Search

Objective: To assess accuracy of telephone triage in identifying need for emergency care among those with suspected COVID-19 infection and identify factors which affect triage accuracy., Design: Observational cohort study., Setting: Community telephone triage provided in the UK by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS)., Participants: 40 261 adults who contacted National Health Service (NHS) 111 telephone triage services provided by YAS between 18 March 2020 and 29 June 2020 with symptoms indicating COVID-19 infection were linked to Office for National Statistics death registrations and healthcare data collected by NHS Digital., Outcome: Accuracy of triage disposition was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support up to 30 days from first contact., Results: Callers had a 3% (1200/40 261) risk of serious adverse outcomes (death or organ support). Telephone triage recommended self-care or non-urgent assessment for 60% (24 335/40 261), with a 1.3% (310/24 335) risk of adverse outcomes. Telephone triage had 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (95% CI: 61% to 62%) for the primary outcome. Multivariable analysis suggested respiratory comorbidities may be overappreciated, and diabetes underappreciated as predictors of deterioration. Repeat contact with triage service appears to be an important under-recognised predictor of deterioration with 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 false negative triage., Conclusion: Patients advised to self-care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of serious clinical deterioration. Repeat contact with telephone services needs recognition as an important predictor of subsequent adverse outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Tools 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., Methods: An 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., Results: Of 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., Conclusion: No 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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: 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., Methods: Routinely collected data for public hospitals in the Western Cape, South Africa from the 27th August 2020 to 11th March 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., Results: We 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., Conclusion: 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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Marincowitz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: COVID-19 infected millions of people and increased mortality worldwide. Patients with suspected COVID-19 utilised emergency medical services (EMS) and attended emergency departments, resulting in increased pressures and waiting times. Rapid and accurate decision-making is required to identify patients at high-risk of clinical deterioration following COVID-19 infection, whilst also avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions. Our study aimed to develop artificial intelligence models to predict adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19 patients attended by EMS clinicians., Method: Linked ambulance service data were obtained for 7,549 adult patients with suspected COVID-19 infection attended by EMS clinicians in the Yorkshire and Humber region (England) from 18-03-2020 to 29-06-2020. We used support vector machines (SVM), extreme gradient boosting, artificial neural network (ANN) models, ensemble learning methods and logistic regression to predict the primary outcome (death or need for organ support within 30 days). Models were compared with two baselines: the decision made by EMS clinicians to convey patients to hospital, and the PRIEST clinical severity score., Results: Of the 7,549 patients attended by EMS clinicians, 1,330 (17.6%) experienced the primary outcome. Machine Learning methods showed slight improvements in sensitivity over baseline results. Further improvements were obtained using stacking ensemble methods, the best geometric mean (GM) results were obtained using SVM and ANN as base learners when maximising sensitivity and specificity., Conclusions: These methods could potentially reduce the numbers of patients conveyed to hospital without a concomitant increase in adverse outcomes. Further work is required to test the models externally and develop an automated system for use in clinical settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess accuracy of emergency medical service (EMS) telephone triage in identifying patients who need an EMS response and identify factors which affect triage accuracy., Design: Observational cohort study., Setting: Emergency telephone triage provided by Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) National Health Service (NHS) Trust., Participants: 12 653 adults who contacted EMS telephone triage services provided by YAS between 2 April 2020 and 29 June 2020 assessed by COVID-19 telephone triage pathways were included., Outcome: Accuracy of call handler decision to dispatch an ambulance was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support at 30 days from first contact with the telephone triage service., Results: Callers contacting EMS dispatch services had an 11.1% (1405/12 653) risk of death or needing organ support. In total, 2000/12 653 (16%) of callers did not receive an emergency response and they had a 70/2000 (3.5%) risk of death or organ support. Ambulances were dispatched to 4230 callers (33.4%) who were not conveyed to hospital and did not deteriorate. Multivariable modelling found variables of older age (1 year increase, OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.05) and presence of pre-existing respiratory disease (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.60) to be predictors of false positive triage., Conclusion: Telephone triage can reduce ambulance responses but, with low specificity. A small but significant proportion of patients who do not receive an initial emergency response deteriorated. Research to improve accuracy of EMS telephone triage is needed and, due to limitations of routinely collected data, this is likely to require prospective data collection., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Tools 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., Methods: An 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., Results: Of 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)., Conclusion: Use 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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The WHO and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to compare the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19., Methods: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the UK. We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the WHO algorithm, National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65, CRB-65, Pandemic Modified Early Warning Score (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., Results: We analysed data from 20 891 adults, of whom 4611 (22.1%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2553 (12.2%) 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 rule) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point rule) 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 (0.97 and 0.95, respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.30 and 0.27, respectively). The NEWS2 score showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used., Conclusion: CURB-65, PMEWS and the NEWS2 score 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., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN56149622., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Measurement 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., Methods: We 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., Results: We 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)., Conclusions: Post-exertion oxygen saturation provides modest prognostic information in the assessment of selected patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN56149622) http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

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., Competing Interests: All authors declare grant funding to their employing institutions from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), as outlined under financial disclosure information. SG is Deputy Director of the NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme, which funded the study, and chairs the NIHR HTA commissioning committee. These competing interests do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.