Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19: the PRIEST observational cohort study.

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.

Derivation and validation of a clinical severity score for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19: The PRIEST observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to derive and validate a triage tool, based on clinical assessment alone, for predicting adverse outcome in acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 infection. METHODS: 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. The primary outcome was death or organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal) by record review at 30 days. We split the cohort into derivation and validation sets, developed a clinical score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis using the derivation set, and the estimated discriminant performance using the validation set. RESULTS: We analysed 11773 derivation and 9118 validation cases. Multivariable analysis identified that age, sex, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation/inspired oxygen ratio, performance status, consciousness, history of renal impairment, and respiratory distress were retained in analyses restricted to the ten or fewer predictors. We used findings from multivariable analysis and clinical judgement to develop a score based on the NEWS2 score, age, sex, and performance status. This had a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.81) in the validation cohort and predicted adverse outcome with sensitivity 0.98 (0.97-0.98) and specificity 0.34 (0.34-0.35) for scores above four points. CONCLUSION: A clinical score based on NEWS2, age, sex, and performance status predicts adverse outcome with good discrimination in adults with suspected COVID-19 and can be used to support decision-making in emergency care. REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533.

Post-exertion oxygen saturation as a prognostic factor for adverse outcome in patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19: a substudy of the PRIEST observational cohort study.

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.

Characterisation of 22445 patients attending UK emergency departments with suspected COVID-19 infection: Observational cohort study.

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.

Comparative Review on the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Relief Teams' Deployment to Sudden-Onset Disasters.

When a disaster exceeds the capacity of the affected country to cope with its own resources, the provision of external rescue and health services is required, and the deployment of relief units requested. Recently, the cost of international relief and the belief that such deployment is cost-effective has been questioned by the international community; unfortunately, there is still little informed debate and few detailed data are available. This paper presents the results of a comparative review on the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of search and rescue (SAR) and Emergency Medical Team (EMT) deployment. The aim of this work is to provide an overview of the topic, highlight the criteria used to assess the effectiveness, and identify gaps in existing literature. The results show that both deployments are highly expensive, and their success is strongly related to the time they need to be operational; SAR deployments are characterized by limited outcomes in terms of lives saved, and EMTs by insufficient data and lack of detailed assessment. This research highlights that the criteria used to assess the effectiveness need to be explored further, considering different purposes, lengths of stay, and different activities performed, especially for any comparison. This study concludes that data reporting should be mandatory for humanitarian response agencies.

A Call for Consensus on Methodology and Terminology to Improve Comparability in the Study of Preventable Prehospital Trauma Deaths: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVES: The study of preventable deaths is essential to trauma research for measuring service quality and highlighting avenues for improving care and as a performance indicator. However, variations in the terminology and methodology of studies on preventable prehospital trauma death limit the comparability and wider application of data. The objective of this study was to describe the heterogeneity in terminology and methodology. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review and report this using the PRISMA guidelines. Searches were conducted using PubMed (including Medline), Ovid, and Embase databases. Studies, with a full text available in English published between 1990 and 2015, meeting the following inclusion criteria were included: analysis of 1) deaths from trauma, 2) occurring in the prehospital phase of care, and 3) application of criteria to ascertain whether deaths were preventable. One author screened database results for relevance by title and abstract. The full text of identified papers was reviewed for inclusion. The reference list of included papers was screened for studies not identified by the database search. Data were extracted on predefined core elements relating to preventability reporting and definitions using a standardized form. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified: 12 studies used two categories to assess the preventability of death while 15 used three categories. Fifteen variations in the terminology of these categories and combination with death descriptors were found. Eleven different approaches were used in defining what constituted a preventable death. Twenty-one included survivability of injuries as a criterion. Methods used to determine survivability differed and eight variations in parameters for categorization of deaths were used. Nineteen used panel review in determining preventability with six implementing panel blinding. Panel composition varied greatly by expertise of personnel. Separation of prehospital deaths differed with 10 separating those dead at scene (DAS) and dead on arrival, three excluding those DAS, three excluding deaths prior to EMS arrival, and 11 not separating prehospital deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity in methodology, terminology, and definitions of "preventable" between studies render data incomparable. To facilitate common understanding, comparability, and analysis, a commonly agreed ontology by the prehospital research community is required.

Major incident triage: comparative validation using data from 7th July bombings.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of health service planning for major incident management has been recognised since the World Trade Centre attacks of September 2001 and is highly relevant to planning for the 2012 Olympics. UK national Major Incident guidance stipulates the use of a system of triage for casualties to prioritise treatment and ensure "the greatest good for the greatest number". However, at least three triage systems are in use worldwide and no evidence exists to demonstrate their relative efficacy. The transport bombings in London on 7th July 2005 caused the largest number of casualties on mainland UK soil since World War 2. We aimed to validate three major incident triage systems using patient data from the 7th July bombings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients from the 7th July bombings treated at the Royal London Hospital (RLH) was examined. Clinical information collected on arrival at RLH was used to allocate triage categories using the START, Manchester Sieve and CareFlight triage systems. The value of each system in identifying the critically injured patient was calculated. RESULTS: 203 sets of records were examined. Outcome data was available for 166 patients, of whom 8 were critically injured. Of these 166 patients, triage categories could be retrospectively allocated for 124 (START), 127 (Manchester Sieve), 128 (CareFlight), including 4 of the critically injured. All three systems identified the same three patients as P1 or P2. The triage systems performed identically in identifying the critically injured, with sensitivity 50% and specificity 100% if using only the highest priority, or sensitivity 75% and specificity 99% if using the top 2 priority groups. Significant amounts of data were not recorded in prehospital and hospital notes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Systematic triage of mass casualties is effective but the amount of missing data seriously compromises any attempt to evaluate systems of trauma care in a major incident.

Psychosocial care for persons affected by emergencies and major incidents: a Delphi study to determine the needs of professional first responders for education, training and support.

BACKGROUND: The role of ambulance clinicians in providing psychosocial care in major incidents and emergencies is recognised in recent Department of Health guidance. The study described in this paper identified NHS professional first responders' needs for education about survivors' psychosocial responses, training in psychosocial skills, and continuing support. METHOD: Ambulance staff participated in an online Delphi questionnaire, comprising 74 items (Round 1) on 7-point Likert scales. Second-round and third-round participants each received feedback based on the previous round, and responded to modified versions of the original items and to new items for clarification. RESULTS: One hundred and two participants took part in Round 1; 47 statements (64%) achieved consensus. In Round 2, 72 people from Round 1 participated; 15 out of 39 statements (38%) achieved consensus. In Round 3, 49 people from Round 2 participated; 15 out of 27 statements (59%) achieved consensus. Overall, there was consensus in the following areas: 'psychosocial needs of patients' (consensus in 34/37 items); 'possible sources of stress in your work' (8/9); 'impacts of distress in your work' (7/10); 'meeting your own emotional needs' (4/5); 'support within your organisation' (2/5); 'needs for training in psychosocial skills for patients' (15/15); 'my needs for psychosocial training and support' (5/6). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulance clinicians recognise their own education needs and the importance of their being offered psychosocial training and support. The authors recommend that, in order to meet patients' psychosocial needs effectively, ambulance clinicians are provided with education and training in a number of skills and their own psychosocial support should be enhanced.

Evaluation of triage methods used to select patients with suspected pandemic influenza for hospital admission.

OBJECTIVES: Prepandemic projections anticipated huge excess attendances and mortality in an influenza pandemic. A number of tools had been suggested for triaging patients with influenza for inpatient and critical care admission, but none had been validated in these patients. The authors aimed to evaluate three potential triage tools--CURB-65, PMEWS and the Department of Health community assessment tool (CAT)--in patients in the first waves of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. SETTING: Prospective cohort study in three urban emergency departments (one adult, one paediatric, one mixed) in two cities. PARTICIPANTS: All patients presenting to the three emergency departments fulfilling the national definition of suspected pandemic influenza. OUTCOME MEASURES: 30-day follow-up identified patients who had died or had required advanced respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support. RESULTS: The pandemic was much less severe than expected. A total of 481 patients (347 children) were recruited, of which only five adults fulfilled the outcome criteria for severe illness. The c-statistics for CURB-65, PMEWS and CAT in adults in terms of discriminating between those admitted and discharged were 0.65 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.76), 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.72), respectively. In detecting adverse outcome, sensitivities were 20% (95% CI 4% to 62%), 80% (95% CI 38% to 96%) and 60% (95% CI 23% to 88%), and specificities were 94% (95% CI 88% to 97%), 40% (95% CI 32% to 49%) and 81% (95% CI 73% to 87%) for CURB-65, PMEWS and CAT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by a paucity of cases, this research shows that current triage methods for suspected pandemic influenza did not reliably discriminate between patients with good and poor outcomes.

Physiological scoring: an aid to emergency medical services transport decisions?

INTRODUCTION: Attendance at UK emergency departments is rising steadily despite the proliferation of alternative unscheduled care providers. Evidence is mixed on the willingness of emergency medical services (EMS) providers to decline to transport patients and the safety of incorporating such an option into EMS provision. Physiologically based Early Warning Scores are in use in many hospitals and emergency departments, but not yet have been proven to be of benefit in the prehospital arena. HYPOTHESIS: The use of a physiological-social scoring system could safely identify patients calling EMS who might be diverted from the emergency department to an alternative, unscheduled, care provider. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cohort study of patients with a presenting complaint of "shortness of breath" or "difficulty breathing" transported to the emergency department by EMS. Retrospective calculation of a physiological social score (PMEWS) based on first recorded data from EMS records was performed. Outcome measures of hospital admission and need for physiologically stabilizing treatment in the emergency department also were performed. RESULTS: A total of 215 records were analyzed. One hundred thirty-nine (65%) patients were admitted from the emergency department or received physiologically stabilizing treatment in the emergency department. Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) for hospital admission was 0.697 and for admission or physiologically stabilizing treatment was 0.710. No patient scoring<2 was admitted or received stabilizing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant over-triage, this system could have diverted 79 patients safely from the emergency department to alternative, unscheduled, care providers.

Risk stratification of patients with acute chest pain without a rise in troponin: current practice in England.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with acute chest pain without a rise in cardiac troponins are considered to be at low risk of adverse cardiac events and are often considered for early discharge without further inpatient investigation. However, there is evidence that this commonly encountered patient group has a significant rate of early acute myocardial infarction and death. OBJECTIVE: To assess current practice in the risk stratification of patients presenting with acute chest pain to emergency departments (EDs) in England who do not develop a rise in cardiac markers. METHODS: A postal survey was sent to all 193 EDs. This contained 21 questions related to the assessment of patients presenting with acute chest pain. RESULTS: 141 EDs returned completed questionnaires. 27% of responding departments routinely used objective clinical risk scoring as part of their risk stratification. Less than 16% carried out exercise stress testing on the majority of patients prior to discharge from hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The use of troponin as a diagnostic test and risk stratification tool appears to be used universally in England. However, the further risk stratification of patients presenting with acute chest pain without a rise in cardiac troponin is inconsistent.

Major incident planning in primary care trusts in north-west England: a cross-sectional survey.

The Civil Contingencies Act (2004) requires UK primary care trusts (PCTs) to plan and respond to major health incidents. We carried out a cross-sectional survey of all PCTs in the north-west region of England using a telephone interview with a structured questionnaire. We assessed: (1) staff members responsible for emergency planning; (2) risk assessment; (3) training and exercises; and (4) the planned response to a major incident. Response rate was 61% (20/33). Twelve out of 20 employed an emergency planning officer. All responding PCTs had participated in a tabletop exercise in the previous year and nine of 20 in a live exercise in the previous three years. Nine provided major incident training to new staff. Fifteen had discussed major incident preparations with their local acute trust but none could quantify the support they would be able to provide in terms of accelerated discharges. We have revealed potentially serious deficiencies in the emergency preparedness of many PCTs. PCTs are expected to play a vital role in coordinating the National Health Service (NHS) response to a major incident and these results have important implications for the ability of the NHS as a whole to effective respond to such incidents.

Preparedness of emergency departments in northwest England for managing chemical incidents: a structured interview survey.

BACKGROUND: A number of significant chemical incidents occur in the UK each year and may require Emergency Departments (EDs) to receive and manage contaminated casualties. Previously UK EDs have been found to be under-prepared for this, but since October 2005 acute hospital Trusts have had a statutory responsibility to maintain decontamination capacity. We aimed to evaluate the level of preparedness of Emergency Departments in North West England for managing chemical incidents. METHODS: A face-to-face semi-structured interview was carried out with the Nurse Manager or a nominated deputy in all 18 Emergency Departments in the Region. RESULTS: 16/18 departments had a written chemical incident plan but only 7 had the plan available at interview. All had a designated decontamination area but only 11 felt that they were adequately equipped. 12/18 had a current training programme for chemical incident management and 3 had no staff trained in decontamination. 13/18 could contain contaminated water from casualty decontamination and 6 could provide shelter for casualties before decontamination. CONCLUSION: We have identified major inconsistencies in the preparedness of North West Emergency Departments for managing chemical incidents. Nationally recognized standards on incident planning, facilities, equipment and procedures need to be agreed and implemented with adequate resources. Issues of environmental safety and patient dignity and comfort should also be addressed.

Clinical review: mass casualty triage--pandemic influenza and critical care.

Worst case scenarios for pandemic influenza planning in the US involve over 700,000 patients requiring mechanical ventilation. UK planning predicts a 231% occupancy of current level 3 (intensive care unit) bed capacity. Critical care planners need to recognise that mortality is likely to be high and the risk to healthcare workers significant. Contingency planning should, therefore, be multi-faceted, involving a robust health command structure, the facility to expand critical care provision in terms of space, equipment and staff and cohorting of affected patients in the early stages. It should also be recognised that despite this expansion of critical care, demand will exceed supply and a process for triage needs to be developed that is valid, reproducible, transparent and consistent with distributive justice. We advocate the development and validation of physiological scores for use as a triage tool, coupled with candid public discussion of the process.

Physiological-social score (PMEWS) vs. CURB-65 to triage pandemic influenza: a comparative validation study using community-acquired pneumonia as a proxy.

BACKGROUND: An influenza pandemic may increase Emergency Department attendance 7-fold. In the absence of a validated "flu score" to assess severity and assist triage decisions from primary into secondary care, current UK draft management recommendations have suggested the use of CURB-65 and chest X-ray as a proxy. We developed the Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score (PMEWS) to track and triage flu patients, taking into account physiological and social factors and without requiring laboratory or radiology services. METHODS: Validation of the PMEWS score against an unselected group of patients presenting and admitted to an urban UK teaching hospital with community acquired pneumonia. Comparison of PMEWS performance against CURB-65 for three outcome measures: need for admission, admission to high dependency or intensive care, and inpatient mortality using area under ROC curve (AUROC) and the Hanley-McNeil method of comparison. RESULTS: PMEWS was a better predictor of need for admission (AUROC 0.944) and need of higher level of care (AUROC 0.83) compared with CURB-65 (AUROCs 0.881 and 0.640 respectively) but was not as good a predictor of subsequent inpatient mortality (AUROC 0.663). CONCLUSION: Although further validation against other disease datasets as a proxy for pandemic flu is required, we show that PMEWS is rapidly applicable for triage of large numbers of flu patients to self-care, hospital admission or HDU/ICU care. It is scalable to reflect changing admission thresholds that will occur during a pandemic.