Venous blood point-of-care testing (POCT) for paramedics in urgent and emergency care: protocol for a single-site feasibility study (POCTPara).

The COVID-19 pandemic placed the UK healthcare system under unprecedented pressure, and recovery will require whole-system investment in innovative, flexible and pragmatic solutions. Positioned at the heart of the healthcare system, ambulance services have been tasked with addressing avoidable hospital conveyance and reducing unnecessary emergency department and hospital attendances through the delivery of care closer to home. Having begun to implement models of care intended to increase 'see and treat' opportunities through greater numbers of senior clinical decision makers, emphasis has now been placed upon the use of remote clinical diagnostic tools and near-patient or point-of-care testing (POCT) to aid clinical decision making. In terms of POCT of blood samples obtained from patients in the pre-hospital setting, there is a paucity of evidence beyond its utility for measuring lactate and troponin in acute presentations such as sepsis, trauma and myocardial infarction, although potential exists for the analysis of a much wider panel of analytes beyond these isolated biomarkers. In addition, there is a relative dearth of evidence in respect of the practicalities of using POCT analysers in the pre-hospital setting. This single-site feasibility study aims to understand whether it is practical to use POCT for the analysis of patients' blood samples in the urgent and emergency care pre-hospital setting, through descriptive data of POCT application and through qualitative focus group interviews of advanced practitioners (specialist paramedics) to inform the feasibility and design of a larger study. The primary outcome measure is focus group data measuring the experiences and perceived self-reported impact by specialist paramedics. Secondary outcome measures are number and type of cartridges used, number of successful and unsuccessful attempts in using the POCT analyser, length of time on scene, specialist paramedic recruitment and retention, number of patients who receive POCT, descriptive data of safe conveyance, patient demographics and presentations where POCT is applied and data quality. The study results will inform the design of a main trial if indicated.

Accuracy of emergency medical service telephone triage of need for an ambulance response in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

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.

Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

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.

Prognostic accuracy of triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19 in a prehospital setting: an observational cohort study.

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.

The acceptability and safety of video triage for ambulance service patients and clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In response to anticipated challenges with urgent and emergency healthcare delivery during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust introduced video technology to supplement remote triage and 'hear and treat' consultations as a pilot project in the EOC. We conducted a service evaluation with the aim of investigating patient and staff acceptability of video triage, and the safety of the decision-making process. METHODS: This service evaluation utilised a mixture of routine and bespoke data collection. We sent postal surveys to patients who were recipients of a video triage, and clinicians who were involved in the video triage pilot logged calls they attempted and undertook. RESULTS: Between 27 March and 25 August 2020, clinicians documented 1073 triage calls. A successful video triage call was achieved in 641 (59.7%) cases. Clinical staff reported that video triage improved clinical assessment and decision making compared to telephone alone, and found the technology accessible for patients. Patients who received a video triage call and responded to the survey (40/201, 19.9%) were also satisfied with the technology and with the care they received. Callers receiving video triage that ended with a disposition of 'hear and treat' had a lower rate of re-contacting the service within 24 hours compared to callers that received clinical hub telephone triage alone (16/212, 7.5% vs. 2508/14349, 17.5% respectively). CONCLUSION: In this single NHS Ambulance Trust evaluation, the use of video triage for low-acuity calls appeared to be safe, with low rates of re-contact and high levels of patient and clinician satisfaction compared to standard telephone triage. However, video triage is not always appropriate for or acceptable to patients and technical issues were not uncommon.

The acceptability and safety of video triage for ambulance service patients and clinicians during the covid-19 pandemic: a service evaluation

IntroductionIn response to anticipated challenges with urgent and emergency healthcare delivery during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS) introduced video call technology to supplement remote triage and ‘hear and treat’ consultations as a pilot project in the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC). We aimed to investigate patient and staff acceptability of video triage, and the safety of the decision-making process.MethodsThis service evaluation utilised a mixture of routine 999 call and bespoke data collection from participating clinicians who logged calls they both attempted and undertook. We sent postal surveys to a group of patients who were recipients of a video triage.ResultsBetween 27th March 2020 and 25th August 2020 clinicians documented 1073 video triage calls. A successful video triage call was achieved in 641 (59.7%) of cases. Clinical staff reported that video triage improved clinical assessment and decision making compared to telephone alone, and found the technology accessible for patients. Patients who received a video triage call and responded to the survey (40/201, 19.9%) viewed the technology, the ambulance staff and the care planning favourably.Callers receiving video triage that ended with a disposition of ‘hear and treat’, had a lower rate of re-contacting the service within 24 hours compared to callers that received clinical support desk telephone triage alone (16/212, 7.5% vs 2508/14349, 17.5% respectively.)ConclusionIn this single NHS Ambulance Trust evaluation, the use of video triage for low acuity calls appeared to be safe, with low rates of recontact and high levels of patient and clinician satisfaction compared to standard telephone triage. However, video triage is not always appropriate or acceptable to patients and technical issues were not uncommon.

Patterns of use of ambulance senior support during the COVID-19 pandemic: a service evaluation

BackgroundIn early March 2020, a senior clinical support cell (SCSC) was established within Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS). The SCSC aimed to provide an additional layer of clinical leadership within the Emergency Operations Centre to support call centre and decision support for on-scene ambulance staff working in challenging circumstances. It was staffed by advanced practitioners, doctors and other senior paramedics with range of diverse skills from critical to urgent care. We aimed to understand the patterns of use of a SCSC for emergency 999 calls during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsRoutinely collected call data was retrospectively analysed to understand the patterns of use in the first three months of the service. The reason for the call, patient demographic and any regional differences were described. An anonymous survey was distributed to frontline ambulance crews to understand the reasons for contacting the SCSC, or not, and the outcomes of that contact for patient care.Results7296 patient care episodes received either a telephone triage by SCSC for 999 calls or 111 calls transferred for an emergency ambulance response (3160) or had telephone support provided to crews on scene (4136). Telephone triage accounted for 3160 calls where 642 cases (20.3%) resulted in a hear-and-treat outcome, and the findings suggest a low re-contact rate within 24 hours at 2.4%.The primary reasons for crews seeking support/advice from the SCSC were discharge advice or permission (37%);support for pathways in their area (25%);or for cases where patients refused care or conveyance (11%).ConclusionsSCSC was developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and lessons can be learned to prepare for any future significant service challenges as a result of the rapid implementation of the SCSC and the clinical leadership required to support the pace of change and emerging clinical knowledge and practice.