From symptom onset to ED departure: understanding the acute care chain for patients with undifferentiated complaints: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: For most acute conditions, the phase prior to emergency department (ED) arrival is largely unexplored. However, this prehospital phase has proven an important part of the acute care chain (ACC) for specific time-sensitive conditions, such as stroke and myocardial infarction. For patients with undifferentiated complaints, exploration of the prehospital phase of the ACC may also offer a window of opportunity for improvement of care. This study aims to explore the ACC of ED patients with undifferentiated complaints, with specific emphasis on time in ACC and patient experience. METHODS: This Dutch prospective observational study, included all adult (≥ 18 years) ED patients with undifferentiated complaints over a 4-week period. We investigated the patients' journey through the ACC, focusing on time in ACC and patient experience. Additionally, a multivariable linear regression analysis was employed to identify factors independently associated with time in ACC. RESULTS: Among the 286 ED patients with undifferentiated complaints, the median symptom duration prior to ED visit was 6 days (IQR 2-10), during which 58.6% of patients had contact with a healthcare provider before referral. General Practitioners (GPs) referred 80.4% of the patients, with the predominant patient journey (51.7%) involving GP referral followed by self-transportation to the ED. The median time in ACC was 5.5 (IQR 4.0-8.4) hours of which 40% was spent before the ED visit. GP referral and referral to pulmonology were associated with a longer time in ACC, while referral during evenings was associated with a shorter time in ACC. Patients scored both quality and duration of the provided care an 8/10. CONCLUSION: Dutch ED patients with undifferentiated complaints consulted a healthcare provider in over half of the cases before their ED visit. The median time in ACC is 5.5 h of which 40% is spent in the prehospital phase. Those referred by a GP and to pulmonology had a longer, and those in the evening a shorter time in ACC. The acute care journey starts hours before patients arrive at the ED and 6 days of complaints precede this journey. This timeframe could serve as a window of opportunity to optimise care.

Potential impact of a new sepsis prediction model for the primary care setting: early health economic evaluation using an observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential referral rate and cost impact at different cut-off points of a recently developed sepsis prediction model for general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Prospective observational study with decision tree modelling. SETTING: Four out-of-hours GP services in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 357 acutely ill adult patients assessed during home visits. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the cost per patient from a healthcare perspective in four scenarios based on different cut-off points for referral of the sepsis prediction model. Second, the number of hospital referrals for the different scenarios is estimated. The potential impact of referral of patients with sepsis on mortality and hospital admission was estimated by an expert panel. Using these study data, a decision tree with a time horizon of 1 month was built to estimate the referral rate and cost impact in case the model would be implemented. RESULTS: Referral rates at a low cut-off (score 2 or 3 on a scale from 0 to 6) of the prediction model were higher than observed for patients with sepsis (99% and 91%, respectively, compared with 88% observed). However, referral was also substantially higher for patients who did not need hospital assessment. As a consequence, cost-savings due to referral of patients with sepsis were offset by increased costs due to unnecessary referral for all cut-offs of the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for referral of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the primary care setting using any cut-off point of the sepsis prediction model is not likely to save costs. The model should only be incorporated in sepsis guidelines for GPs if improvement of care can be demonstrated in an implementation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7026).

First and second wave dynamics of emergency department utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective study in 3 hospitals in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: During certain phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease was observed in emergency department (ED) utilization. Although this phenomenon has been thoroughly characterized for the first wave (FW), second wave (SW) studies are limited. We examined the changes in ED utilization between the FW and SW, compared to 2019 reference periods. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of ED utilization in 3 Dutch hospitals in 2020. The FW and SW (March-June and September-December, respectively) were compared to the reference periods in 2019. ED visits were labeled as (non-)COVID-suspected. RESULTS: During the FW and SW ED visits decreased by 20.3% and 15.3%, respectively, when compared to reference periods in 2019. During both waves high urgency visits significantly increased with 3.1% and 2.1%, and admission rates (ARs) increased with 5.0% and 10.4%. Trauma related visits decreased by 5.2% and 3.4%. During the SW we observed less COVID-related visits compared to the FW (4,407 vs 3,102 patients). COVID-related visits were significantly more often in higher need of urgent care and ARs were at least 24.0% higher compared to non-COVID visits. CONCLUSION: During both COVID-19 waves, ED visits were significantly reduced. ED patients were more often triaged as high urgent, the ED length of stay was longer and ARs were increased compared to the reference period in 2019, reflecting a high burden on ED resources. During the FW, the reduction in ED visits was most pronounced. Here, ARs were also higher and patient were more often triaged as high urgency. These findings stress the need to gain better insight into the motives of patients to delay or avoid emergency care during pandemics, as well as to better prepare EDs for future outbreaks.

New clinical prediction model for early recognition of sepsis in adult primary care patients: a prospective diagnostic cohort study of development and external validation.

BACKGROUND: Recognising patients who need immediate hospital treatment for sepsis while simultaneously limiting unnecessary referrals is challenging for GPs. AIM: To develop and validate a sepsis prediction model for adult patients in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective cohort study in four out-of-hours primary care services in the Netherlands, conducted between June 2018 and March 2020. METHOD: Adult patients who were acutely ill and received home visits were included. A total of nine clinical variables were selected as candidate predictors, next to the biomarkers C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate. The primary endpoint was sepsis within 72 hours of inclusion, as established by an expert panel. Multivariable logistic regression with backwards selection was used to design an optimal model with continuous clinical variables. The added value of the biomarkers was evaluated. Subsequently, a simple model using single cut-off points of continuous variables was developed and externally validated in two emergency department populations. RESULTS: A total of 357 patients were included with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range 71-86), of which 151 (42%) were diagnosed with sepsis. A model based on a simple count of one point for each of six variables (aged >65 years; temperature >38°C; systolic blood pressure ≤110 mmHg; heart rate >110/min; saturation ≤95%; and altered mental status) had good discrimination and calibration (C-statistic of 0.80 [95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 0.84]; Brier score 0.175). Biomarkers did not improve the performance of the model and were therefore not included. The model was robust during external validation. CONCLUSION: Based on this study's GP out-of-hours population, a simple model can accurately predict sepsis in acutely ill adult patients using readily available clinical parameters.

Reduced Emergency Department Utilization During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Viral Fear or Lockdown Effect?

OBJECTIVE: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, several frontline workers have expressed their concerns about reduced emergency department (ED) utilization. We aimed to examine the changes in ED utilization during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, in a country with a well-developed primary care system. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of ED utilization was performed in 3 Dutch hospitals during a 60-day period, starting on February 15, 2020. The identical period in 2019 was used as a reference. ED visits were labeled as COVID-related (defined as COVID-19 suspected) or non-COVID-related. Admission rates were compared using chi-square tests, and the reduction in ED visits was assessed descriptively. RESULTS: During the study period, daily ED volume was 18% lower compared to that of 2019. ED utilization further declined (-29%) during lockdown. Combined admission rates were higher in 2020 compared to those in 2019 (P < 0.001), and they were higher for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 ED visits (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ED utilization was markedly reduced during the local rise of COVID-19 in a region with a well-developed primary care system and relatively low ED self-referral rates. Although it cannot directly be concluded from the findings of our study, this observation likely reflects a complex interaction between pure lockdown effects and viral fear, which warrants further research.

Frequency of alterations in qSOFA, SIRS, MEWS and NEWS scores during the emergency department stay in infectious patients: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: For emergency department (ED) patients with suspected infection, a vital sign-based clinical rule is often calculated shortly after the patient arrives. The clinical rule score (normal or abnormal) provides information about diagnosis and/or prognosis. Since vital signs vary over time, the clinical rule scores can change as well. In this prospective multicentre study, we investigate how often the scores of four frequently used clinical rules change during the ED stay of patients with suspected infection. METHODS: Adult (≥ 18 years) patients with suspected infection were prospectively included in three Dutch EDs between March 2016 and December 2019. Vital signs were measured in 30-min intervals and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the Modified Early Warning Score and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) score were calculated. Using the established cut-off points, we analysed how often alterations in clinical rule scores occurred (i.e. switched from normal to abnormal or vice versa). In addition, we investigated which vital signs caused most alterations. RESULTS: We included 1433 patients, of whom a clinical rule score changed once or more in 637 (44.5%) patients. In 6.7-17.5% (depending on the clinical rule) of patients with an initial negative clinical rule score, a positive score occurred later during ED stay. In over half (54.3-65.0%) of patients with an initial positive clinical rule score, the score became negative later on. The respiratory rate caused most (51.2%) alterations. CONCLUSION: After ED arrival, alterations in qSOFA, SIRS, MEWS and/or NEWS score are present in almost half of patients with suspected infection. The most contributing vital sign to these alterations was the respiratory rate. One in 6-15 patients displayed an abnormal clinical rule score after a normal initial score. Clinicians should be aware of the frequency of these alterations in clinical rule scores, as clinical rules are widely used for diagnosis and/or prognosis and the optimal moment of assessing them is unknown.

Preparations of Dutch emergency departments for the COVID-19 pandemic: A questionnaire-based study.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by rapid increases in Emergency department (ED) patient visits. EDs required an appropriate transformation. The main challenges were: adapting capacity to respond to surges in the number of patient visits, protection of high risk (frontline) staff and the segregation of suspect-COVID-19 patients. To date, only a few studies have assessed the nation-wide response of EDs to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was designed to review the preparations of Dutch EDs during the initial phase of this public health crisis. METHODS: The study was designed as a nation-wide, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study of Dutch hospital organizations having one or more EDs. One respondent completed the questionnaire for each hospital. The questionnaire was conducted between the first and the second COVID-19 wave in the Netherlands. It contained close-ended and open-ended questions on changes in ED infrastructure, ED workforce adaptions and the role of emergency physicians (EPs) in each hospital crisis management team. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 58 respondents. This represented 80% of the total number of EDs. All respondents had made preparations in anticipation of a COVID-19 patient surge. Treatment capacity was expanded in 70% of EDs, with a median increase of 49% (IQR 33-73%). Suspect-COVID-19 was segregated from non-COVID-19 patients in 89% of EDs. Alternative locations (such as outpatient departments) were more often used to assess non-COVID-19 patients, than for suspect-COVID-19 patients. Staff was expanded in 82% of EDs. This largely concerned nursing staff. A formal role for Emergency Physicians (EPs) in the hospital's crisis management team was reported by 94% of hospital organizations employing EPs. CONCLUSION: All Dutch EDs responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in a very short time span despite much uncertainty. Preparations predominantly concerned expansion of treatment capacity and segregation of COVID-19 ED care. EPs played a prominent role, both in direct COVID-19 care and in the hospital crises management team. It is vital for EDs to adapt to community needs swiftly. The ability of EDs to respond to the pandemic varied considerably.

Vital signs, clinical rules, and gut feeling: an observational study among patients with fever.

BACKGROUND: GPs decide which patients with fever need referral to the emergency department (ED). Vital signs, clinical rules, and gut feeling can influence this critical management decision. AIM: To investigate which vital signs are measured by GPs, and whether referral is associated with vital signs, clinical rules, or gut feeling. DESIGN & SETTING: Prospective observational study at two out-of-hours (OOH) GP cooperatives in the Netherlands. METHOD: During two 9-day periods, GPs performed their regular work-up in patients aged ≥18 years with fever (≥38.0°C). Subsequently, researchers measured missing vital signs for completion of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. Associations between the number of referrals, positive SIRS and qSOFA scores, and GPs' gut feelings were investigated. RESULTS: GPs measured and recorded all vital signs required for SIRS criteria and qSOFA score calculations in 24 of 108 (22.2%) assessed patients, and referred 45 (41.7%) to the ED. Higher respiratory rates, temperatures, clinical rules, and gut feeling were associated with referral. During 7-day follow-up, nine (14.3%) of 63 patients who were initially not referred were admitted to hospital. CONCLUSION: GPs measured and recorded all vital signs for SIRS criteria and qSOFA score in one-in-five patients with fever, and referred half of 63 patients who were SIRS-positive and almost all of 22 patients who were qSOFA-positive. Some vital signs and gut feeling were associated with referral, but none were consistently present in all patients who were referred. The vast majority of patients who were not initially referred remained at home during follow-up.

[A boy with a rare pulmonary disease; COVID-19 is clouding our judgment]. / Een jongen met een zeldzame longziekte.

BACKGROUND: In times of coronavirus, a patient with respiratory symptoms whose chest CT scan reveals ground-glass opacities, COVID-19 may seem an obvious diagnosis. CASE DESCRIPTION: At the (currently assumed) peak of the coronavirus crisis, a 12-year-old boy was admitted to the hospital twice for severe respiratory symptoms. A chest CT scan revealed ground-glass opacities.COVID-19 pneumonia was initially thought of. However, it turned out to be a rare interstitial pulmonary disease. CONCLUSION: Due to the increased awareness about COVID-19, tunnel vision is lurking. Even during a health crisis, doctors should remain alert to alternative diagnoses.

How well are sepsis and a sense of urgency documented throughout the acute care chain in the Netherlands? A prospective, observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the documentation of sepsis and a sense of urgency throughout the acute care chain. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Emergency department (ED) in a large district hospital in Heerlen, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included patients ≥18 years with suspected sepsis who visited the ED during out-of-hours between September 2017 and January 2018 (n=339) and had been referred by a general practitioner and/or transported by ambulance. We defined suspected sepsis as suspected or proven infection and the presence of ≥2 quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment and/or ≥2 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria. OUTCOME MEASURES: We analysed how often sepsis and a sense of urgency were documented in the prehospital and ED medical records. A sense of urgency was considered documented when a medical record suggested the need of immediate assessment by a physician in the ED. We described documentation patterns throughout the acute care chain and investigated whether documentation of sepsis or a sense of urgency is associated with adverse outcomes (intensive care admission/30-day all-cause mortality). RESULTS: Sepsis was documented in 16.8% of medical records and a sense of urgency in 22.4%. In 4.1% and 7.7%, respectively, sepsis and a sense of urgency were documented by all involved professionals. In patients with an adverse outcome, sepsis was documented more often in the ED than in patients without an adverse outcome (47.9% vs 13.7%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that in prehospital and ED medical records, sepsis and a sense of urgency are documented in one out of five patients. In only 1 out of 20 patients sepsis or a sense of urgency is documented by all involved professionals. It is possible that poor documentation causes harm, due to delayed diagnosis or treatment. Hence, it could be important to raise awareness among professionals regarding the importance of their documentation.

Accuracy and interobserver-agreement of respiratory rate measurements by healthcare professionals, and its effect on the outcomes of clinical prediction/diagnostic rules.

OBJECTIVE: In clinical prediction/diagnostic rules aimed at early detection of critically ill patients, the respiratory rate plays an important role. We investigated the accuracy and interobserver-agreement of respiratory rate measurements by healthcare professionals, and the potential effect of incorrect measurements on the scores of 4 common clinical prediction/diagnostic rules: Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). METHODS: Using an online questionnaire, we showed 5 videos with a healthy volunteer, breathing at a fixed (true) rate (13-28 breaths/minute). Respondents measured the respiratory rate, and categorized it as low, normal, or high. We analysed how accurate the measurements were using descriptive statistics, and calculated interobserver-agreement using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and agreement between measurements and categorical judgments using Cohen's Kappa. Finally, we analysed how often incorrect measurements led to under/overestimation in the selected clinical rules. RESULTS: In total, 448 healthcare professionals participated. Median measurements were slightly higher (1-3/min) than the true respiratory rate, and 78.2% of measurements were within 4/min of the true rate. ICC was moderate (0.64, 95% CI 0.39-0.94). When comparing the measured respiratory rates with the categorical judgments, 14.5% were inconsistent. Incorrect measurements influenced the 4 rules in 8.8% (SIRS) to 37.1% (NEWS). Both underestimation (4.5-7.1%) and overestimation (3.9-32.2%) occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and interobserver-agreement of respiratory rate measurements by healthcare professionals are suboptimal. This leads to both over- and underestimation of scores of four clinical prediction/diagnostic rules. The clinically most important effect could be a delay in diagnosis and treatment of (critically) ill patients.

[Kounis syndrome, the allergic acute coronary syndrome]. / Kounis-syndroom.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of acute ischaemia or myocardial infarction in a patient experiencing an allergic reaction is known as allergic acute coronary syndrome or Kounis syndrome. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 63-year-old male had a postoperative anaphylactic reaction to an intravenous dose of diclofenac. Myocardial ischaemia occurred during treatment of the anaphylaxis, caused by spasm of the right coronary artery followed by occlusion of the left anterior descending artery (the ramus interventricularis anterior). Despite percutaneous coronary intervention, he suffered an infarct of the anterior myocardium, resulting in reduced left ventricular function. CONCLUSION: In patients with Kounis syndrome therapy should focus on both the allergy and the acute coronary syndrome. Early recognition and intervention have a great effect on prognosis.

Characteristics of the prehospital phase of adult emergency department patients with an infection: A prospective pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Research on serious infections/sepsis has focused on the hospital environment, while potentially the most delay, and therefore possibly the best opportunity to improve quality of care, lies in the prehospital setting. In this study we investigated the prehospital phase of adult emergency department (ED) patients with an infection. METHODS: In this prospective pilot study all adult (≥18y) patients with a suspected/proven infection, based on the notes in the patient's ED chart, were included during a 4-week period in 2017. Prehospital course, ED findings, presence of sepsis and 30-day outcomes were registered. RESULTS: A total of 440 patients were identified, with a median symptom duration before ED visit of 3 days (IQR 1-7 days). Before arrival in the ED, 23.9% of patients had used antibiotics. Most patients (83.0%) had been referred by a general practitioner (GP), while 41.1% of patients had visited their GP previously during the current disease episode. Patients referred by a GP were triaged as high-urgency less often, while vital parameters were similar. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transported 268 (60.9%) of patients. Twenty-two patients (5.0%) experienced an adverse outcome (30-day all-cause mortality and/or admission to intensive care). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a suspected infection had symptoms for 3 (IQR 1-7) days at the moment of presentation to the ED. During this prehospital phase patients often had consulted, and were treated by, their GP. Many were transported to the ED by EMS. Future research on severe infections should focus on the prehospital phase, targeting patients and primary care professionals.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass as revisional procedure after gastric banding: leaving the band in place.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) are frequently used bariatric procedures. With both techniques, LAGB more than RYGB, failures occur. After years of experience with both techniques, we present a series of patients who underwent RYGB after failed LAGB. The band was kept in place. Our objective was to evaluate the safety and short-term effectiveness of RYGB after failed LAGB, without removing the band. The setting was a large teaching hospital in Heerlen, The Netherlands. METHODS: We first retrospectively considered the efficacy and complication rate of adding an adjustable band to RYGB. This was safe and effective. The patients lost a median of 7.6 kg within a median period of 21 months. The complication rate was low. Observing the positive results in this group, we began to leave the band in place when converting patients from LAGB to RYGB. RESULTS: A total of 12 patients underwent revision of LAGB to RYGB. There was no mortality. The complication rate and severity were low. During a median period of 16 months, the patients lost a median of 23 kg or 8 points in the body mass index. Also, additional improvement in co-morbidities was observed. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that performing RYGB after LAGB and leaving the band in place is feasible, safe, and effective in the short term.