergency health care systems in LMICs may still be at risk of being overwhelmed during periods of increased COVID-19 infection.Risk-stratification scores may help rapidly triage need for hospitalisation. However, those proposed for use in the ED for patients with suspected COVID-19 have been developed and validated in high-income settings.The LMIC-PRIEST score has been robustly developed using a large routine dataset from the Western Cape, South Africa and is directly applicable to existing triage practices in LMICs.External validation across both income settings and COVID-19 variants showed good discrimination and high sensitivity (at lower thresholds) to a composite outcome indicating need for inpatient admission from the ED.Use of the LMIC-PRIEST score at thresholds of three or less would allow identification of very low-risk patients (negative predictive value ≥0.99) across all settings assessedDuring periods of increased demand, this could allow the rapid identification and discharge of patients from the ED using information collected at initial assessment.

Introduction: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common and life-threatening medical emergency. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment; however, it is uncertain whether this could improve important outcomes in NHS ambulance services. The ACUTE study aimed to assess the feasibility of a large-scale pragmatic trial of pre-hospital CPAP.Methods: The study was a pilot randomised controlled trial of the O-Two system CPAP mask versus standard oxygen therapy, with concealed allocation in identical sealed boxes. Feasibility objectives estimated the incidence of eligible patients; the proportion recruited and allocated to treatment appropriately; adherence to allocated treatment; and retention and data completeness. The primary clinical endpoint was 30-day mortality. Ancillary studies included an ARF incidence study, ARF diagnostic agreement study, clinician perceptions of CPAP mixed methods study and investigation of allocation concealment.Results: Over 12 months, 77 patients were enrolled (target 120). CPAP was fully delivered in 74% (target 75%). There were no major protocol violations/non-compliances. Full data were available for all key outcomes (targets ≥ 90%). Thirty-day mortality was 27.3%. Of deceased patients, 14/21 (68%) either did not have a respiratory condition or had ceiling of treatment decisions implemented excluding hospital NIV and critical care.Conclusion: The ACUTE trial recruitment rate was below the target rate and feasibility was not demonstrated. Identification of patients who might benefit from pre-hospital CPAP was challenging. It appeared difficult to exclude conditions where CPAP would not work, or might be harmful, and to select appropriate patients where there was a meaningful chance of success, or where the potential advantages of pre-hospital CPAP would outweigh the burdens of more advanced and aggressive treatment. The limited compliance with CPAP, and the difficulty in identifying patients who could benefit from CPAP, indicate that pre-hospital CPAP is unlikely to materially reduce mortality. A definitive effectiveness trial of CPAP in the NHS is therefore not recommended.

BackgroundWe aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the VitalScan magnetocardiograph (MCG) for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS).MethodsWe undertook a prospective cohort study evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the MCG in adults with suspected ACS. The reference standard of ACS was determined by an independent adjudication committee based on 30-day investigations and events. The cohort was split into a training sample, to derive the MCG algorithm and an algorithm combining MCG with a modified Manchester Acute Coronary Syndrome (MACS) clinical probability score, and a validation sample, to estimate diagnostic accuracy.ResultsWe recruited 756 participants and analysed data from 680 (293 training, 387 validation), of whom 96 (14%) had ACS. In the training sample, the respective area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were the following: MCG 0.66 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.74), MACS 0.64 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.73) and MCG+MACS 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.77). MCG specificity was 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.21) at the threshold achieving acceptable sensitivity for rule-out (>0.98). In the validation sample (n=387), the respective AUROCs were the following: MCG 0.56 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.64), MACS 0.69 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.77) and MCG+MACS 0.64 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.72). MCG sensitivity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.95) and specificity 0.15 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.20) at the rule-out threshold. MCG+MACS sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) and specificity 0.30 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.35).ConclusionThe VitalScan MCG is currently unable to accurately rule out ACS and is not yet ready for use in clinical practice. Further developmental research is required.

Background Standard prehospital management for Acute respiratory failure (ARF) involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment, however, it is uncertain whether this could improve outcomes and provide value for money. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP in ARF. Methods A cost-utility economic evaluation was performed using a probabilistic decision tree model synthesising available evidence. The model consisted of a hypothetical cohort of patients in a representative ambulance service with undifferentiated ARF, receiving standard oxygen therapy or prehospital CPAP. Costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using methods recommended by NICE. Results In the base case analysis, using CPAP effectiveness estimates form the ACUTE trial, the mean expected costs of standard care and prehospital CPAP were £15,201 and £14,850 respectively and the corresponding mean expected QALYs were 1.190 and 1.128, respectively. The mean ICER estimated as standard oxygen therapy compared to prehospital CPAP was £5685 per QALY which indicated that standard oxygen therapy strategy was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY (67% probability). The scenario analysis, using effectiveness estimates from an updated meta-analysis, suggested that prehospital CPAP was more effective (mean incremental QALYs of 0.157), but also more expensive (mean incremental costs of £1522), than standard care. The mean ICER, estimated as prehospital CPAP compared to standard care, was £9712 per QALY. At the £20,000 per QALY prehospital CPAP was highly likely to be the most cost-effective strategy (94%). Conclusions Cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP depends upon the estimate of effectiveness. When based on a small pragmatic feasibility trial, standard oxygen therapy is cost-effective. When based on meta-analysis of heterogeneous trials, CPAP is cost-effective. Value of information analyses support commissioning of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial, providing feasibility and plausibility conditions are met.

Background Opioids, such as heroin, kill more people worldwide by overdose than any other type of drug, and death rates associated with opioid poisoning in the UK are at record levels (World Drug Report 2018 [Internet]. [cited 2019 Nov 19]. Available from: http://www.unodc.org/wdr2018/; Deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics [Internet]. [cited 2019 Nov 19]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsrelatedtodrugpoisoninginenglandandwales/2018registrations). Naloxone is an opioid antagonist which can be distributed in ‘kits’ for administration by witnesses in an overdose emergency. This intervention is known as take-home naloxone (THN). We know that THN can save lives on an individual level, but there is currently limited evidence about the effectiveness of THN distribution on an aggregate level, in specialist drug service settings or in emergency service settings. Notably, we do not know whether THN kits reduce deaths from opioid overdose in at-risk populations, if there are unforeseen harms associated with THN distribution or if THN is cost-effective. In order to address this research gap, we aim to determine the feasibility of a fully powered cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of THN distribution in emergency settings. Methods We will carry out a feasibility study for a RCT of THN distributed in emergency settings at four sites, clustered by Emergency Department (ED) and catchment area within its associated ambulance service. THN is a peer-administered intervention. At two intervention sites, emergency ambulance paramedics and ED clinical staff will distribute THN to adult patients who are at risk of opioid overdose. At two control sites, practice will carry on as usual. We will develop a method of identifying a population to include in an evaluation, comprising people at risk of fatal opioid overdose, who may potentially receive naloxone included in a THN kit. We will gather anonymised outcomes up to 1 year following a 12-month ‘live’ trial period for patients at risk of death from opioid poisoning. We expect approximately 100 patients at risk of opioid overdose to be in contact with each service during the 1-year recruitment period. Our outcomes will include deaths, emergency admissions, intensive care admissions, and ED attendances. We will collect numbers of eligible patients attended by participating in emergency ambulance paramedics and attending ED, THN kits issued, and NHS resource usage. We will determine whether to progress to a fully powered trial based on pre-specified progression criteria: sign-up of sites (n = 4), staff trained (≥ 50%), eligible participants identified (≥ 50%), THN provided to eligible participants (≥ 50%), people at risk of death from opioid overdose identified for inclusion in follow-up (≥ 75% of overdose deaths), outcomes retrieved for high-risk individuals (≥ 75%), and adverse event rate (< 10% difference between study arms). Discussion This feasibility study is the first randomised, methodologically robust investigation of THN distribution in emergency settings. The study addresses an evidence gap related to the effectiveness of THN distribution in emergency settings. As this study is being carried out in emergency settings, obtaining informed consent on behalf of participants is not feasible. We therefore employ novel methods for identifying participants and capturing follow-up data, with effectiveness dependent on the quality of the available routine data. Trial registration ISRCTN13232859 (Registered 16/02/2018)

BackgroundMeasurement of post-exertion oxygen saturation has been proposed to assess illness severity in suspected COVID-19 infection. We aimed to determine the accuracy of post-exertional oxygen saturation for predicting adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19.MethodsWe undertook a substudy of an observational cohort study across 70 emergency departments during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. We collected data prospectively, using a standardised assessment form, and retrospectively, using hospital records, from patients with suspected COVID-19, and reviewed hospital records at 30 days for adverse outcome (death or receiving organ support). Patients with post-exertion oxygen saturation recorded were selected for this analysis. We constructed receiver-operating characteristic curves, calculated diagnostic parameters, and developed a multivariable model for predicting adverse outcome.ResultsWe analysed data from 817 patients with post-exertion oxygen saturation recorded after excluding 54 in whom measurement appeared unfeasible. The c-statistic for post-exertion change in oxygen saturation was 0.589 (95% CI 0.465 to 0.713), and the positive and negative likelihood ratios of a 3% or more desaturation were, respectively, 1.78 (1.25 to 2.53) and 0.67 (0.46 to 0.98). Multivariable analysis showed that post-exertion oxygen saturation was not a significant predictor of adverse outcome when baseline clinical assessment was taken into account (p=0.368). Secondary analysis excluding patients in whom post-exertion measurement appeared inappropriate resulted in a c-statistic of 0.699 (0.581 to 0.817), likelihood ratios of 1.98 (1.26 to 3.10) and 0.61 (0.35 to 1.07), and some evidence of additional prognostic value on multivariable analysis (p=0.019).ConclusionsPost-exertion oxygen saturation provides modest prognostic information in the assessment of selected patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19.Trial registration numberISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN56149622) http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.

ObjectivesEmergency departments (EDs) are complex adaptive systems and improving patient flow requires understanding how ED processes work. This study aimed to explore the patient flow process in an ED in Trinidad and Tobago, identifying organisational factors influencing patient flow.MethodsMultiple qualitative methods, including non-participant observations, observational process mapping and informal conversational interviews were used to explore patient flow. The process maps were generated from the observational process mapping. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.SettingThe study was conducted at a major tertiary level ED in Trinidad and Tobago.ParticipantsPatient and staff journeys in the ED were directly observed.ResultsSix broad categories were identified: (1) ED organisational work processes, (2) ED design and layout, (3) material resources, (4) nursing staff levels, roles, skill mix and use, (5) non-clinical ED staff and (6) external clinical and non-clinical departments. Within each category there were individual factors that appeared to either facilitate or hinder patient flow. Organisational processes such as streaming, front loading of investigations and the transfer process were pre-existing strategies in the ED while staff actions to compensate for limitations with flow were more intuitive. A conceptual framework of factors influencing ED patient flow is also presented.ConclusionThe knowledge gained may be used to strengthen the emergency care system in the local context. However, the study findings should be validated in other settings.

Background Hospital emergency departments play a crucial role in the initial assessment and management of suspected COVID-19 infection. This needs to be guided by studies of people presenting with suspected COVID-19, including those admitted and discharged, and those who do not ultimately have COVID-19 confirmed. We aimed to characterise patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19, including subgroups based on sex, ethnicity and COVID-19 test results. Methods and findings We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 emergency departments across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected presenting data from 22445 people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. Outcomes were admission to hospital, COVID-19 result, organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular or renal), and death, by record review at 30 days. Mean age was 58.4 years, 11200 (50.4%) were female and 11034 (49.6%) male. Adults (age >16 years) were acutely unwell (median NEWS2 score of 4), frequently had limited performance status (46.9%) and had high rates of admission (67.1%), COVID-19 positivity (31.2%), organ support (9.8%) and death (15.5%). Children had much lower rates of admission (27.4%), COVID-19 positivity (1.2%), organ support (1.4%) and death (0.3%). Similar numbers of men and women presented to the ED, but men were more likely to be admitted (72.9% v 61.4%), require organ support (12.2% v 7.7%) and die (18.2% v 13.0%). Black or Asian adults tended to be younger than White adults (median age 54, 50 and 67 years), were less likely to have impaired performance status (43.1%, 26.8% and 51.6%), be admitted to hospital (60.8%, 57.3%, 69.6%) or die (11.6%, 11.2%, 16.4%), but were more likely to require organ support (15.9%, 14.3%, 8.9%) or have a positive COVID-19 test (40.8%, 42.1%, 30.0%). Adults admitted with suspected and confirmed COVID-19 had similar age, performance status and comorbidities (except chronic lung disease) to those who did not have COVID-19 confirmed, but were much more likely to need organ support (22.2% v 8.9%) or die (32.1% v 15.5%). Conclusions Important differences exist between patient groups presenting to the emergency department with suspected COVID-19. Adults and children differ markedly and require different approaches to emergency triage. Admission and adverse outcome rates among adults suggest that policies to avoid unnecessary ED attendance achieved their aim. Subsequent COVID-19 confirmation confers a worse prognosis and greater need for organ support. Registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56149622, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.

Background No seizure first aid training intervention exists for people with epilepsy who regularly attend emergency departments and their significant others, despite such an intervention’s potential to reduce clinically unnecessary and costly visits. Objectives The objectives were to (1) develop Seizure first Aid training For Epilepsy (SAFE) by adapting a broader intervention and (2) determine the feasibility and optimal design of a definitive randomised controlled trial to test SAFE’s efficacy. Design The study involved (1) the development of an intervention informed by a co-design approach with qualitative feedback and (2) a pilot randomised controlled trial with follow-ups at 3, 6 and 12 months and assessments of treatment fidelity and the cost of SAFE’s delivery. Setting The setting was (1) third-sector patient support groups and professional health-care organisations and (2) three NHS emergency departments in England. Participants Participants were (1) people with epilepsy who had visited emergency departments in the prior 2 years, their significant others and emergency department, paramedic, general practice, commissioning, neurology and nursing representatives and (2) people with epilepsy aged ≥ 16 years who had been diagnosed for ≥ 1 year and who had made two or more emergency department visits in the prior 12 months, and one of their significant others. Emergency departments identified ostensibly eligible people with epilepsy from attendance records and patients confirmed their eligibility. Interventions Participants in the pilot randomised controlled trial were randomly allocated 1 : 1 to SAFE plus treatment as usual or to treatment as usual only. Main outcome measures Consent rate and availability of routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were the main outcome measures. Other measures of interest included eligibility rate, ease with which people with epilepsy could be identified and routine data secured, availability of self-reported emergency department data, self-reported emergency department data’s comparability with routine data, SAFE’s effect on emergency department use, and emergency department use in the treatment as usual arm, which could be used in sample size calculations. Results (1) Nine health-care professionals and 23 service users provided feedback that generated an intervention considered to be NHS feasible and well positioned to achieve its purpose. (2) The consent rate was 12.5%, with 53 people with epilepsy and 38 significant others recruited. The eligibility rate was 10.6%. Identifying people with epilepsy from attendance records was resource intensive for emergency department staff. Those recruited felt more stigmatised because of epilepsy than the wider epilepsy population. Routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% of people with epilepsy, but the application process took 8.5 months. Self-reported emergency department data were available for 66.7% of people with epilepsy, and people with epilepsy self-reported more emergency department visits than were captured in routine data. Most participants (76.9%) randomised to SAFE received the intervention. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. No related serious adverse events occurred. Emergency department use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE plus treatment as usual arm than in the treatment as usual only arm, but not significantly so. Calculations indicated that a definitive trial would need ≈ 674 people with epilepsy and ≈ 39 emergency department sites. Limitations Contrary to patient statements on recruitment, routine data secured at the pilot trial’s end indicated that ≈ 40% may not have satisfied the inclusion criterion of two or more emergency department visits. Conclusions An intervention was successfully developed, a pilot randomised controlled trial conducted and outcome data secured for most participants. The consent rate did not satisfy a predetermined ‘stop/go’ level of ≥ 20%. The time that emergency department staff needed to identify eligible people with epilepsy is unlikely to be replicable. A definitive trial is currently not feasible. Future work Research to more easily identify and recruit people from the target population is required. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13871327. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ObjectivesThe World Health Organisation (WHO) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to estimate the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19 infection.MethodsWe undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020, and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the following triage tools: the WHO algorithm, NEWS2, CURB-65, CRB-65, PMEWS and the swine flu adult hospital pathway (SFAHP). We used 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome.ResultsWe analysed data from 20892 adults, of whom 4672 (22.4%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2614 (12.5%) dying without organ support (secondary outcomes). C-statistics for the primary outcome were: CURB-65 0.75; CRB-65 0.70; PMEWS 0.77; NEWS2 (score) 0.77; NEWS2 (rule) 0.69; SFAHP (6-point) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point) 0.68; WHO algorithm 0.61. All triage tools showed worse prediction for receipt of organ support and better prediction for death without organ support.At the recommended threshold, PMEWS and the WHO criteria showed good sensitivity (0.96 and 0.95 respectively), at the expense of specificity (0.31 and 0.27 respectively). NEWS2 showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used.ConclusionCURB-65, PMEWS and NEWS2 provide good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19, and predicted death without organ support better than receipt of organ support. PMEWS, the WHO criteria and NEWS2 (using a lower threshold than usually recommended) provide good sensitivity at the expense of specificity.RegistrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533

ObjectivesEmergency department clinicians can use triage tools to predict adverse outcome and support management decisions for children presenting with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to estimate the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19 infection.MethodsWe undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 44 EDs across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected data from children attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020, and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment using the WHO algorithm, swine flu hospital pathway for children (SFHPC), Paediatric Observation Priority Score (POPS) and Children’s Observation and Severity Tool (COAST). We recorded 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome.ResultsWe collected data from 1530 children, including 26 (1.7%) with an adverse outcome. C-statistics were 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.87) for the WHO algorithm, 0.80 (0.71-0.90) for POPS, 0.76 (0.67-0.85) for COAST, and 0.71 (0.59-0.82) for SFHPC. Using pre-specified thresholds, the WHO algorithm had the highest sensitivity (0.85) and lowest specificity (0.75), but POPS and COAST could optimise sensitivity (0.96 and 0.92 respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.25 and 0.38 respectively) by using a threshold of any score above zero instead of the pre-specified threshold.ConclusionExisting triage tools have good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in children with suspected COVID-19. POPS and COAST could achieve an appropriate balance of sensitivity and specificity for supporting decisions to discharge home by considering any score above zero to be positive.RegistrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533

Background More than half of deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) result from conditions that could be treated with emergency care - an integral component of universal health coverage (UHC) - through timely access to lifesaving interventions. Methods The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to extend UHC to a further 1 billion people by 2023, yet evidence supporting improved emergency care coverage is lacking. In this article, we explore four phases of a research prioritisation setting (RPS) exercise conducted by researchers and stakeholders from South Africa, Egypt, Nepal, Jamaica, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, South Korea and Phillipines, USA and UK as a key step in gathering evidence required by policy makers and practitioners for the strengthening of emergency care systems in limited-resource settings. Results The RPS proposed seven priority research questions addressing: identification of context-relevant emergency care indicators, barriers to effective emergency care; accuracy and impact of triage tools; potential quality improvement via registries; characteristics of people seeking emergency care; best practices for staff training and retention; and cost effectiveness of critical care – all within LMICs. Conclusions Convened by WHO and facilitated by the University of Sheffield, the Global Emergency Care Research Network project (GEM-CARN) brought together a coalition of 16 countries to identify research priorities for strengthening emergency care in LMICs. Our article further assesses the quality of the RPS exercise and reviews the current evidence supporting the identified priorities.

BackgroundHospital emergency departments play a crucial role in the Initial management of suspected COVID-19 infection. We aimed to characterise patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19, including subgroups based on sex, ethnicity and COVID-19 test results.MethodsWe undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 emergency departments across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected presenting data from 22446 people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. Outcomes were admission to hospital, COVID-19 result, organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular or renal), and death, by record review at 30 days.ResultsAdults were acutely unwell (median NEWS2 score 4) and had high rates of admission (67.1%), COVID-19 positivity (31.2%), organ support (9.8%) and death (15.9%). Children had much lower rates of admission (27.4%), COVID-19 positivity (1.2%), organ support (1.4%) and death (0.3%). Adult men and women presented in similar numbers (10210 versus 10506), but men were more likely to be admitted (72.9% v 61.4%), require organ support (12.2% v 7.7%) and die (18.7% v 13.3%). Black or Asian adults tended to be younger than White adults (median age 54, 50 and 67 years), were less likely to be admitted (60.8%, 57.3%, 69.6%) or die (11.9%, 11.2%, 16.8%), but were more likely to require organ support (15.9%, 14.3%, 8.9%) or have a positive COVID-19 test (40.8%, 42.1%, 30.0%). Adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 had similar age and comorbidities (except chronic lung disease) to those who did not have COVID-19 confirmed, but were much more likely to need organ support (22.2% v 8.9%) or die (32.7% v 15.9%).ConclusionsImportant differences exist between patient groups presenting to the emergency department with suspected COVID-19. People with confirmed COVID-19 have a poor prognosis, compared with similar emergency admissions without confirmed COVID-19.RegistrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56149622, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533

BackgroundMeasurement of post-exertion oxygen saturation has been proposed to assess illness severity in suspected COVID-19 infection. We aimed to determine the accuracy of post-exertional oxygen saturation for predicting adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19.MethodsWe undertook an observational cohort study across 70 emergency departments during first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. We collected data prospectively, using a standardised assessment form, and retrospectively, using hospital records, from patients with suspected COVID-19, and reviewed hospital records at 30 days for adverse outcome (death or receiving organ support). Patients with post-exertion oxygen saturation recorded were selected for this analysis.ResultsWe analysed data from 817 patients with post-exertion oxygen saturation recorded after excluding 54 in whom measurement appeared unfeasible. The c-statistic for post-exertion change in oxygen saturation was 0.589 (95% confidence interval 0.465 to 0.713), and the positive and negative likelihood ratios of a 3% or more desaturation were respectively 1.78 (1.25 to 2.53) and 0.67 (0.46 to 0.98). Multivariable analysis showed that post-exertion oxygen saturation was not a significant predictor of adverse outcome when baseline clinical assessment was taken into account (p=0.368). Secondary analysis excluding patients in whom post-exertion measurement appeared inappropriate resulted in a c-statistic of 0.699 (0.581 to 0.817), likelihood ratios of 1.98 (1.26 to 3.10) and 0.61 (0.35 to 1.07), and some evidence of additional prognostic value on multivariable analysis (p=0.019).ConclusionsPost-exertion oxygen saturation provides modest prognostic information in the assessment of patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19.RegistrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN56149622, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533Key messagesWhat is already known on this subject?Post exertional decrease in oxygen saturation can be used to predict prognosis in chronic lung diseasesPost exertional desaturation has been proposed as a way of predicting adverse outcome in people with suspected COVID-19What this study adds:Post-exertion oxygen saturation provides modest prognostic information in the assessment of patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19

ObjectivesTo determine the feasibility of a large-scale definitive multicentre trial of prehospital continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in acute respiratory failure.DesignA single-centre, open-label, individual patient randomised, controlled, external pilot trial.SettingA single UK Ambulance Service, between August 2017 and July 2018.ParticipantsAdults with respiratory distress and peripheral oxygen saturations below British Thoracic Society target levels despite controlled oxygen treatment.InterventionsPatients were randomised to prehospital CPAP (O-Two system) versus standard oxygen therapy in a 1:1 ratio using simple randomisation.Primary and secondary outcome measuresFeasibility outcomes comprised recruitment rate, adherence to allocated treatment, retention and data completeness. The primary clinical outcome was 30-day mortality.Results77 patients were enrolled (target 120), including 7 cases with a diagnosis where CPAP could be ineffective or harmful. CPAP was fully delivered in 74% (target 75%). There were no major protocol violations. Full data were available for all key outcomes (targets ≥90%). Overall 30-day mortality was 27.3%. Of these deceased patients, 14/21 (68%) either did not have a respiratory condition or had ceiling of treatment decisions implemented excluding hospital non-invasive ventilation and critical care.ConclusionsRecruitment rate was below target and feasibility was not demonstrated. Limited compliance with CPAP, and difficulty in identifying patients who could benefit from CPAP, indicate that prehospital CPAP is unlikely to materially reduce mortality. A definitive effectiveness trial of CPAP is therefore not recommended.Trial registration numberISRCTN12048261; Post-results.

BackgroundSepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and many tools exist to facilitate early recognition. This review compares two tools: the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and Early Warning Scores (National/Modified Early Warning Scores (NEWS/MEWS)) for predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality when applied in the emergency department.MethodsA literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane Library, handsearching of references and a grey literature search with no language or date restrictions. Two authors selected studies and quality assessment completed using QUADAS-2. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivities and specificities were compared.Results13 studies were included, totalling 403 865 patients. All reported mortality and six reported ICU admission.The ranges for AUROC estimates varied from little better than chance to good prediction of mortality (NEWS: 0.59–0.88; qSOFA: 0.57–0.79; MEWS 0.56–0.75), however, individual papers generally reported higher AUROC values for NEWS than qSOFA. NEWS values demonstrated a tendency towards better sensitivity for ICU admission (NEWS ≥5, 46%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 12%–53%) and mortality (NEWS ≥5, 51%–97%; qSOFA ≥2, 14%–71%) but lower specificity (ICU: NEWS ≥5, 25%–91%; qSOFA ≥2, 67%–99%; mortality: NEWS ≥5, 22%–91%; qSOFA ≥2, 58%–99%).ConclusionThe wide range of AUROC estimates and high heterogeneity limit our conclusions. Allowing for this, the NEWS AUROC was consistently higher than qSOFA within individual papers. Both scores allow threshold setting, determined by the preferred compromise between sensitivity and specificity. At established thresholds NEWS tended to higher sensitivity while qSOFA tended to a higher specificity.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019131414.