A standardized protocol using clinical adjudication to define true infection status in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected infections and/or sepsis.

In absence of a "gold standard", a standardized clinical adjudication process was developed for a registrational trial of a transcriptomic host response (HR) test. Two physicians independently reviewed clinical data to adjudicate presence and source of bacterial and viral infections in emergency department patients. Discordant cases were resolved by a third physician. Agreement among 955 cases was 74.1% (708/955) for bacterial, 75.6% (722/955) for viral infections, and 71.2% (680/955) overall. Most discordances were minor (85.2%; 409/480) versus moderate (11.7%; 56/480) or complete (3.3%; 16/480). Concordance levels were lowest for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections (8.2%) and for viral respiratory tract infections (4.5%). This robust adjudication process can be used to evaluate HR tests and other diagnostics by regulatory agencies and for educating clinicians, laboratorians, and clinical researchers. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04094818. SUMMARY: Without a gold standard for evaluating host response tests, clinical adjudication is a robust reference standard that is essential to determine the true infection status in diagnostic registrational clinical studies.

Characterization and impact of COVID-19-tested and infected patients: Experience of The Johns Hopkins Health System Regional Emergency Departments.

BACKGROUND: There is limited understanding of the characteristics and operational burden of persons under investigation (PUIs) and those testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presenting to emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We reviewed all adult ED visits to 5 Johns Hopkins Health System hospitals in the Maryland/District of Columbia (DC) region during the initial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surge, analyzing SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test eligibility, results, demographics, acuity, clinical conditions, and dispositions. RESULTS: Of 27,335 visits, 11,402 (41.7%) were tested and 2484 (21.8%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. Test-positive rates among Hispanics, Asians, African Americans/Blacks, and Whites were 51.6%, 23.7%, 19.8%, and 12.7% respectively. African American/Blacks infection rates (25.5%-33.8%) were approximately double those of Whites (11.1%-21.1%) in the 3 southern Maryland/DC EDs. Conditions with high test-positive rates were fever (41.9%), constitutional (36.4%), upper respiratory (36.9%), and lower respiratory (31.2%) symptoms. Test-positive rates were similar in all age groups (19.9% to 25.8%), although rates of hospitalization increased successively with age. Almost half, 1103 (44.4%), of test-positive patients required admission, of which 206 (18.7%) were to an ICU. CONCLUSION: The initial surge of SARS-CoV-2 test-positive patients experienced in a regional hospital system had ≈ 42% of patients meeting testing criteria and nearly one-fifth of those testing positive. The operational burden on ED practice, including intense adherence to infection control precautions, cannot be understated. Disproportionately high rates of infection among underrepresented minorities underscores the vulnerability in this population. The high rate of infection among self-identified Asians was unexpected.

Reduction in Emergency Department Presentations in a Regional Health System during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Nationally, there has been more than a 40% decrease in Emergency Department (ED) patient volume during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) crisis, with reports of decreases in presentations of time-sensitive acute illnesses. We analyzed ED clinical presentations in a Maryland/District of Columbia regional hospital system while health mitigation measures were instituted. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of all adult ED patients presenting to five Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) hospitals comparing visits from March 16 through May 15, in 2019 and 2020. We analyzed de-identified demographic information, clinical conditions, and ICD-10 diagnosis codes for year-over-year comparisons. RESULTS: There were 36.7% fewer JHHS ED visits in 2020 compared to 2019 (43,088 vs. 27,293, P<.001). Patients 75+ had the greatest decline in visits (-44.00%, P<.001). Both genders had significant decreases in volume (-41.9%, P<.001 females vs -30.6%, P<.001 males). Influenza like illness (ILI) symptoms increased year-over-year including fever (640 to 1253, 95.8%, P<.001) and shortness of breath (2504 to 2726, 8.9%, P=.002). ICD-10 diagnoses for a number of time-sensitive illnesses decreased including deep vein thrombosis (101 to 39, -61%, P<.001), acute myocardial infarction (157 to 105, -33%, P=.002), gastrointestinal bleeding (290 to 179, -38.3%, P<.001), and strokes (284 to 234, -17.6%, P=0.03). CONCLUSION: ED visits declined significantly among JHHS hospitals despite offsetting increases in ILI complaints. Decreases in presentations of time-sensitive illnesses were of particular concern. Efforts should be taken to inform patients that EDs are safe, otherwise preventable morbidity and mortality will remain a problem.

Is Telemetry Monitoring Useful in Patients Admitted With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome?

Patients with a chief complaint of chest pain are frequently monitored by telemetry for evaluation of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, there is insufficient evidence to support this practice in younger patients without coronary artery disease (CAD). The objective is to assess outcomes of patients younger than 50 years of age and monitored by telemetry. Consecutive medical records of patients admitted for chest pain between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010, were reviewed. Patients were excluded who had a CAD history, an abnormal initial troponin, or an abnormal initial electrocardiogram. The remaining patients' charts were evaluated for adverse events such as death, dysrhythmias, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, or upgrade to a higher level of care. Ultimately, 814 patients were selected for study. No study participants suffered a significant adverse event. When being evaluated for ACS, patients younger than 50 without a history of CAD may not benefit from telemetry monitoring.