Diagnostic yield of screening for SARS-CoV-2 among patients admitted to hospital for alternate diagnoses: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic yield of screening patients for SARS-CoV-2 who were admitted with a diagnosis unrelated to COVID-19 and to identify risk factors for positive tests. DESIGN: Cohort from the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network registry. SETTING: 30 acute care hospitals across Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalised for non-COVID-19-related diagnoses who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 March and 29 December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME: Positive nucleic acid amplification test for SARS-CoV-2. OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic yield. RESULTS: We enrolled 15 690 consecutive eligible adults who were admitted to hospital without clinically suspected COVID-19. Among these patients, 122 tested positive for COVID-19, resulting in a diagnostic yield of 0.8% (95% CI 0.64% to 0.92%). Factors associated with a positive test included presence of fever, being a healthcare worker, having a positive household contact or institutional exposure, and living in an area with higher 7-day average incident COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening of hospitalised patients for COVID-19 across two pandemic waves had a low diagnostic yield and should be informed by individual-level risk assessment in addition to regional COVID-19 prevalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04702945.

Development of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network population-based registry: a methodology study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians lack high-quality evidence for many diagnostic and treatment decisions made for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective is to describe the methods used to collect and ensure the data quality of a multicentre registry of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: This methodology study describes a population-based registry that has been enrolling consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since Mar. 1, 2020. Most data are collected from retrospective chart review. Phone follow-up with patients at 30 days captures the World Health Organization clinical improvement scale and contextual, social and cultural variables. Phone follow-up also captures patient-reported quality of life using the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey at 30 days, 60 days, 6 months and 12 months. Fifty participating emergency departments from 8 provinces in Canada currently enrol patients into the registry. INTERPRETATION: Data from the registry of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network will be used to derive and validate clinical decision rules to inform clinical decision-making, describe the natural history of the disease, evaluate COVID-19 diagnostic tests and establish the real-world effectiveness of treatments and vaccines, including in populations that are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials. This registry has the potential to generate scientific evidence to inform our pandemic response, and to serve as a model for the rapid implementation of population-based data collection protocols for future public health emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

The effect of early in-hospital medication review on health outcomes: a systematic review.

AIMS: Adverse drug events are an important cause of emergency department visits, unplanned admissions and prolonged hospital stays. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence on the effect of early in-hospital pharmacist-led medication review on patient-oriented outcomes based on observed data. METHODS: We systematically searched eight bibliographic reference databases, electronic grey literature, medical journals, conference proceedings, trial registries and bibliographies of relevant papers. We included studies that employed random or quasi-random methods to allocate subjects to pharmacist-led medication review or control. Medication review had to include, at a minimum, obtaining a best possible medication history and reviewing medications for appropriateness and adverse drug events. The intervention had to be initiated within 24 h of emergency department presentation or 72 h of admission. We extracted data in duplicate and pooled outcomes from clinically homogeneous studies of the same design using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We retrieved 4549 titles of which seven were included, reporting the outcomes of 3292 patients. We pooled data from studies of the same design, and found no significant differences in length of hospital admission (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.04 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.63, 1.55), mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% CI 0.69, 1.72), readmissions (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.81, 1.63) or emergency department revisits at 3 months (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27, 1.32). Two large studies reporting reductions in readmissions could not be included in our pooled estimates due to differences in study design. CONCLUSIONS: Wide confidence intervals suggest that additional research is likely to influence the effect size estimates and clarify the effect of medication review on patient-oriented outcomes. This systematic review failed to identify an effect of pharmacist-led medication review on health outcomes.