A systematic review of tools for predicting complications in patients with acute infectious diarrhea.

OBJECTIVE: To identify tools that predict the risk of complications in patients presenting to outpatient clinics or emergency departments (ED) with acute infectious diarrhea. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception to July 2021. Articles reporting on the derivation or validation of a score to stratify the risk of intravenous rehydration or hospitalization among patients with acute infectious diarrhea in the ED or outpatient clinic were retained for analysis. RESULTS: Five articles reporting on two different tools were identified. Developed to assess the risk of hospitalization of children, the EsVida scale has not been externally validated. Developed originally to assess the level of dehydration in children, the Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS) was evaluated as a risk stratification tool. For predicting intravenous rehydration, a CDS score ≥ 1 showed a sensitivity between 0.73 and 0.88 and specificity between 0.38 and 0.69, whereas a CDS score ≥ 5 showed a sensitivity between 0.06 and 0.32 and specificity between 0.94 and 0.99. For predicting hospitalization, a CDS score ≥ 1 showed a sensitivity between 0.74 and 1.00 and specificity between 0.34 and 0.38, whereas a CDS score ≥ 5 showed a sensitivity between 0.26 and 0.62 and specificity between 0.66 and 0.96. High heterogeneity among studies and unclear risk of bias precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: As a risk-stratification tool, the CDS has been validated only for children. Further research is needed to develop and validate a tool suitable for adults in the ED.

Development of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure Tool for Ambulatory Patients With Acute Unexpected Needs: The APEX Questionnaire.

Background: The aim of this study was to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for comparing the experience of care received by ambulatory patients with acute unexpected needs presenting in emergency departments (EDs), walk-in clinics, and primary care practices. Methods: The Ambulatory Patient EXperience (APEX) questionnaire was developed using a 5-phase mixed-methods approach. The questionnaire was pretested by asking potential users to rate its clarity, usefulness, redundancy, content and face validities, and discrimination on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree). The pre-final version was then tested in a pilot study. Results: The final questionnaire is composed of 61 questions divided into 7 sections. In the pretest (n = 25), median responses were 8 and above for all dimensions assessed. In the pilot study, 63 participants were enrolled. Adjusted results show that access, cleanliness, and feeling treated with respect and dignity by nurses and physicians were significantly better in the clinics than in the ED. Conclusion: We developed a questionnaire to assess and compare experience of ambulatory care in different clinical settings.