A biomarker assay to risk-stratify patients with symptoms of respiratory tract infection.

BACKGROUND: Patients who present to an emergency department (ED) with respiratory symptoms are often conservatively triaged in favour of hospitalisation. We sought to determine if an inflammatory biomarker panel that identifies the host response better predicts hospitalisation in order to improve the precision of clinical decision making in the ED. METHODS: From April 2020 to March 2021, plasma samples of 641 patients with symptoms of respiratory illness were collected from EDs in an international multicentre study: Canada (n=310), Italy (n=131) and Brazil (n=200). Patients were followed prospectively for 28 days. Subgroup analysis was conducted on confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients (n=245). An inflammatory profile was determined using a rapid, 50-min, biomarker panel (RALI-Dx (Rapid Acute Lung Injury Diagnostic)), which measures interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10, soluble tumour necrosis factor receptor 1 (sTNFR1) and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 (sTREM1). RESULTS: RALI-Dx biomarkers were significantly elevated in patients who required hospitalisation across all three sites. A machine learning algorithm that was applied to predict hospitalisation using RALI-Dx biomarkers had a mean±sd area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 76±6% (Canada), 84±4% (Italy) and 86±3% (Brazil). Model performance was 82±3% for COVID-19 patients and 87±7% for patients with a confirmed pneumonia diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid diagnostic biomarker panel accurately identified the need for inpatient care in patients presenting with respiratory symptoms, including COVID-19. The RALI-Dx test is broadly and easily applicable across many jurisdictions, and represents an important diagnostic adjunct to advance ED decision-making protocols.

CT Abdominal Tomography Indications: Are We All Sticking to the Plan?

OBJECTIVE: Ultra-low radiation dose computed tomography (CT) abdominal tomography was introduced in our institution in 2016 to replace standard abdominal radiography in the investigation of emergency department patients. This project aims to ascertain whether investigation of emergency department patients using ultra-low radiation dose CT abdominal tomography complies with original indication guidelines and/or if there has been any "indication creep" 3 years after inception. METHODS: Retrospective, quality assurance project with research ethics waiver. A review of 200 consecutive patients investigated with CT abdominal tomography between February and May 2017 was performed. This was compared with 200 consecutive patients investigated between February and May 2019. Data analyzed included patient demographics, indication for scan, as well as scan and patient outcomes. RESULTS: In the 2017 group, 29/200 scans were noncompliant with approved indication guidelines. In the 2019 group, 30/200 scans were also noncompliant. There was no statistically significant difference between groups (P < .05) regarding the use of approved indications. Forty of 200 scans performed in 2017 revealed additional findings which are not specifically addressed on the reporting template. Forty-one of 200 scans in 2019 revealed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: There has been no "indication creep" for CT abdominal tomography over time.

Prospective Validation of the Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade for Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Improved risk stratification of acute heart failure in the emergency department may inform physicians' decisions regarding patient admission or early discharge disposition. We aimed to validate the previously-derived Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade for 7-day (EHMRG7) and 30-day (EHMRG30-ST) mortality. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective validation study of patients with acute heart failure at 9 hospitals. We surveyed physicians for their estimates of 7-day mortality risk, obtained for each patient before knowledge of the model predictions, and compared these with EHMRG7 for discrimination and net reclassification improvement. We also prospectively examined discrimination of the EHMRG30-ST model, which incorporates all components of EHMRG7 as well as the presence of ST-depression on the 12-lead ECG. RESULTS: We recruited 1983 patients seeking emergency department care for acute heart failure. Mortality rates at 7 days in the 5 risk groups (very low, low, intermediate, high, and very high risk) were 0%, 0%, 0.6%, 1.9%, and 3.9%, respectively. At 30 days, the corresponding mortality rates were 0%, 1.9%, 3.9%, 5.9%, and 14.3%. Compared with physician-estimated risk of 7-day mortality (PER7; c-statistic, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78) there was improved discrimination with EHMRG7 (c-statistic, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87; P=0.022 versus PER7) and with EHMRG7 combined with physicians' estimates (c-statistic, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88; P=0.003 versus PER7). Model discrimination increased nonsignificantly by 0.014 (95% CI, -0.009-0.037) when physicians' estimates combined with EHMRG7 were compared with EHMRG7 alone ( P=0.242). The c-statistic for EHMRG30-ST alone was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81) and 30-day model discrimination increased nonsignificantly by addition of physician-estimated risk to 0.78 (95% CI, 0.73-0.82; P=0.187). Net reclassification improvement with EHMRG7 was 0.763 (95% CI, 0.465-1.062) when assessed continuously and 0.820 (0.560-1.080) using risk categories compared with PER7. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical model allowing simultaneous prediction of mortality at both 7 and 30 days identified acute heart failure patients with a low risk of events. Compared with physicians' estimates, our multivariable model was better able to predict 7-day mortality and may guide clinical decisions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02634762.

A blueprint for building an emergency department quality improvement and patient safety committee.

The field of quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) has matured significantly in emergency medicine over the past decade. From standalone, strategically misaligned, and incoherently designed QIPS projects years ago, emergency department (ED) leaders have now recognized that developing a more robust QIPS infrastructure helps prioritize and organize projects for a greater likelihood of success and impact for patients and the system. This process includes the development of a well-defined, accountable, and supported departmental QIPS committee. This can be achieved effectively using a deliberate and structured approach, such as the one described by Harvard Business School Professor John Kotter in his seminal work, "Leading Change." Herein, we present a blueprint using this framework and include practical examples from our experience developing a robust and successful ED QIPS committee and infrastructure. The steps include how to develop a "burning platform," select a guiding coalition of leaders, develop a strategic vision and initiatives, recruit a volunteer army of members, enable actions for the committee, generate short-term successes, sustain the pace of change, and, finally, enable the infrastructure to support ongoing improvements. This road map can be replicated by ED teams of variable sizes and settings to structure, prioritize, and operationalize their QIPS activities and ultimately improve the outcomes of their patients.

RéSUMé: Le domaine de l'amélioration de la qualité de la pratique clinique et de la sécurité des patients (AQSP) s'est considérablement développé en médecine d'urgence au cours de la dernière décennie. Alors qu'il y a quelques années, les projets d'AQSP étaient autonomes, mal alignés sur le plan stratégique et conçus de manière incohérente, les responsables des services d'urgence (SU) reconnaissent aujourd'hui que la mise en place d'une infrastructure d'AQSP plus solide permet de hiérarchiser et d'organiser les projets pour qu'ils aient plus de chances de réussir et d'avoir un impact sur les patients et le système. Ce processus comprend le développement d'un comité d'AQSP départemental bien défini, responsable et soutenu. On peut y parvenir efficacement en utilisant une approche délibérée et structurée, comme celle décrite par le professeur John Kotter de la Harvard Business School dans son ouvrage phare intitulé « Leading Change ¼. Dans le présent document, nous présentons un plan à l'aide de ce cadre et incluons des exemples pratiques tirés de notre expérience de l'élaboration d'un comité et d'une infrastructure d'AQSP de SU solides et réussis. Les étapes comprennent la façon d'élaborer une « plateforme brûlante ¼, de sélectionner une coalition de dirigeants, d'élaborer une vision et des initiatives stratégiques, de recruter une armée de membres bénévoles, de permettre des actions pour le comité, de générer des succès à court terme, de maintenir le rythme du changement et enfin, permettre à l'infrastructure de soutenir les améliorations en cours. Cette feuille de route peut être reproduite par des équipes d'urgence de tailles et de contextes différents pour structurer, hiérarchiser et rendre opérationnelles leurs activités d'AQSP et, en fin de compte, améliorer les résultats de leurs patients.

Experiences of healthcare providers with a novel emergency response intubation team during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were significant concerns about the infectious risks of intubation to healthcare providers. In response, a dedicated emergency response intubation team (ERIT) consisting of anesthesiologists and allied health providers was instituted for our emergency department (ED). Given the high-risk nature of intubations and the new interprofessional team dynamics, we sought to assess health-care provider experiences and potential areas of improvement. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to healthcare providers at the University Health Network, a quaternary healthcare centre in Toronto, Canada, which includes two urban EDs seeing over 128,000 patients per year. Participants included ED physicians and nurses, anesthesiologists, anesthesia assistants, and operating room nurses. The survey included free-text questions. Responses underwent thematic analysis using grounded theory and were independently coded by two authors to generate descriptive themes. Discrepancies were resolved with a third author. Descriptive themes were distilled through an inductive, iterative process until fewer main themes emerged. RESULTS: A total of 178 surveys were collected (68.2% response rate). Of these, 123 (69%) participated in one or more ERIT activations. Positive aspects included increased numbers of staff to assist, increased intubation expertise, improved safety, and good team dynamics within the ERIT team. Challenges included a loss of scope (primarily ED physicians and nurses) and unfamiliar workflows, perceived delays to ERIT team arrival or patient intubation, role confusion, handover concerns, and communication challenges between ED and ERIT teams. Perceived opportunities for improvement included interprofessional training, developing clear guidelines on activation, inter-team role clarification, and guidelines on handover processes post-intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers perceived that a novel interprofessional collaboration for intubations of COVID-19 patients presented both benefits and challenges. Opportunities for improvement centred around interprofessional training, shared decision making between teams, and structured handoff processes.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Aux premiers stades de la pandémie de COVID-19, les risques infectieux de l'intubation pour les prestataires de soins de santé ont suscité de vives inquiétudes. En réponse, une équipe d'intervention d'urgence en intubation (emergency response intubation team ERIT), composée d'anesthésistes et de prestataires de services paramédicaux, a été mise en place dans notre service d'urgence. Compte tenu de la nature à haut risque des intubations et de la nouvelle dynamique d'équipe interprofessionnelle, nous avons cherché à évaluer les expériences des prestataires de soins et les domaines d'amélioration potentiels. MéTHODES: Les questionnaires ont été distribués aux prestataires de soins de santé du University Health Network, un centre de soins de santé quaternaire de Toronto, au Canada, qui comprend deux urgences urbaines accueillant plus de 128 000 patients par an. Les participants comprenaient des médecins et des infirmiers des urgences, des anesthésistes, des assistants en anesthésie et des infirmiers de salle d'opération. Les réponses ont fait l'objet d'une analyse thématique fondée sur la théorie de la base et ont été codées indépendamment par deux auteurs afin de générer des thèmes descriptifs. Les divergences ont été résolues avec un troisième auteur. Les thèmes descriptifs ont été distillés par un processus inductif et itératif jusqu'à ce qu'un nombre réduit de thèmes principaux émerge. RéSULTATS: Au total, 178 sondages ont été recueillis (taux de réponse de 68,2 %). Parmi ceux-ci, 123 (69 %) ont participé à une ou plusieurs activations d'ERIT. Les aspects positifs comprenaient un nombre accru de personnel pour aider, une expertise accrue en matière d'intubation, une sécurité améliorée et une bonne dynamique d'équipe au sein de l'équipe ERIT. Parmi les difficultés rencontrées, citons la perte du champ d'action (principalement les médecins et les infirmières des services d'urgence) et les flux de travail non familiers, les retards perçus dans l'arrivée de l'équipe d'ERIT ou l'intubation du patient, la confusion des rôles, les problèmes de transfert et les difficultés de communication entre les équipes des services d'urgence et d'ERIT. Les possibilités d'amélioration perçues comprennent la formation interprofessionnelle, l'élaboration de directives claires sur l'activation, la clarification des rôles entre les équipes et les directives sur les processus de transfert après l'intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Les prestataires de soins de santé ont perçu qu'une nouvelle collaboration interprofessionnelle pour les intubations des patients COVID-19 présentait à la fois des avantages et des défis.

Evaluation of a programme for 'Rapid Assessment of Febrile Travelers' (RAFT): a clinic-based quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Fever in the returned traveller is a potential medical emergency warranting prompt attention to exclude life-threatening illnesses. However, prolonged evaluation in the emergency department (ED) may not be required for all patients. As a quality improvement initiative, we implemented an algorithm for rapid assessment of febrile travelers (RAFT) in an ambulatory setting. METHODS: Criteria for RAFT referral include: presentation to the ED, reported fever and travel to the tropics or subtropics within the past year. Exclusion criteria include Plasmodium falciparum malaria, and fulfilment of admission criteria such as unstable vital signs or significant laboratory derangements. We performed a time series analysis preimplementation and postimplementation, with primary outcome of wait time to tropical medicine consultation. Secondary outcomes included number of ED visits averted for repeat malaria testing, and algorithm adherence. RESULTS: From February 2014 to December 2015, 154 patients were seen in the RAFT clinic: 68 men and 86 women. Median age was 36 years (range 16-78 years). Mean time to RAFT clinic assessment was 1.2±0.07 days (range 0-4 days) postimplementation, compared to 5.4±1.8 days (range 0-26 days) prior to implementation (p<0.0001). The RAFT clinic averted 132 repeat malaria screens in the ED over the study period (average 6 per month). Common diagnoses were: traveller's diarrhoea (n=27, 17.5%), dengue (n=12, 8%), viral upper respiratory tract infection (n=11, 7%), chikungunya (n=10, 6.5%), laboratory-confirmed influenza (n=8, 5%) and lobar pneumonia (n=8, 5%). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to provision of more timely care to ambulatory febrile returned travellers, we reduced ED bed-usage by providing an alternate setting for follow-up malaria screening, and treatment of infectious diseases manageable in an outpatient setting, but requiring specific therapy.